Appeal: misrepresentation
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #60143:23upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“I mean, you just contradict yourself within, like, three sentences.”
Diogenes: He declares a self-contradiction and then, invited to name it, concedes he did not understand the sentence, so the charge was made before the claim was even parsed.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held throughout the canon exchange a method of pressing S1 on the mechanism behind his claims (tu quoque, begging the question elsewhere), and this line follows that adversarial pattern, but here the accusation outruns any actual textual basis, which is a departure from his otherwise more grounded fallacy-callouts (e.g. the begging-the-question charges that do identify the circularity). S1's two sentences ("recognition of infallibility does not require possession of infallibility" and "neither Jewish nor early Christian reception happened through means of infallibility") are consistent, not contradictory. When Jay is asked to identify the contradiction, his response ("I don't know what you mean by infallibility can happen through... how did you phrase it?") shows he had not actually parsed the statement he was calling self-contradictory, and he never substantiates the charge before abandoning it for an unrelated question about Matthew's authorship. Declaring a contradiction that the transcript does not bear out, without ever locating it, mischaracterizes what the opponent actually said.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Dyer charges Brunner with self-contradiction, but Brunner's two sentences are actually consistent (recognizing infallible scripture doesn't require the recognizer's own infallibility; reception of the canon historically happened by fallible means) — and when Brunner asks him to "pick apart my statement," Dyer cannot point to the contradiction and instead admits "I don't know what you mean" and asks him to restate it, showing the charge was unfounded.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's consistent method is to press Indiana for precise textual/logical grounding and call out inconsistencies when he finds them; here he asserts a specific fault (self-contradiction) rather than his usual practice of pinpointing exactly which texts or claims conflict. Indiana's two sentences ("recognition of infallibility does not require possession of infallibility" and "reception happened without infallible means") are not obviously contradictory, and when invited to identify the contradiction ("pick apart my statement, please"), Jay instead reveals he had not parsed the claim ("I don't know what you mean... how did you phrase it?"), showing the charge of self-contradiction was asserted before any actual conflict was located, which mischaracterizes what Indiana said.
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.