Base Catholic · Sophist
2 callouts
- HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL at 1:43:45upheld
The council upheld the call: Base Catholic gave away 1 point.
begging the question (+1)
“Well, no. Obviously, we we have the same epistemology.”
Diogenes: The whole dispute at that moment is whether the two men share a framework for reading the Fathers, and he licenses his inference by simply asserting that they do.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since his opening that his Thomist/Garrigou-Lagrange inferences about relations of opposition are simply correct and should be accepted on their own terms; here, pressed to justify why Jay must accept them, he retreats to an unsupported assertion of shared epistemology rather than defending the paradigm-level claim Jay is actually contesting, which is consistent with (not a departure from) his pattern of asserting rather than justifying his metaphysical starting points in this exchange. Jay's question was precisely why S2's Thomist inference should be accepted absent a shared reasoning framework; S2's answer — "we have the same epistemology" — assumes the very point in dispute (whether they share a paradigm for reading the Fathers/Trinity) as the license for accepting his inference, without independently establishing it. That is a textbook instance of assuming the conclusion needed to make the argument work.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question". Pressed by Dyer to justify why the Thomist model should be accepted rather than merely asserted, S2 answers "we have the same epistemology" — but shared epistemic starting points is exactly the point in dispute (Dyer had already declared he rejects classical foundationalism), so asserting commonality functions as assuming the very premise needed to license the Thomist argument rather than establishing it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening position is a Thomist defense of the Filioque via relations of opposition; when pressed on why his epistemic starting point should be accepted, this line departs from actually justifying it and instead assumes the contested premise (shared epistemology) as already granted, which Jay immediately and correctly rejects. At the exact moment the two are disputing whether they share a common epistemic framework for reading the fathers, S2 answers Jay's demand for justification of the Thomist model by simply asserting "we have the same epistemology" — treating the very point in dispute as already settled and using it as license to proceed, which is the textbook shape of begging the question.
- HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL at 1:52:03upheld
The council upheld the call: Base Catholic gave away 1 point.
begging the question (+1)
“I've adopted I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm. I'll I'll argue from whatever standpoint you want, from whatever paradigm you want. I just wanna have a conversation about the filial [filioque]…”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Jay had raised a framework objection: he denies that texts (patristic or otherwise) can be read "theory-neutrally," and pressed S2 twice to justify the peripatetic axiom underlying his Thomism before any object-level Filioque argument could proceed. Rather than answering that challenge, S2 says he'll "adopt the Jay Dyer paradigm" and grant anything just so he can get back to "a conversation about the filioque" — i.e., he keeps demanding to return to his original terms (quoting Latin scholastic distinctions and church-father proof-texts) without ever actually engaging or refuting Jay's stated presupposition that such texts are paradigm-laden; this is the dodging/question-begging pattern the rubric describes for a speaker who presses original terms after a framework objection has been raised against them.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2 opened as a Thomist defending the Filioque via Garrigou-Lagrange's relations-of-opposition scheme; this line is his attempt (as I found in overturning "concession" and "escape between the horns" on this same quote) to bypass Jay's paradigm demand rhetorically rather than substantively, which is evasive in spirit but does not supply the circular-reasoning structure that begging the question specifically requires. Begging the question requires a circular argument that assumes its own conclusion as a premise; this line contains no argument at all, only a procedural offer to grant any paradigm so the conversation can move on. Moreover, immediately before this line S2 had already answered Jay's repeated "prove your first principle" demand by conceding "Yeah, sure, it's self-refuting, Thomism is wrong" — so the underlying question was met with a concession, not evaded, which undercuts reading this line as circular reasoning or as the dodge the referee's reasoning gestures toward.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question". Dyer's framework objection was that no reading of the fathers is theory-neutral, so the paradigm dispute must be settled before citing them settles anything. S2 answers not by justifying the peripatetic axiom Dyer is pressing him on, but by declaring he has simply "adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm" so they can get back to the fathers — treating the paradigm question as resolved by fiat rather than argument, which assumes the very point (that the framework dispute is now moot) that licenses returning to citation-trading.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared goal from the opening was to defend the Filioque via Thomist relations-of-opposition; when Jay's framework objection made that very method the thing in dispute, this line does not answer the objection but assumes its own terms are still in play, which is the dodge/begging-the-question move the rubric describes, distinct from whether the same line also counts (or not) as a duel-ending concession. The rubric itself names exactly this pattern: "once a framework objection has been made, an opponent who keeps demanding the original terms without answering it is the one dodging, and is begging the question." Jay had twice pressed S2 to justify the peripatetic axiom underlying his Thomism before any object-level Filioque discussion could proceed; rather than answering that challenge, S2 declares he'll "adopt the Jay Dyer paradigm" purely so he can return to "a conversation about the filioque," presupposing without argument that his original method (citing scholastic distinctions and patristic proof-texts) remains valid despite the very objection raised against it.