Appeal: fallacy spotted
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #59436:28overturned Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Bringing up further examples is not moving the goalpost. That's a different fallacy.”
Diogenes: He correctly identifies that the accusation misnames what he did, since adducing additional evidence for the same thesis changes no condition of the debate.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening that relics/sacraments rest on a network of scriptural and patristic evidence rather than any single proof-text, and here he is defending that same accumulation-of-evidence method against a mislabeled charge, not introducing anything new. The substance is right - the record shows S0 held one consistent "normative means" thesis since [35:16] and only added further scriptural support (Titus 3, Acts 2:38) for it, so S1's "shifting the goalposts" charge does not fit and S0's push-back is sound. But "fallacy spotted" strictly requires naming the actual fallacy in what the opponent said; S0 only says "that's a different fallacy" without ever specifying which one, so the naming element is unmet even though the underlying point (premise: adding evidence ≠ moving goalposts; conclusion: therefore no goalpost was moved) is a valid minimal argument.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Dyer is right that piling on further biblical examples isn't the same thing as moving the goalposts, but he never names what fallacy, if any, actually fits, so this is a bare denial rather than a "fallacy spotted": nothing is identified, argued, or established beyond rejecting the label.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's method throughout is building a cumulative textual/patristic case (John 6, Hebrews 13, relics, canon) and defending it against reductions; this line holds to that pattern by refusing to let the compounding of evidence be recast as an evasive tactic. Jay correctly rejects a mislabeled fallacy charge: he had added Hebrews 13 as corroborating evidence for the same thesis (real presence), not replaced a met condition with a new one, so 'moving the goalposts' does not describe what happened. Strictly he does not name what fallacy, if any, Indiana's charge itself is, so 'direct answer' may fit as well as or better than 'fallacy spotted', but crediting a philosopher point here is defensible either way.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. All three judges agree Jay is right that adding further scriptural examples for the same thesis is not "moving the goalposts," but "fallacy spotted" requires correctly naming the fallacy the opponent committed, and at [36:28] Jay only says "that's a different fallacy" without ever specifying which one. Aristotle and Socrates both flag this gap directly, and Plato's own reasoning concedes it ("he does not name what fallacy... 'direct answer' may fit as well as or better than 'fallacy spotted'"). Crediting the point would require the judges to supply the missing name themselves, which the rule against completing a speaker's argument forbids.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.