Appeal: misrepresentation
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #60344:50upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“You're asking me a question when I ask you a question? Yeah. That's to quote by fallacy [tu quoque fallacy].”
Diogenes: Answering a question with a counter-question is not tu quoque, which is the charge that the opponent is guilty of the same thing; he repeats the misnamed label three times while insisting that fallacies matter.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has consistently used named-fallacy callouts against S1 (tu quoque here, begging the question later) as part of his standing method of pressing opponents on the mechanism of their claims; this instance departs from accurate use of that method by describing S1's citation of a verse as her "asking a question," which the transcript does not show. Immediately before this line S1 answered S0's question ("is [reliance on tradition] also perhaps wrong?") with a scriptural citation, "Acts seventeen eleven," not a counter-question; S0 then asserts three times that she "asked a question" and labels it tu quoque, which mischaracterizes what she actually said in the transcript, independent of whether a fallacy charge of some other kind might have been apt.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Asked "is that also perhaps wrong?", Brunner did not counter-question but offered a citation, "Acts seventeen eleven", gesturing at a testing principle. Dyer characterizes this as Brunner "asking me a question when I ask you a question" and labels it tu quoque, but the transcript shows no question asked back, so the fallacy charge doesn't match what was actually said and lets Dyer dismiss the citation without engaging it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's method throughout is to press Brunner for direct textual/apostolic warrant and call out evasions; this line continues that pattern but mischaracterizes the specific move Brunner made (a citation, not a counter-question) and misapplies the tu quoque label to it, which is the fault named. Brunner's actual move at that point was to cite "Acts seventeen eleven" — not to pose a question back at Jay — yet Jay characterizes this as "you're asking me a question when I ask you a question" and labels it tu quoque, a fallacy that requires a "you too" accusation which Brunner never made. The characterization of what Brunner did (asking a question) is not borne out by the transcript, and the mislabeled fallacy is repeated three times while brushing past Jay's own unanswered pressure on Brunner to answer directly.
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.