Appeal: appeal to popularity
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7142:00:31overturned Jake the Muslim Metaphysician psogos: appeal to popularity (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“… you just don't wanna admit that you're a polytheist, which everybody knows that you are, including the Roman Orthodox. The sorry. Roman Catholics.”
Diogenes: The conclusion of his central argument is propped up by what "everybody knows" and by what a third party he does not accept as authoritative allegedly holds, rather than by the counting principle he has been defending.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jake declared at the opening that the Trinity is polytheism under the LPT/counting-by-identity argument and has held that position throughout, including via citations from sympathetic or adjacent authorities against Jay; this line continues that same standing method rather than departing into bare crowd-appeal, since it is cashed out immediately by the Pawl citation. The quoted line is rhetorical flourish that immediately precedes the actual support: within the same continuous stretch of his closing, Jake quotes named Catholic philosopher Timothy Pawl making a specific argument (the instantiation view yields polytheism, parallel to worshipping Baal/Dagon under one universal divinity) for exactly the conclusion asserted. "Including the Roman Catholics" is not itself the freestanding support for the polytheism charge but a lead-in to that citation, consistent with Jake's standing method throughout the debate of grounding claims in named scholars (Branson, Cartwright, Boyarin, Suleiman) rather than resting on bare assertion or headcount. The "everybody knows" phrase is rhetorical coloring layered atop an argument that is then actually supplied, not a substitute for it.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This jab is attached to a completed point Jake had just secured in cross-examination (Jay's failure to show Jake counts "by division"), and it is immediately followed by Jake introducing specific, checkable evidence — Timothy Pawl's Catholic critique of the Orthodox "instantiation view" as tantamount to polytheism — which he then quotes at length. Like the Euthyphro example, the barb rides alongside a completed argument and leads into real substantiation rather than replacing it, so it fails the substitution test for ad hominem and the "everybody knows" phrase is rhetorical framing rather than the actual support for the claim.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 declared and held throughout the debate that the Trinity's counting-by-identity method entails three gods, defending this via a specific principled argument (the identity/division distinction pressed in cross-examination); the called line briefly substitutes "everybody knows" and third-party say-so for that argument before pivoting back to real citation. Jake's substantive counting argument (identity vs. division) was made and pressed at length in cross-examination; this closing-statement line, however, reinforces the "polytheist" conclusion not by restating that argument but by appeal to what "everybody knows" plus an unendorsed third party's alleged agreement. Although he immediately pivots to quote Timothy Pawl's actual critique, the quoted line itself functions as filler propping up the conclusion via popularity/authority rather than the counting mechanism itself, so the label is defensible even if only a minor, glancing instance.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: authority cited in place of a reason. The "everybody knows... including the Roman Catholics" phrase is rhetorical lead-in, not the argument itself: in the same continuous stretch of the closing Jake immediately quotes Timothy Pawl's actual reasoning (the instantiation view yields polytheism, illustrated by the Baal/Dagon parallel) for the very conclusion asserted. Since the reason for the cited authority's opinion is given and can be weighed, this is citation in support of an argument, not authority substituted for one, and it rides alongside Jake's standing counting-by-identity argument rather than replacing 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.