Appeal: fallacy spotted
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #8781:22:03upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… it sounded like Trent said that he affirms the essence existence distinction, but that's exactly what actus purus is is intended to deny. There is no distinction in god between essence and existence. He is pure act.”
Diogenes: He catches a real inconsistency between what Trent just said and the actus purus metaphysics Trent's case rests on, and states it with the doctrine that generates the conflict.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay's opening and running critique names specific named fallacies (quantifier shift, category error, begging the question) when he wants to flag one; here he flags a doctrinal inconsistency in Trent's classical-theist framework without naming any fallacy at all. "Fallacy spotted" requires naming a fallacy the opponent committed; here Jay identifies an inconsistency between Trent's statement and the actus purus doctrine but names no fallacy, so the element required by the label's definition is missing even though the catch itself is accurate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay states the premise plainly (actus purus, which Trent holds as a classical theist, entails no real distinction between essence and existence in God) and draws the conclusion that Trent's just-stated affirmation of that distinction in God is inconsistent with his own system — an argument that succeeded, since Trent immediately conceded he had misspoken.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's standing metaphysical position throughout the debate is Palamite/Maximian rejection of actus purus-style identity of essence and existence in God, and this line is a direct, accurate application of that standing critique to something Trent just said, not a new or off-record move. The move is real and correct — Jay catches an inconsistency between Trent's momentary statement and the actus purus metaphysics Trent professes — and it led directly to Trent's concession, so a philosopher point is warranted. But "fallacy spotted" requires naming one of the catalogued fallacies (ad hominem, equivocation, etc.), and this is not that; it is a plainly stated premise-conclusion argument pointing out an inconsistency, which is better captured as an explicit argument.
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.