Appeal: ad hominem
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #9151:28:07upheld CB Robertson psogos: ad hominem (+1)
The council upheld the call: CB Robertson gave away 1 point.
“If you're interested in the truth, you would have known that I wasn't You denied the court to the opposition. You just denied truth... And if you cared about listening rather than waiting, you didn't know that.”
Diogenes: The question on the table — give an account for truth — has been put repeatedly, and CB answers with claims about his opponent's motives and listening habits rather than the account.Herodotus (no): This "Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics" debate is the only recorded encounter between Jay Dyer and CB Robertson, both on this site's own ledger (CB Robertson: 1 debate total here) and in the wider record — searches turn up no other Dyer–Robertson meeting, and no independent public track record for CB Robertson elsewhere. There is therefore no pattern of ad hominem or personal animus between these two specific parties to draw on; the single quoted remark ("you denied truth... if you cared about listening rather than waiting") must be judged as an isolated incident in an otherwise heated first-and-only exchange, not as part of a recurring dynamic. Jay Dyer himself carries a much larger site history (24 debates, 11 upheld ad hominem faults) but that is his own pattern, not evidence of a mutual or targeted history with Robertson. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/debate-pagan-vs-orthodox-logos-language-67b https://podimo.com/en/shows/6043abfa-b5a3-4d22-aa3f-104c3f165fc2/episode/977cade7-c40c-4021-a5ed-61ea41777660 https://www.academia.edu/118981918/Jay_Dyer_Debate_Review
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: CB's declared and sustained position was to answer Jay's epistemic pressure with appeals to intuition and, when cornered, concessions of insufficiency; here he instead deflects onto Jay's sincerity and listening habits, a momentary departure from directly engaging the standing demand rather than a new or contradictory thesis. By this point in the exchange, Jay's core question — give an account for truth/epistemic justification — has been standing unanswered for many turns; in this specific pocket, rather than advancing toward that account, CB responds to Jay's charge (that CB's approach reduces to persuading masses rather than seeking truth) with a countercharge about Jay's own listening and motives, and Jay immediately redirects back to the unanswered question ("You can't give an account for truth. That's what I've been asking"), showing the substitution was live on the floor. The remark is unsubstantiated and aimed at scoring a point against Jay's conduct rather than advancing the epistemic question, fitting a minor ad hominem even though it arose as a direct reply to Jay's own preceding jab.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Jay had just charged that CB's paganism was an incoherent patchwork of half-digested Hegel, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein rather than a debate about objective proof; CB does not defend the coherence of his view but instead accuses Jay of not being "interested in the truth" and of "listening rather than waiting," with no specifics given for either charge. This stands in for an answer to the incoherence charge rather than alongside one, and nothing offered backs the claim that Jay wasn't listening, so it reads as an unsupported jab rather than engagement with the point on the table.
- Plato uphold: On the record: CB's declared position was to keep answering Jay's presuppositionalist challenges as best he could, even conceding confusion moments earlier (84:18); this line departs from that engagement by redirecting onto Jay's character/listening rather than supplying the still-missing account of truth. Jay's question on the table was a repeated demand for an epistemic account of truth; instead of supplying one, CB responds with a charge that Jay isn't "interested in the truth" and "didn't care about listening rather than waiting" — a claim about Jay's motives and attentiveness that is unbacked by any specific instance and bears on nothing about whether CB can justify his own truth-claims. This substitutes for the requested account rather than accompanying one, and functions to delegitimize Jay's question rather than invite further examination, fitting the ad hominem tests; it is a single occurrence, so minor severity is right.
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.