Appeal: fallacy spotted
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #60446:46upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… you're begging the question because we don't know yet that Acts is actually part of the scriptures…”
Diogenes: The question on the table is how any book is known to be scripture, so citing Acts 17:11 as the method assumes the canonicity of Acts, and Jay names the presupposition precisely.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0's declared method is to press for the mechanism by which any canon claim is known rather than assumed, and this line is squarely within that stated approach, correctly catching a circularity in S1's own proposed test rather than departing from anything he has held. S1's proposed method for identifying scripture - "test what is proposed to be the speech of God against what is known to be the speech of God," illustrated by the Bereans at Acts 17:11 - treats Acts as an authoritative model precedent, but the very question on the table is how one knows any given book (Acts included) belongs in the canon at all. Using Acts as the established paradigm to answer "how do we know what counts as scripture" assumes Acts's own scriptural status, which is exactly what is in dispute; Jay names that presupposition precisely and the point recurs (he repeats it at [46:57] and [48:07]), showing it is not a stray remark but the actual structure of the exchange.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Brunner tries to illustrate how one recognizes scripture by appealing to the Bereans' example in Acts, but the very question on the table is how the canon (including Acts) is known at all; Dyer correctly identifies that using a book from the disputed canon as the authoritative model for testing the canon presupposes what has not yet been established, a genuine instance of begging the question in what Brunner actually argued.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's method requires that appeals to New Testament precedent be justified within a framework that also accounts for how the canon itself is known; consistent with that, he holds Indiana to the same standard by noting that citing the Bereans' method from Acts 17:11 as authoritative already presupposes Acts's canonicity, which is the very question on the table. Indiana's move genuinely does what Jay names: he offers a method for testing proposed scripture that is itself drawn from a book, Acts, not yet established as scripture in this exchange, so treating that book's narrative as a normative example assumes what is in dispute. Jay names this presupposition precisely and repeats the same correct point later in the exchange, which is a real fallacy spotted rather than a misapplied label.
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.