Appeal: misrepresentation
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #86856:28upheld Trent Horn psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Trent Horn gave away 1 point.
“Jay also claimed that so [soft] foundationalism, self evident truths, that they're actually not true or that they're circular, but he gave us no evidence to believe that or why we should believe that…” quote corrected
Diogenes: Jay had given specific reasons minutes earlier — that "I exist" presupposes language having meaning, a self, and time-determination, plus the Gödel/set-theory analogy — so "no evidence" misstates the record.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Trent's declared method is evidentialist natural theology that answers objections point by point rather than dismissing them; this line departs from that pattern by asserting Jay offered no reasoning when the record shows he had just given specific (if contested) arguments. Trent has held throughout that he engages Jay's specific objections point-by-point (e.g., his de Veritate reply, his water/Hesperus-Phosphorus analogy). But minutes before this line, in the very same exchange, Jay had given specific reasons against strong foundationalism — that "I exist" presupposes unjustified metaphysical baggage (language meaning, a self, time-determination) and the Gödel/set-theory analogy that self-referencing systems cannot justify themselves internally. Whatever one thinks of those reasons' cogency, they are reasons, so Trent's claim that Jay "gave us no evidence to believe that or why we should believe that" misstates what the transcript shows occurred just prior, which is the core of misrepresentation.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". By this point Jay had already offered reasons against self-evident foundationalism in his immediately preceding four-minute rebuttal (49:16–53:21): he named Kant's and Russell's critiques of the cogito, and gave his own argument that "I exist" smuggles in unjustified assumptions about language, selfhood, and time, plus a Gödel/set-theory analogy for why foundationalism is self-referentially circular. Trent's claim that Jay "gave us no evidence to believe that or why we should believe that" glosses over this material rather than engaging it, which overstates the state of the record even if one thinks Jay's citations were thin.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Trent has held since the opening that self-evident foundational truths are the only alternative to infinite regress or invalid circularity (Agrippa's trilemma), and has pressed this framework consistently; but in the immediately preceding rebuttal Jay had specifically argued that Descartes' cogito presupposes unjustified metaphysical claims (language, self, time-determination) and drew a Gödel/set-theory analogy for why justification of a system is inescapably circular at the metalogical level — reasons Trent's line erases by saying Jay gave "no evidence... why we should believe that.". The transcript shows Jay did offer specific, checkable reasons (the list of presuppositions embedded in "I exist," and the Gödel/set-theory analogy) immediately before this line, so characterizing his position as unsupported by any evidence or reasoning misstates what he actually said, consistent with how I treated the parallel overstatement at 38:49.
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.