Appeal: ad hominem
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #61658:42upheld Jay Dyer psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“That's totally totally dishonest. Get out of here with that nonsense.”
Diogenes: Brunner's reply that "scripture isn't one book" was weak but not dishonest, and instead of answering it Jay charges bad faith and removes him from the call, closing the question rather than examining it.Herodotus (partly): This is the only recorded encounter between Dyer and Brunner (site log shows Brunner with just 1 debate here, and public listings of "Jay Dyer vs Indiana Brunner" only turn up this single "Savage Debate"/relics-and-canon exchange, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXLoqQDb3fs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blOzmfrSjcY). Their only prior interaction was off-platform friction: Brunner had posted an exaggerated tweet about Dyer, which he opens this very call by publicly retracting and apologizing for, and Dyer accepts the apology ("forgiven and forgotten"). So there is no track record of Brunner being dishonest in argument that would make Dyer's "totally dishonest" charge a fair inference from history — if anything the immediate precedent (a sincere, unprompted retraction) cuts the other way. That said, Dyer's own broader record on this site (ad hominem upheld x3 in 23 debates) shows he has a documented pattern of resorting to this fault generally, so the charge under review fits a known tendency in Dyer even though it isn't backed by any specific history with Brunner. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXLoqQDb3fs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blOzmfrSjcY https://www.everand.com/podcast/839998697/Pt-2-Heated-Debate-Jay-Dyer-Vs-Indiana-Brunner-Jimmy-Akin-VOR-Refuted-Vatican-Contradictions-Join-this-channel-to-get-access-to-perks-https
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held throughout the canon exchange an adversarial cross-examination method that presses for mechanisms and repeatedly (and often correctly) names fallacies like begging the question; here that method breaks down into a bare dishonesty charge with no engagement of the point and no specific history to support it, departing from his more argued fallacy-callouts earlier in the same exchange. S1's "scripture isn't one book" was a genuine (if underdeveloped) philosophical point addressing Jay's circularity charge, not a fabrication or evasive dodge; nothing in the record establishes any pattern of Brunner arguing in bad faith (indeed the debate opens with his voluntary, sincere retraction of an earlier exaggeration). Jay's response neither engages nor refutes the point but instead labels it "totally dishonest... nonsense" and immediately pivots to unmuting another caller ("Mike?"), which is followed moments later by Brunner being removed from the space — so the remark substitutes for a rebuttal, is not backed by any specific showing of bad faith, and functions to close off the exchange rather than continue it. That satisfies substitution, truth, and aim; it is not a relevant challenge to reliability but a bare character slur on the argument's maker.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Brunner had just offered a substantive, if incomplete, reply to the begging-the-question charge — "scripture isn't one book, so there's that," gesturing that testing one disputed book against an already-established body of scripture differs from testing scripture against itself — but instead of explaining why that distinction fails, Dyer dismisses it as "totally dishonest... nonsense" with no specifics and immediately pivots to calling on Mike, ending the exchange rather than continuing to examine the point.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's method throughout the canon exchange is to press Indiana on the circularity of appealing to "scripture" to validate scripture's own contents; here, faced with Indiana's clarifying pushback that "scripture isn't one book" (a relevant point about comparing across an already-recognized set rather than the single disputed text), Jay abandons that dialectical method for a blanket "dishonest... nonsense" dismissal and immediately turns to the next caller. Indiana's remark is weak/underdeveloped but not shown anywhere in the transcript to be deceptive, so the "dishonest" charge fails the truth test; it substitutes for actually engaging the point (why cross-referencing other canonical books is or isn't still question-begging) and functions to close off the exchange rather than continue it, especially given Brunner leaves/is removed from the space immediately after.
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.