Appeal: straw man
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #8831:50:30upheld Jay Dyer psogos: straw man (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“Foundationalism is saying these are self evident. These are things that everybody agrees on that we start with. What does it matter how many people agree with something or disagree with it? That's a appeal to the masses fallacy.”
Diogenes: He defines foundationalism by universal agreement and then charges the resulting position with appeal to popularity, though Trent had expressly rejected that reading — "No. I'm I'm not saying that" — and grounded basic beliefs in immediate justification, not consensus.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method throughout is to press specific epistemological problems (properly-basic-belief circularity, myth of the given, etc.) against Trent's foundationalism; here he departs from engaging Trent's actual clarified standard (immediate self-evidence) and instead revives an "agreement" framing Trent had expressly disowned earlier in the same cross-ex. In cross-ex (~61:13-61:29) Trent momentarily buttressed his self-evidence claim by noting "a lot of people... would agree," and Jay immediately charged "appeal to the masses," to which Trent explicitly replied "No, I'm not saying that... it's still justification" and restated his actual standard: propositions whose "justification is also immediately apparent" upon being entertained, not propositions ratified by headcount. That correction is on the record and Jay never answers it. In the closing statement Jay simply re-asserts the rejected reading ("these are things everybody agrees on") and knocks down the "appeal to the masses" version rather than the immediate-apprehension version Trent actually held and clarified — that is attacking a weaker substitute for the opponent's corrected, standing position, which is the straw man pattern.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation", on the same ledger as the callout. In cross-examination (60:55–62:00) Jay made this same "appeal to the masses" charge live, and Trent explicitly disclaimed consensus as his justification ("No, I'm not saying that... I'm saying it's still justification"), clarifying that his actual ground was immediate self-evidence upon entertaining a proposition, not headcount. In closing, Jay reverts to the flattened "everybody agrees on that we start with" framing as if that correction never happened, attributing to Trent a bare appeal-to-popularity he had already rejected on the record.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's standing critique of foundationalism (self-evident beliefs are unjustifiable/circular) is on record, but this specific line reintroduces an "agreement/consensus" framing of Trent's position that Trent expressly disowned earlier in the same debate, so the call is a departure into misrepresenting the opponent's stated ground rather than a mere restatement of Jay's own standing objection. Jay's closing line collapses Trent's foundationalism into "self-evident = everyone agrees" and then knocks down that fused version as an appeal to the masses. But in the live cross-examination Trent had already drawn exactly this distinction and denied it explicitly ("No. I'm not saying that... the justification is also immediately apparent," not consensus). By restating in his closing, without acknowledgment, the very reading Trent disavowed on the record, Jay is attacking a version of the opponent's position the transcript shows the opponent rejected — that is a straw man (or equally, misrepresentation), not a fresh engagement with Trent's actual stated ground.
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.