Appeal: dodge
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #61835:41upheld Indiana Brunner psogos: dodge (+1)
The council upheld the call: Indiana Brunner gave away 1 point.
“I'll have to go study that. I'm I'm not gonna take on…”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Dyer asks directly whether Titus 3 calls baptism "the washing of regeneration" and then repeats the same question verbatim ("Repeat yourself. Does Titus three not call the labor of baptism the labor of regeneration?"); Brunner answers neither time, saying only that he'll "go study that," and the debate moves on to other verses without him ever returning to that specific wording.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1's standing method is to insist that doctrine rest on explicit apostolic teaching rather than inference, but here the question is not a framework objection, it is a plain factual question about the wording of Titus 3; Brunner does not decline on the grounds that the terms are in dispute, he simply fails to answer, first with "Repeat yourself" and then with "I'll have to go study that" after the question is repeated verbatim. The transcript confirms Dyer asks the same direct question twice in immediate succession ("Does Titus three not say that?" then, after Brunner's "Repeat yourself," "Does Titus three not call the labor of baptism the labor of regeneration?"), and both times Brunner fails to answer yes or no, instead deferring to future study; the debate moves on without him ever returning to answer that specific wording, satisfying the dodge definition's requirement of a question put twice and left unanswered.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". Dyer asks directly whether Titus 3 calls baptism "the labor of regeneration," Brunner asks him to repeat it, Dyer repeats the same question verbatim, and Brunner still gives no yes-or-no answer, instead saying he'd "have to go study that" and isn't "gonna take on" the question, before the exchange moves on without it ever being answered.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's framework commits him to grounding doctrine in what scripture itself says; asked directly whether Titus 3 labels baptism "the washing of regeneration," a question squarely within his own textual framework and not requiring a framework objection, he does not raise one but instead says "Repeat yourself," receives the question verbatim a second time, and still does not answer it. The transcript shows the question asked, met with "Repeat yourself," asked again in identical wording, and met only with "I'll have to go study that. I'm I'm not gonna take on," with the conversation moving on to other verses without the specific wording of Titus 3 ever being addressed; this is a direct question put twice and left unanswered, the textbook dodge, and no framework objection was raised to excuse it.
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.