Appeal: evidence
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #60648:37upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… whether it's Origen or whether it's Chrysostom or whether it's Athanasius' list or Cyril of Jerusalem's list, how do you, as a Protestant, know or what do we do to determine amongst these church fathers who are not Protestant, which one is the right list?”
Diogenes: He turns the canon dispute into a concrete, checkable problem by naming the actual competing patristic lists rather than asserting that the Protestant has no answer.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0's declared method treats holy tradition alongside scripture and repeatedly demands mechanisms and sources rather than assertions; naming specific patristic lists here is squarely that method in action, not a new or inconsistent move. Rather than simply asserting "the fathers disagreed," Jay names specific figures (Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem) whose actual differing canon lists he goes on to substantiate at length later in the stream (the extended walkthrough of Lee McDonald's tables from roughly [62:32] onward, cross-checking each father's list book by book). That is citing something checkable rather than a bare claim, and it is consistent with, not a departure from, the position he has held on the canon question throughout.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than asserting canon variation in the abstract, Dyer names specific, checkable sources (Origen's, Chrysostom's, Athanasius', Cyril of Jerusalem's differing canon lists) as evidence for his claim that the fathers disagreed, and later in the debate he documents this in detail from Lee McDonald's book, making the claim verifiable rather than a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method is to read tradition together with scripture and appeal to historical or patristic precedent; this line holds to that method by grounding the canon challenge in specific, checkable named sources, Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, rather than a bare assertion that Protestants lack an answer, a move he later cashes out in detail with the Lee McDonald list comparison. Naming specific church fathers whose canon lists genuinely differ, a claim later substantiated at length with an actual cited source, Lee McDonald's book, is citing something checkable rather than a vague rhetorical challenge, which fits the evidence category of distinguishing claim from support.
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.