Appeal: fallacy spotted
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #6921:20:28upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“That's a two quote way [tu quoque]. I'm asking about his position, which he won't explain.”
Diogenes: He correctly names the move Jake just made — answering a question about his own epistemology by asserting parity with Orthodoxy — and restates the question that remains unanswered.The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dyer's standing line of questioning throughout this cross-exam segment was pressing Jake specifically on how his own text-based epistemology escapes circularity; this line does not depart from that pursuit but calls out Jake's deflection and restates the unanswered question. As found in the companion call, Jake's preceding line ("it's the same thing when it comes to divine revelation according to the orthodox") is indeed a tu quoque, so Dyer's naming of it here is accurate and tied to what was actually said, meeting the definition of fallacy spotted; severity is set to minor to match the scale of the single underlying instance.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Jake had just deflected the circularity challenge to his own textual epistemology by saying the Orthodox have "the same thing," rather than defending his own position; Jay correctly names this a tu quoque and presses back for an answer about Jake's own view specifically, which is the fallacy actually present in what Jake said.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's line of questioning throughout this cross-examination pressed Jake specifically on how his own account of revealed knowledge escapes the empirical regress; when Jake replied only that Orthodoxy has "the same" problem, Jay accurately names that as a tu quoque and restates that his original question about Jake's own position is still unanswered. The fallacy Jay names is genuinely present in what Jake just said (a "you too" deflection instead of explaining his own epistemology, as judged in the adjacent call), so this is a correctly spotted fallacy rather than a mischaracterization, though it is a brief, non-decisive moment in a back-and-forth Jake goes on to address moments later.
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.