Appeal: fallacy spotted
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7232:45:06upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“Oh, interesting. Yeah. So okay to use the medieval things here, but what about counting has to be post fraigo [Frege]?”
Diogenes: He catches a double standard in real time: Jake dismissed the ancient and medieval counting conventions as superseded by modern practice, yet appeals to an Aristotelian definition of space when it suits his answer.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Dyer's standing counting framework ("different things are counted in different ways," first order/second order imposition) has been maintained since the opening; but the specific phrase "post-Frego" used here to characterize Jake's position was actually introduced earlier by Dyer himself (to explain the context of the Branson citation), not asserted normatively by Jake, and Jake explicitly denies having said it ("I never said that. What are you talking about?"). Reviewing the earlier exchange, it was Dyer, not Jake, who said "the way that we count today is talking about post Frago" to explain the Branson quote's context; Jake never asserted that counting practices "have to be" post-Frege, so attributing that normative claim to Jake here to catch a "double standard" misstates the record rather than correctly identifying a fallacy actually present in what Jake said, and the target inconsistency (special pleading between frameworks) is not among the list of named fallacies "fallacy spotted" requires.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Jay catches an inconsistency: Jake had earlier insisted (via the Branson citation) that the modern, post-Frege convention of counting governs whether the Trinity is polytheism, but now invokes an ancient/Aristotelian framework to answer the "pointing toward Allah" spatial question — selectively appealing to ancient versus modern frameworks depending on which suits the point being pressed at the moment.
- Plato uphold: On the record: In the earlier counting exchanges, Jake explicitly appealed to "the standard way in which we count today" (via Branson) to argue for the LPT and dismissed Jay's ancient/medieval counting examples as outdated; here Jay accurately catches Jake invoking an "Aristotelian definition of space" for his own convenience in the same debate, exposing that inconsistency in real time. This is a genuine, accurately-spotted inconsistency between Jake's insistence on modern/post-Fregean counting standards earlier and his reliance on a medieval Aristotelian category here, though it is better described as catching a self-contradiction than naming a classical fallacy from the standard list; it is a minor aside in a Q&A exchange rather than central to the debate's main arguments.
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.