Appeal: straw man
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #6961:27:50upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician psogos: straw man (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician gave away 2 points.
“I don't care about your definition of power.”
Diogenes: His argument is advertised as an internal critique of Orthodoxy — that they make unprincipled exceptions by their own standards — which cannot work if he insists on defining the key term against how his opponent uses it. [Diarization merges the speakers; the line is Jake's, as the definition that follows is his.]- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1's opening argument charged that Orthodox theology "make[s] an exception to this so-called rule in an unprincipled manner" when persons lack shared power/knowledge; his refusal here to grant Dyer's power/energy distinction is a continuation of that same standing charge against the legitimacy of the distinction, not a new mischaracterization of what Dyer holds. Straw man requires misrepresenting the opponent's actual position, but Jake never claims Dyer holds a different view than he does — he openly states his own definition and presses Dyer to answer by it, while Dyer is free to (and does) answer by his own; this is a definitional standoff over whether Dyer's power/energy distinction is legitimate or the very ad hoc move Jake flagged in his opening, not a distortion of Dyer's stated position.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay had begun to explain, "there's multiple senses to the word power... actuality, second actuality," naming the presupposition his answer denies (that "power" is univocal across all these cases, which Jake's LPT-style argument requires). Jake cuts him off ("Are you gonna let me finish?" ... "I didn't ask you a question yet") and, rather than hearing out or rebutting the distinction, declares "I don't care about your definition of power" and substitutes his own single definition ("whatever a being can possibly do") to keep the cross-examination on his own terms. This assumes the very univocity of "power" that is in dispute and that is needed to make the argument that the Persons lack "the same power" go through, without engaging the distinction Jay was in the middle of drawing -- precisely the pattern the rubric marks as begging the question rather than a fair demand for clarity.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 declared his power/knowledge argument (opening, argument two) as an internal critique of Orthodox trinitarianism — that by Orthodoxy's own standards the three persons lack equal power — which requires engaging Orthodoxy's own account of "power"; here, when Jay tries to supply that account (multiple senses, actuality/potency, hypostatic properties vs. energies), the speaker waves it off and substitutes his own univocal definition instead, a move Jay himself immediately and correctly identifies moments later at 88:42 (already credited as a framework objection). Whichever way the crosstalk here is diarized, the pattern in this exchange is that Jake presses an internal critique while refusing the opponent's own distinctions and imposing a single flattened definition, which is exactly the fault Jay names and I credited at 88:42; treating this as a straw man of Orthodoxy's actual position on power is defensible and consistent with that adjacent ruling.
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.