misrepresentation
Stating that the opponent said something the transcript shows they did not.
60 upheld instances
- “But he he came on and defended God as passive potency,…”
Timothy Gordon, The Catholicism or Orthodoxy DEBATE: Tim Gordon vs. Jay Dyer | The Rift, watch at 1:10:29
Diogenes: Dyer said God is not a potentiality (Maximus), said "I didn't say that God changed," and twice denied saying it of the essence, yet Gordon repeats across his opening, cross-examination and closing that Dyer defended passive potency in God.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised - “Your position is you believe your church is infallible because your church is infallible.”
Jonathan Shelley, DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura, watch at 2:17:28
Diogenes: Jay's stated argument is that the canon, authorship and liturgy are known through apostolic tradition and the church fathers, with succession as the mechanism (46:19, 54:49, 137:32). Shelley reduces it to the bare circle "my church is infallible because it says so" and says that is Jay's position.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised - “So then I say, what's the preconditions of knowledge? He says that, well, the the the I I I don't know. So then I gotta give it to him.”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 5:29
Diogenes: The transcript shows Dean named his criteria (justified true belief plus defeasibility) and agreed that logic is a precondition of justification; he never said "I don't know."Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “I just explained you just explained and you agreed that logic is conceptual.”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 10:51
Diogenes: Dean denied at least four times that the laws of logic are a concept ("I reject that the laws of logic are a concept", "It's not a concept"); he never agreed that logic is conceptual.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “That's a p and also not p. You just contradicted yourself. That's what I said. We just didn't understand what I No. I did understand what you just said. You you just said that the laws of logic is conceptual.”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 19:12
Diogenes: This is the third time he has said Dean called the laws of logic conceptual. Dean said only that our representations of them are conceptual, and he denied it again on the spot ("Logic is not conceptual"), so the charged contradiction exists only in the host's restatement.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “He just said that logic is not a concept, but logic exists outside of the causal chain, and the causal chain is intuition, which is a concept.”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 24:10
Diogenes: Dean offered intuition as the way we come to know logic, not as what logic is or where it exists; merging the means of knowing with the thing known produces a "circle" Dean never drew, and Dean denied it at once.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Now he's back pedaling. He's like, well, my intuition isn't where the onto [ontic] isn't, outside of the causal chain.”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 25:24
Diogenes: Dean never said intuition was where logic exists, so restating his view is not backpedaling; the host then asks "where is it?" again as though Dean had not already answered that abstract objects have no location.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “He says, well, it exists with my intuition. But then he walks it back and he says, no, I access it with my intuition. So he never actually answered the question of where it exists…”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 29:14
Diogenes: In his after-call recap he gives Dean a claim Dean never made (that logic exists "with" his intuition) and says Dean never answered "where," though Dean answered twice (22:01, 27:05) that abstract objects have no location in space and time.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “His best debater thought that the three classical laws of logic don't infer one another.”
Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 52:30
Diogenes: Breej never asserted that the laws are independent; he asked Cooley for the argument that a dialetheist cannot reject non-contradiction, and said that reciting the laws was not that argument.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… he alluded to the fact that, well, he said, the bible is authoritative, Jesus is authoritative, and Jesus is God. But that's begging the question because we're asking about the text that tell us that Jesus is authoritative and Jesus is from God.”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 33:43
Diogenes: Pedro's chain deliberately started below scriptural authority — the Bible "at the very least" as a reliable historical artifact ("we don't believe this, but who at the very least is a prophet of God") and reasoned up to Christ's divinity; Jay reports the conclusion as the premise, so the circle he names is in his summary rather than in what Pedro said.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… you keep relying on pretextual as in God does never have a purpose to communicate his will to God.”
Pedro, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 1:13:38
Diogenes: Jay has argued throughout that God providentially communicates his will through the Church, never that God has no purpose to communicate it, and he has to say so twice — "I never said that. That's the whole problem. I never said that."Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You don't believe that God is sovereign and powerful enough to use the church.”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 1:15:31
Diogenes: Ninety seconds earlier Jay had said "I think God providentially used the church... And I totally agree. That's how the church determined the canon," so this attributes to him the exact opposite of what he said.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “That church of the first six centuries, he said, was puffed up and bragged, and presumably failed because he's not in that church, right?”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 1:29:40
Diogenes: Pedro's words were that the church "should not be boasting," a warning, not a report that it did boast, and he had expressly said "I don't think the church failed" in cross-examination; Jay puts both in his mouth in a closing Pedro cannot interrupt.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Even though I I I was trying to lead us to it, I never saw anything, referencing anything else aside from the scriptures that, you know, were charged to Timothy by the apostle Paul. I never saw I never saw any of that come forward.”
Pedro, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 1:38:01
Diogenes: Jay produced a great deal — the seat of Moses in Matthew 23, Hezekiah's liturgy in 2 Chronicles 29, Paul's citation of an unwritten saying of Christ in Acts 20:35, the lectionaries, the apostolic liturgies and the succession at Thessaloniki — so the claim that nothing was ever offered describes a debate that did not happen.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You say we don't, value any any any tradition. Right?”
Pedro, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 2:07:31
Diogenes: Jay had been asked this exact thing earlier — "Do you think we are traditionless? Is that your thought?" — and answered "No. Not at all," so the view is attributed to him after he expressly disclaimed it, and he has to correct it again.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “No. You just say those things are the case. God made those the case. It has no explanatory power.”
Ryan Dawson, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 45:53
Diogenes: S2 had given a mechanism — providence grounding uniformity, a divine mind as the locus of universals, and the coherence of the paradigm's parts — and reducing that to the bare assertion "God made those the case" states a position he did not take.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You have a degree of confidence in something that's not justified, which by your own definition is superstitious religious dogmatism.”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 56:39
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Dyer claims Dawson's unjustified confidence is "by your own definition... superstitious religious dogmatism," but Dawson's stated definition of dogmatism just moments earlier explicitly excluded that qualifier: "You can have dogmatism without superstition and supernatural." Dyer is attributing to Dawson a self-refuting definition the transcript shows he did not give, to force a gotcha rather than engage the substance.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “So since yours is divinely inspired, you have the perfect ethics and metaphysics and so forth.”
Ryan Dawson, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 1:15:48
Diogenes: Jay had expressly disclaimed this in his opening at 9:46 — "It doesn't mean that Christians are always moral... doesn't mean that Christian morality answers every single ethical question" — and Ryan attributes it to him anyway, though he accepts the correction at once.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… you're saying that religions are money grabbing and all this stuff, but then you keep circling back to attacking Christianity…”
Green Feathers, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 1:35:39
Diogenes: Ryan's stated objection was that religion has been subverted by commercial and political interests, not that religions are intrinsically money-grabbing, and he corrects the attribution immediately.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “That just seems like dogmatic jingoism [just-so-ism] for theism... That's the same thing. God just did and made everything. I mean, it just is.”
Ryan Dawson, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 1:49:21
Diogenes: Jay gave a specific account — the universals are contents of a divine mind, and the whole set of preconditions coheres in that paradigm — and Ryan flattens it back into a bare "it just is," which is not the position that was argued.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You more or less said that that these things exist because god, you know, made them.”
DG, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 1:50:43
Diogenes: Challenged with "Did you hear me say that?", DG concedes he is paraphrasing rather than quoting, and the paraphrase drops the coherence argument Jay actually gave for a cruder claim from authority.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… and it left the church. Right? So there's some blackout for you.”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism, watch at 1:48:32
Diogenes: Mike had said the church erred in emphasis, not that the Spirit left it, and he flatly denied the attributed view ("The church never lost the spirit").Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… so the the church can't change the word of god. We can't add to it. We can't take away from it.”
Pastor P, Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History, watch at 24:45
Diogenes: He answers a claim Dyer never made — Dyer argued the church recognised and transmitted the canon, not that it may change God's word — and when challenged he could not point to where the argument was made.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “The only justification for god is you feel like there's a god or you have faith in a god and you reject reason.”
Yaron Brook, Jay Dyer vs Yaron Brook Debate TAG, Science, and the Future of Civilization, watch at 24:24
Diogenes: Jay had just offered a formal argument and asked twice where the emotion was in it, and had explicitly denied arguing from emotion; Yaron nonetheless assigns him a position he did not take and declined to hear the form of ("Do you want the form of the argument? No. Not particularly.").Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “That's why he's now having to discard his Thomistic position, because they can't justify their first principles…”
Jay Dyer, HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL, watch at 1:57:18
Diogenes: The opponent never discarded it; he twice said "for the sake of this conversation" and offered to argue on Dyer's own terms, and Dyer builds his victory claim on treating a stipulated concession as an admission of defeat — while a minute earlier claiming the man "won't admit" the very thing he is here reported as admitting.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… this is a common thing that young guys do where they pretend that they have these linguistic skills. Exact same thing that Ananda did.”
Jay Dyer, HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL, watch at 1:58:34
Diogenes: The opponent never claimed the skill — asked point blank he said "I wouldn't say I'm fluent in Latin" and "that's just how I've heard it referenced" — and Dyer himself grants this eight minutes later ("at least he was honest that he didn't know it"), so the pretense is invented and then attached to an unrelated man's lie about being a translator.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “So he said that the majority of the church fathers didn't believe in orthodoxy, maybe during one period of the Arian crisis.”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer Debate Vs Gnostic Scott Smith, watch at 1:29:24
Diogenes: Smith said at 78:39 that "according to the early church fathers, apparently, a majority did not adhere to what became the Catholic faction" — a claim about ordinary Christians reported by the fathers, not about the fathers themselves, and the substituted version is easy to knock down.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “No. You were saying that your experience was that both Protestants and Orthodox don't care about the offer of salvation or something like that.”
Jay Dyer, Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson, watch at 48:40
Diogenes: CB's actual words were that both "should care, but some don't," a claim about practice failing an obligation, not the flat generalisation Jay attributes to him, and CB has to correct him on the spot.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… he said earlier, well, you've got a bunch of metaphysical baggage in, you know, trying to affirm Catholic theology. And orthodoxy doesn't have metaphysical baggage…”
Trent Horn, DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?, watch at 45:54
Diogenes: Jay never claimed Orthodoxy is free of metaphysics — he said the Thomistic arguments carry unjustified metaphysical commitments — and he has to correct the record himself at 50:14 ("I'm not saying that I don't have to do legwork and then that Orthodoxy doesn't have metaphysics").Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “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…”
Trent Horn, DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?, watch at 56:28
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.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… trans [Trent's] presuppositions are that there was not knowledge of the trinity, in an implicit form in this case…”
Jay Dyer, DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?, watch at 1:17:24
Diogenes: Trent had expressly allowed implicit knowledge — "maybe they had an implicit knowledge of it. I don't know" — and denied only explicit theological knowledge, so the attributed presupposition is not his.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “He gave a lot more critiques of foundationalism in the closing statement, which I see no need to reply to because they weren't previously brought up in the debate.”
Trent Horn, DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?, watch at 1:54:23
Diogenes: Jay's opening statement had already listed those very objections — "the myth of the given, the under determination of data, the inability to justify the parapathetic axiom itself" — so the stated ground for declining to answer misstates the record.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “My opponent agreed that no ecumenical council has condemned natural theology.”
Trent Horn, DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?, watch at 1:56:37
Diogenes: Jay had answered that the seventh council's iconographic teaching implies a condemnation and only conceded there was no explicit anachronistic condemnation, and he interjects "Of the seventh council" to correct the summary on the spot.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “So once you accept that it's true, you'll see that it's true. That was exactly my point. Daniel said that once you accept the Quran, you'll understand that the Quran is the superior revelation... Now Daniel said there's other independent arguments. I'm not concerned. I didn't answer or reply to what you called independent arguments…”
Jay Dyer, DEBATE: CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM: WHICH IS THE RELIGION OF THE PROPHETS? JAY DYER VS DANIEL HAQIQATJOU, watch at 1:01:32
Diogenes: Haqiqatjou had expressly denied that formulation — "the Quran doesn't assume that, oh, you have to accept the Quran, and then you judge the Old Testament" — and had just listed four pre-acceptance reasons including Deuteronomy 18:15, which Dyer declares himself unconcerned to answer while restating the circle charge as though nothing had been said.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… a Jew would know that the New Testament is true because of the New Testament.”
Daniel Haqiqatjou, DEBATE: CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM: WHICH IS THE RELIGION OF THE PROPHETS? JAY DYER VS DANIEL HAQIQATJOU, watch at 1:18:35
Diogenes: Dyer had named a checkable mechanism — the New Testament cites specific Old Testament passages a Jew could go and read for himself, with John 5–9 given as an instance — and Haqiqatjou reduces that to a bare self-referential circle rather than answering the mechanism.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… the only justification that you have, the only principle that you're giving me is, well, our councils decided this.”
Daniel Haqiqatjou, DEBATE: CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM: WHICH IS THE RELIGION OF THE PROPHETS? JAY DYER VS DANIEL HAQIQATJOU, watch at 1:38:03
Diogenes: Dyer had just given a criterion with content — the Noahic covenant, and the Old Testament's own restriction of ceremonial law to Israel — and reducing that to "the councils decided" drops the very part that answered the charge of arbitrariness.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Jay did not provide any argument beyond references, his, biased interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. He didn't provide a single argument outside of that.”
Daniel Haqiqatjou, DEBATE: CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM: WHICH IS THE RELIGION OF THE PROPHETS? JAY DYER VS DANIEL HAQIQATJOU, watch at 1:50:05
Diogenes: Dyer cited Boyarin, Sommer and Segal on Second Temple Judaism, Reynolds on the Quran, and F. F. Bruce on manuscript attestation, so the claim that he offered nothing beyond his own reading of the Hebrew Bible is contradicted by the record.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “That's a fallacy. Do you even know what a fallacy is? Like, you just appeal to a mass fallacy, like, like, mass appeal.”
Jay Dyer, Debate MELTDOWN: Worst Opponent Yet: Austin Peterson Libertarian Debate Vs Jay Dyer, watch at 1:30:15
Diogenes: Austin's "there are plenty of secularists who do not accept postmodernism" was a counterexample to the claim that only theists can reject postmodernism, not an argument that a view is true because many hold it, so the fallacy named is not the one committed.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “I didn't actually hear an argument. I heard a bunch of assertions as to what his position is about the creed, what his position is about unity. I didn't actually hear an argument. So I don't think Jake understands the difference between asserting something and actually claiming something.”
Jay Dyer, HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate, watch at 45:36
Diogenes: Jake gave at least two arguments in premise-conclusion form — the shared-power/knowledge argument and the justification dilemma — and Dyer had already answered the first of them in his own opening, so denying any argument was made misstates the record.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “And he says that, well, well, those even to me, a book's [Palamas] not even relevant for this for this debate.”
Jay Dyer, HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate, watch at 52:53
Diogenes: Jake's actual claim was narrower — that Ibn Taymiyya's critique of Trinitarianism is irrelevant because he never cited it as an argument — not that the book as a whole is irrelevant, and the broader version is easier to attack.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “So you'll notice in the debate, Jake just lost and he doesn't answer the objection. And he says that it's self evident because it's self evident.”
Jay Dyer, HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate, watch at 1:36:07
Diogenes: Jake's answer named a mechanism — the fitra, a divinely created apparatus by which such truths are known non-inferentially — and reducing that to a bare "self-evident because self-evident" restates his position in a form he explicitly denied, while announcing victory to the audience.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Yeah. He's another strong man [straw man].”
Jay Dyer, FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity, watch at 22:09
Diogenes: Muslim Lantern's paraphrase, that Jay claimed the church fathers were unified on the Trinity, tracks Jay's own words at 14:00 ("they unanimously teach the deity of Christ, the triad as well"), so branding it a straw man misstates what the opponent did and blocks the rebuttal rather than meeting it.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… he admitted that the analogy that he gave to parts of a shirt, like attributes, like color the color black, those are parts.”
Jay Dyer, FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity, watch at 30:16
Diogenes: Muslim Lantern had just expressly denied attributes are parts and used blackness as something inhering in a thing that "remains one"; converting that into an admission that they are parts states a concession the transcript does not contain.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “They're not they're not equal with your own statement. You said that they are not equal. Yes. They are not equal.”
Muslim Lantern, FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity, watch at 44:53
Diogenes: S0 had just said they are equal in nature and power and subordinate only in origin ("equal in terms of power and in terms of nature, that but doesn't mean they're equal in every sense"); reporting this as "you said they are not equal" drops the qualifier that carries his whole answer.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… clearly, he said it is not from a part of the thing. It's derived from everything. It is not he's essentially saying it's not clear, which is what we love to hear, is that the doctrine of the trinity is not clear in the bible.”
Muslim Lantern, FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity, watch at 48:01
Diogenes: Jay said the doctrine is derived from the whole body of scripture rather than one proof-text; converting that into an admission that it is "not clear" states a concession he did not make.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Yes. Because you're you're shifting the you're shifting the goalposts.”
Indiana Brunner, FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???, watch at 36:24
Diogenes: Moving the goalposts requires a condition he set, met, and then replaced; he names none, and the charge is used to avoid the verses just put to him.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “I mean, you just contradict yourself within, like, three sentences.”
Jay Dyer, FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???, watch at 43:23
Diogenes: He declares a self-contradiction and then, invited to name it, concedes he did not understand the sentence, so the charge was made before the claim was even parsed.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You're asking me a question when I ask you a question? Yeah. That's to quote by fallacy [tu quoque fallacy].”
Jay Dyer, FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???, watch at 44:50
Diogenes: Answering a question with a counter-question is not tu quoque, which is the charge that the opponent is guilty of the same thing; he repeats the misnamed label three times while insisting that fallacies matter.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “I believe your argument was that the words of Albert Pike were dogma based off of your definition of dogma.”
Ryan Terbibull, Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians, watch at 28:40
Diogenes: Jay had already corrected this attribution once at 23:41 ("I didn't argue that") and stated his point was the self-referential contradiction, so restating it as his argument misdescribes what was said.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… which you did do when you pointed out that the name was Moles [Morals] and Dogma, you attempted to make the argument that this is Masonic…”
Ryan Terbibull, Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians, watch at 46:54
Diogenes: This is the third time he attributes to Jay the claim that Pike's words are Masonic dogma after Jay corrected it explicitly at 23:41 and again at 29:09, and Jay's actual argument was the self-referential one about the claim that Masonry has no dogmas.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… you said the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry…”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians, watch at 1:33:14
Diogenes: Chase had said Satanism is incompatible with "the principles values of Masonry," and the substitution of "theology of masonry" imports the very concession Jay is trying to extract.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You messed up and said religions. ... You tripped up and and undid all of your first hour of argument. ... You refuted your whole first hour with that statement right there.”
Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians, watch at 1:59:25
Diogenes: Ryan stated openly in his opening at 10:07 that "we pull from a lot of different religions," so presenting it to the room as an accidental slip that destroys his own case misdescribes the record, as Ryan protests ("I've said that").Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Notice the straw men that they have to create. They have to think that these are parts of Allah. Even some admitted you don't use this language. So if we don't use that language, we don't describe it that way, we don't teach it that way, why is your opinion of how you read it…”
Ijaz Ahmad, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 37:53
Diogenes: Sam expressly disclaimed the term "body parts" and argued from the attributes the Muslim side does affirm (hand, shin, foot), so calling it a straw man answers the label rather than the argument about embodiment and space.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “I just wanna emphasize that they did not address the trinity at all. We addressed all of their complaints against the Quran, against monotheism, against Tahit. They haven't even started to defend the trinity.”
Daniel Haqiqatjou, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 41:57
Diogenes: Jay had already answered the two-minds objection with the two-natures/one-person distinction and Basil's Letter 234, and had given a reading of Mark 13:32, so "did not address the trinity at all" contradicts the transcript, and this is the third time he has said it.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “I'm shocked that as a Christian, you allow Jay to say that it's fine. It's okay if is being thrown into the trash... Jay, why would you do that? Throw the bible not under the bus, but in the trash.”
Ijaz Ahmad, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 1:44:28
Diogenes: Jay said the tradition does not hinge on Codex Sinaiticus in particular; Ijaz converts that into Jay consigning the Bible itself to the trash, which is not what was said.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… your champions here did not mention child marriage. Are they dodging that issue? Why didn't Jay or Sam mention child marriage?”
Daniel Haqiqatjou, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 2:05:03
Diogenes: Sam had just argued the age-of-marriage point at length from the Talmud and applied it directly to Muhammad and Aisha in the round immediately preceding, so the claim that neither opponent mentioned child marriage is contradicted by the transcript.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “Jay refuses to condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile. That's shocking. I hope all the Christian listeners, especially the Protestants listening, note that these heretics, Sam and Jay, are down with pedophilia.”
Daniel Haqiqatjou, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 2:40:29
Diogenes: Jay had just said he had no problem condemning Aquinas and Sam had already condemned child marriage outright, so the refusal being reported did not happen — and it is used to brand both opponents as endorsing paedophilia.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “… you made the claim that the prophet peace be upon him committed rape. We asked you to show where he did so, and you could not.”
Ijaz Ahmad, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 2:52:23
Diogenes: Sam had twice given the citation — "chapter four verse 24 in the sunnah when they took married captives and raped them and sold them" at 122:30, and the captive-women passage at 111:31 — so the claim that nothing was produced is contradicted by the record.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised - “You reject the councils…”
Fr. Ananias, Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate, watch at 15:14
Diogenes: S3 told Slick he rejects the councils and nearly all of the early church. Slick had said no such thing, and when challenged S3 admitted he was inferring it from "five point Calvinist" ("you can hear something either explicitly or implicit").Judged on 2026-10-12 under rules c878d8bc4796 - “Well, you sure begged the question and just read a lot of stuff in there…”
Matt Slick, Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate, watch at 37:24
Diogenes: S3's answer named a mechanism besides the Holy Spirit: continuity with the apostles and the early church, the Acts precedent, and an episcopal succession checked against history. Slick reduced it to "the Holy Spirit supports your position" and called that begging the question, which attributes a bare circle to S3.Judged on 2026-10-12 under rules c878d8bc4796