Appeal: fallacy spotted
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #61558:28upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“Again, begging the question. The question is, how do you know what's in scripture? And you're saying that Matthew be [Maccabees] says in scripture because it doesn't align with scripture.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Brunner justified rejecting Maccabees by its not aligning with scripture, which again presupposes the canon that was the question, and Jay names the circle exactly.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held, since first raising the canon question around 42:41 ("how do you know what the word of God is... and what is your basis for it?"), that any appeal to scripture's own content to settle what counts as scripture is circular; this call is a continuation of that same standing critique, not a new position. At 58:18-58:20 Brunner justified excluding Maccabees because "it doesn't align with... the testimony of scripture" - using scripture's content as the criterion for what belongs in scripture, which is exactly circular on the question of canon-determination that was on the table. Jay's naming of the circle tracks what Brunner actually said, not a strawman, so the fallacy is genuinely present in the opponent's utterance.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". S1 had just said Maccabees isn't scripture because "it doesn't align with the testimony of scripture" — i.e., he tests a disputed book against an already-assumed body of scripture, which is exactly the canon question in dispute. Dyer correctly names this circularity, and it is consistent with his earlier, identical objection to S1's method at 47:52-49:00 ("you're using a thing in question, so it's begging the question"), so it is a real application of an argument already on the table, not a bare accusation.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Since ~42:00 Jay's declared position has been that any answer to "how do you know the canon" which itself appeals to scripture-content is circular; he applied this same standard moments earlier to Brunner's Acts 17:11 appeal, and here applies it identically to Brunner's claim that Maccabees fails because it "doesn't align with scripture" — a direct continuation, not a new line. Brunner did say Maccabees is rejected because it doesn't align with "the testimony of scripture," which presupposes the very canon boundary in dispute; Jay's naming of this as begging the question is accurate to what was actually said and consistent with his sustained framework objection throughout this segment.
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.