straw man

Restating the opponent's position as something weaker or more extreme than what they said, then attacking that.

24 upheld instances

• “I'm glad you don't think God answers prayers. So, again, you have a pagan metaphysical system.”
  Jay Dyer, The Catholicism or Orthodoxy DEBATE: Tim Gordon vs. Jay Dyer | The Rift, watch at 1:00:36
  Diogenes: Gordon only said that God condescending to "reciprocity" with creatures "doesn't make sense" on Dyer's account; he never denied that God answers prayer, yet Dyer presents that denial as Gordon's view and attacks it.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised
• “The divine essence cannot come to the holy spirit through the son.”
  Timothy Gordon, The Catholicism or Orthodoxy DEBATE: Tim Gordon vs. Jay Dyer | The Rift, watch at 2:17:36
  Diogenes: Gordon presents this as Dyer's objection and answers it with John 16:15, but Dyer's argument is that the Father's hypostatic property of causing cannot be shared, while the essence is common to all three, so Dyer never said the essence cannot reach the Spirit through the Son.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised
• “That is a condemned proposition. It's funny because you actually heard him seem to be arguing that tonight.”
  Jay Dyer, The Catholicism or Orthodoxy DEBATE: Tim Gordon vs. Jay Dyer | The Rift, watch at 3:52:25
  Diogenes: Dyer says Gordon argued the condemned view that only ex cathedra statements bind, but Gordon said the pope is personally infallible only ex cathedra while ordinary teaching still demands "a submission in mind and will that's religious" and the universal ordinary magisterium belongs to the bishops.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised
• “That debunks Jay's point that he earlier stated, the word of God was created. It's always existed.”
  Jonathan Shelley, DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura, watch at 27:18
  Diogenes: Jay's opening said the Word is a divine person and that the written Bible is a created medium of that Word. Shelley attacks "the word of God was created" and answers it with an eternal-word verse, which leaves Jay's actual distinction untouched.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised
• “You believe that there's an eternal Quran like the Muslims, which is your KGV [KJV], which is idiotic and foolish.”
  Jay Dyer, DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura, watch at 1:30:45
  Diogenes: Shelley had already said the physical book is not eternal (34:28), that Christ is a person and not a book (87:34), and that the Bible is a manifestation of God's eternal word. Jay presents him as holding that the KJV itself is an uncreated eternal book, a more extreme view than Shelley stated.Judged on 2026-10-07 under rules 3fcdc91a53f9, since revised
• “The problem is that you want all the authority with zero responsibility. Okay? More of this feminist propaganda.”
  Myron Gaines, HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial, watch at 2:02:26
  Diogenes: Penelope and Isla argued that responsibility for conception is shared ("It's a co-choice", "his responsibility" to use protection). Nobody claimed women should bear zero responsibility. Myron attacks that position instead of theirs and labels it "feminist propaganda".Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “You have to compete just like us, it's just that you want some kind of special privilege for competing because you're a woman.”
  Myron Gaines, HEATED Debate w/ Feminists. Wage Gap, Pro Choice ft. @MikeRashidOfficial, watch at 2:28:32
  Diogenes: Penelope described having to meet a higher bar than men and facing harassment, which is a claim of unequal treatment. Nobody asked for special privilege. Myron then likens "equal pay for equal job" to "communism", replacing her claim (same pay for the same work and performance) with a demand for pay regardless of performance that no one on the panel made.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “Okay. Well, you reject concepts now?”
  Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 7:44
  Diogenes: Dean rejected only the claim that the laws of logic are concepts, not the existence of concepts.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “Oh, I got you. So it's just basically stating that it's true because it's true?”
  Cooley, @deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS, watch at 35:32
  Diogenes: Breej defined the defeasibility condition as the absence of any true defeating proposition, a condition separate from truth itself, and Cooley recasts it as a tautology that Breej never stated.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “George Washington wasn't Catholic... He's Protestant. Nostra [Aetate] is exclusive to Catholics.”
  Riyadh, Muslim Twitter Triggered, Middleast Wars, Is America A Christian Country Debate With Sneako!, watch at 2:20:21
  Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. SNEAKO's actual point (135:16) was that Catholic doctrine (Nostra Aetate) teaches Muslims worship the same Father/Almighty God that Washington invoked, so Washington's non-Jesus-specific "Almighty God" language and the Muslim Surah Fatiha refer to the same theological object. S1 answers a different claim entirely — "George Washington wasn't Catholic... Nostra Aetate is exclusive to Catholics" — as if SNEAKO had argued Washington himself was bound by or was a Catholic, which SNEAKO immediately denies having said ("I never said he was Catholic... you understand the comparison I'm making? I don't think you understood"). S1 refutes the distorted version rather than the comparison actually offered.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “Oh, so we can't cite scripture even though God has given it to us?”
  Pedro, Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism, watch at 1:03:50
  Diogenes: Jay's objection was that scripture cannot settle a question logically prior to the extent of scripture; Pedro recasts it as a blanket prohibition on quoting the Bible, and Jay has to correct him — "I didn't say you couldn't cite scripture, I'm asking you an epistemic question."Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “It's a total troll, man, to say that people can't use reasoning and logic.”
  Ryan Dawson, Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism, watch at 1:08:45
  Diogenes: Jay's claim throughout has been that Ryan lacks an account of logic's use, never that he cannot use it; Ryan attacks the stronger claim, and concedes the difference the moment Jay points it out.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “… it sounds to me like you deny God's blessing on the the King James. You deny the great awakening. You're denying history.”
  Pastor P, Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History, watch at 50:05
  Diogenes: Dyer had said the opposite — that these things may be true but do not settle which canon is correct — and Pastor P recasts a point about what follows from the evidence as a denial of the events themselves.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “… he basically responded that while children die, God lets a lot of people die, and therefore, that's just not nice. That's that's an emotional appeal. So you can make an emotional appeal, but in debate, an emotional appeal is a fallacy.”
  Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer Debate Vs Gnostic Scott Smith, watch at 48:45
  Diogenes: Scott had set out the standard evidential problem of evil with its premises stated ("if God is all powerful and all knowing and benevolent"); recasting it as "that's just not nice" strips the argument and answers the emotion instead.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “So then there's no possibility of distinction or differentiation ever in the world because if anything exists that isn't universal, that would be a contradiction by you.”
  CB Robertson, Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson, watch at 1:31:59
  Diogenes: Jay's objection was that the claim "principles are always contextual" is itself asserted non-contextually; CB answers a different and absurd position — that Jay requires everything whatever to be universal — which nothing in the exchange supports.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “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.”
  Jay Dyer, DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?, watch at 1:50:30
  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.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “I I acknowledge the Quran because [mentions] many biblical stories. That doesn't mean that what is in the Bible, what is in the word that you have is correct... where does the Quran say that the Old Testament is fully accurate?”
  Daniel Haqiqatjou, DEBATE: CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM: WHICH IS THE RELIGION OF THE PROPHETS? JAY DYER VS DANIEL HAQIQATJOU, watch at 46:55
  Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Jay's stated argument was that the Quran presupposes specific large narrative blocks (Moses receiving scripture, cloud and manna, Korah's rebellion, etc.) as historically accurate, not that it declares the whole Old Testament "fully accurate." Daniel here reframes the demand as "where does the Quran say the Old Testament is fully accurate?"—a much stronger claim Jay never made—which is the same reformulation of Jay's position I later find repeated and named as straw man at 51:58 ("Now if you did find me a verse that says that everything... is accurate").Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “… the number of people that disagree or agree amongst varying groups, guess what? That has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of any position. It doesn't matter how many people in the world disagree or debate or question, for example, the two plus two is four.”
  Jay Dyer, DEBATE: CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM: WHICH IS THE RELIGION OF THE PROPHETS? JAY DYER VS DANIEL HAQIQATJOU, watch at 1:28:03
  Diogenes: Haqiqatjou's canon point was not that truth is decided by numbers but that there is no agreed Old Testament text against which to run Dyer's continuity test; recasting it as an appeal to popularity lets him dismiss as a fallacy an objection he has still not answered.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “I don't care about your definition of power.”
  Jake the Muslim Metaphysician, HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate, watch at 1:27:50
  Diogenes: His argument is advertised as an internal critique of Orthodoxy — that they make unprincipled exceptions by their own standards — which cannot work if he insists on defining the key term against how his opponent uses it. [Diarization merges the speakers; the line is Jake's, as the definition that follows is his.]Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “Quoting John one is not a evidence for the trinity. The trinity says three persons in one being. Person is separate from being. John one doesn't say that.”
  Muslim Lantern, FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity, watch at 20:03
  Diogenes: S0 cited John 1 only for the Logos and eternal begetting as part of a cumulative case, never claiming that single chapter states three persons in one being, so the refutation is of a claim not made.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “He says gnaw on my flesh. That must mean that he's going to start this whole liturgical process of calling him down from heaven into a wafer, and his blood is made present.”
  Indiana Brunner, FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???, watch at 30:59
  Diogenes: He caricatures his opponent's position in terms Jay has not used and does not hold, drawing the immediate correction "We're not Roman Catholics. We don't have wafers."Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “Well, I went to church once. I I read some of the bible. Isn't that enough? You go get them, Jesus.”
  S2, FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???, watch at 31:40
  Diogenes: S1's question was why repeated partaking is needed if Christ promised one will never hunger, not a claim that minimal effort suffices; the caricature answers a position S1 did not take.Judged on 2026-09-25 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “They say Muhammad promoted child marriage, whereas Jesus believes women should only be married when they reach 18.”
  Daniel Haqiqatjou, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 1:53:47
  Diogenes: Neither opponent has said anything resembling a scriptural age of eighteen; the position is invented and then set up as the Christian view to be knocked down.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised
• “Daniel tried to argue quite a bit for continuity there. But you'll notice that earlier we had heard the Bible was corrupted... It's only corrupted when it doesn't suit their purpose or their argumentation. That's a double standard.”
  Jay Dyer, Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity, watch at 1:59:21
  Diogenes: Daniel had just stated that he was arguing internally against the Christian position rather than asserting the Old Testament's authority — the very method Sam uses on the Qur'an all debate — so recasting it as a double standard answers a claim not made.Judged on 2026-09-27 under rules 5175673b7580, since revised