Appeal: ad hominem
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #9091:07:30upheld CB Robertson psogos: ad hominem (+1)
The council upheld the call: CB Robertson gave away 1 point.
“You're not even trying anymore, are you? Wait. So you're you're not even trying.”
Diogenes: Asked point-blank for the epistemic principle by which he distinguishes good from an arbitrary feeling, CB answers with a charge about his opponent's sincerity instead of the principle, and Jay has to repeat the question twice before an answer comes.Herodotus (no): This appears to be the only documented encounter between CB Robertson and Jay Dyer — a single ~3-hour "Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics" debate, corroborated by Jay Dyer's own Substack listing and CB Robertson's Substack recaps of his debate circuit (which mention Jay Dyer only once, in passing, as an influence prompting a shift in Robertson's argument, not as a repeat opponent). The site's own record confirms CB Robertson has exactly one debate logged here with zero prior upheld sophist faults, and no public source shows any other Robertson debate marked by ad hominem conduct or a pattern of evasiveness. The single "You're not even trying anymore" remark under review is therefore an isolated incident with no corroborating history, not part of an established pattern — it should be weighed on its own terms rather than as a repeat offense. Sources: https://cbrobertson.substack.com/p/debate-week-recap https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/debate-pagan-vs-orthodox-logos-language-67b https://www.academia.edu/118981918/Jay_Dyer_Debate_Review https://podimo.com/en/shows/6043abfa-b5a3-4d22-aa3f-104c3f165fc2/episode/977cade7-c40c-4021-a5ed-61ea41777660
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: CB's opening and sustained position was to press two arguments against Christianity (the disontological dilemma and the language argument) and to rely on moral intuition as his epistemic base when challenged on ethics; this jab is a momentary lapse into commentary on Jay's sincerity rather than a continuation or defense of that stated position, and it does not depart from any condition CB had set, so it is fairly judged on its own terms as the referee proposes. At the moment quoted, Jay has just pressed the direct epistemic question (what principle distinguishes right from wrong) and sharpened it into a provocative reductio ("raping kids"); CB's reply is a jab at Jay's sincerity/effort rather than an answer to the standing question, unsubstantiated by any specific charge, and not framed as a stated objection to a loaded question. It is a minor instance: CB does go on moments later to gesture toward an answer (the book reference, then "intuition"), so the substitution is brief and the aim to shut down the exchange is weak, which supports minor rather than a higher severity, but at the instant quoted the remark does stand in for engagement with the point on the table.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Jay had just pressed a direct reductio on CB's own stated position ("the good is literally whatever I feel"), asking whether that licenses even monstrous acts if felt good; CB's own account of morality up to this point had rested on nothing but "intuition," so the question was a fair test of his stated view, not an unfair or irrelevant jab. CB's reply attacks Jay's sincerity ("you're not even trying") without identifying anything false or irrelevant in the question and without offering the requested epistemic principle in its place, so it functions as a substitute for the missing answer rather than an aside alongside one.
- Plato uphold: On the record: CB's position throughout was that fallible intuition grounds his moral claims; at this exact juncture, pressed on whether that collapses into "whatever I feel," CB's declared method of engaging Jay's questions (however imperfectly) is departed from momentarily by a remark on Jay's sincerity rather than a substantive reply. Jay had just pressed a direct, pointed follow-up ("Is that just whatever I feel? ... rape kids or what?") to his standing question about CB's epistemic principle for the good; CB's "You're not even trying anymore, are you?" responds to Jay's manner rather than to the substance, and does not itself supply or advance an answer — CB only pivots to a book title and further evasion afterward. The jab fails the relevance test (Jay's "trying" bears on nothing about the epistemic-principle question) and is unbacked by anything specific, so it reads as a jab substituting for engagement rather than rhetoric alongside an answer; a single instance without repetition fits minor severity.
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.