Pastor P · Sophist
20 callouts
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 23:09upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 1 point.
red herring (+1)
“… everyone that came to my church was a former Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox. And they were they came I'll use the word ignorant. I don't I don't mean to put them down, but they came knowing nothing of the word of God.”
Diogenes: With Dyer's canon and multiple-referent arguments on the table, and the moderator having just asked him to address his opponent, he answers with an anecdote about lay ignorance, which bears on neither question.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's declared and consistently-held position since the opening is that the perfect written word outranks the fallible church, defended mainly by assertion, personal testimony, and appeals to divine blessing rather than by engaging his opponent's specific textual/historical arguments; the called line is a continuation of that same pattern of substituting personal narrative for direct engagement, not a new departure. The quoted anecdote is not merely background color: it is delivered exactly where the moderator has twice, explicitly, asked Pastor P to stop and "address the arguments Jay was making" (22:27, 23:56), and Pastor P instead tells a personal story about ignorant former-Catholic/Orthodox converts, which bears on neither Dyer's multiple-referents-of-"word of God" claim nor his apostolic-succession/canon claim. It is true that the anecdote eventually winds toward "the church can't add to or take away from the word of God" (24:46-51), but that landing point is simply a restatement of Pastor P's own opening thesis (Scripture is perfect, unchangeable) rather than an engagement with the specific arguments on the table (multiple referents; apostolic-succession basis for canon), and it only arrives after the moderator's second redirect, confirming the anecdote itself was substituting for, not accompanying, an answer at the moment it was given.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "hasty generalization", on the same ledger as the callout. Having just been redirected by the moderator to address Jay's actual arguments, Pastor P instead offers a personal anecdote and generalizes from it: "everyone that came to my church was a former Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox... they came knowing nothing of the word of God." A self-selected sample of people who had already left their churches to join his Baptist congregation is not a representative basis for the sweeping claim that Orthodox/Catholic laity as such are biblically "ignorant," and no further evidence is offered to support the generalization beyond his own experience.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's opening and standing position is that the perfect written word outranks the fallible church/councils; here, rather than engaging Jay's specific opening arguments about tradition and canon, he departs into an unrelated personal anecdote in direct response to the moderator's request to address those arguments. The moderator had just explicitly redirected S1 to "address the arguments Jay was making" (Jay's opening points on the multi-referent "word of God" and church-mediated canon/apostolic tradition). Instead of engaging either point, S1 pivots to a personal-ministry anecdote about ex-Orthodox congregants being biblically "ignorant," which bears on neither of Jay's live arguments. The moderator interrupts again seconds later with the same request, confirming the anecdote did not engage the point on the table. This is a clean instance of leading the discussion away from the question actually asked, not a jab and not mere rhetorical color, since it substitutes for an answer rather than accompanying one.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 24:45upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 2 points.
misrepresentation (+2)
“… so the the church can't change the word of god. We can't add to it. We can't take away from it.”
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.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's declared and consistently held position is that Scripture is perfect and superior to fallible councils/churches; the called line, however, comes as the punchline of an anecdote about a different (Catholic/Orthodox) priest's "we wrote it, we can add the apocrypha" boast, which P then redeploys as though it answers Jay's actual opening argument that the church has historical/tradition-based authority to recognize and transmit the canon (including the deuterocanon) — a position Jay never stated as "the church can change/add to scripture at will.". The transcript shows Jay immediately tests this: "Did you hear me make that argument that the church changed the word of god?" and Pastor P cannot point to any such statement, retreating instead to "you said the church has had oversight" — then, when Jay distinguishes oversight from change, P offers no textual support and simply conflates the two ("well, maybe not to you, but how come they could"). This is a textbook case of answering a claim the opponent did not make and being unable to locate it in the record when challenged, which is exactly what misrepresentation requires.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Pastor P frames this line as a rebuttal to Jay, but Jay had never argued that the church can "change" or "add to" the word of God — his opening claimed only that the church exercises oversight/tradition in transmitting and canonizing the text. Pastor P conflates the crude claim of an anecdotal priest ("we can add the apocrypha... make changes wherever we feel like") with Jay's actual position, and when Jay immediately objects ("Did you hear me make that argument... do you think oversight and change mean the same thing?"), Pastor P cannot sustain the equation ("Well, maybe not to you"), confirming he had attributed to Jay a claim the transcript shows he did not make.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pastor P's opening thesis, held throughout, is that the perfect written word outranks fallible churches/councils; nothing in that record commits him to claiming Jay argued the church may "change" scripture, and this line inserts that claim into the exchange precisely where he was asked to answer Jay's actual (different) argument. The moderator had just asked S1 to address Jay's opening arguments; S1 responds with an anecdote about a Catholic/Orthodox priest who allegedly said "we wrote it... we can add the apocrypha... make changes wherever we feel like," and caps it with "the church can't change the word of god. We can't add to it. We can't take away from it" — framed, in context, as his rebuttal to Jay. But Jay's actual opening claim was that the church's tradition recognizes/transmits which texts are apostolic and preserves the canon (15:07, 19:54), never that the church may freely "add to" or "change" scripture at will. Jay's immediate on-record challenge ("Did you hear me make that argument that the church changed the word of god?") is answered by S1 retreating to a vaguer paraphrase ("you said... the church has had oversight"), and S1 never identifies where Jay said this. This is a defensible instance of answering a claim never made, dressed as a rebuttal to the opponent, rather than a restatement of a standing objection on the record.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 25:35upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 1 point.
red herring (+1)
“… they said he said, I don't believe in purgatory. And they said, well, it's in the bible. And he said, no. It's not. It's in the Apocrypha. And they adjourned to the other room and came back. And they said, it is now.”
Diogenes: He presses a Roman Catholic doctrine and a Latin council against an Eastern Orthodox opponent who holds neither, leading the argument away from the canon question actually in dispute.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Pastor P's declared and consistently-held position since the opening is that councils, being run by fallible men, sometimes err badly on canon (his own example, "Council of Worms... accept the apocrypha as canonical just so that we can say that there's purgatory," was already given in the opening); this line is a restatement of that same standing point in direct answer to Jay's specific question, not a new departure or diversion. Immediately before this line, Jay asked directly, "when they added the apocrypha, was that something that bothers you?" and Pastor P answers with a concrete historical anecdote (the Diet of Worms) meant to illustrate his standing claim, already made in his opening statement (08:34), that councils can arbitrarily elevate apocryphal material to canonical status. That is a direct, if poorly-targeted, attempt to answer the question on the table (is apocrypha reliably canonical, and can councils be trusted on it), not a diversion to an unrelated subject; the topic never leaves canon/conciliar reliability. That the specific council he cites is Roman Catholic/Lutheran and doesn't describe his Orthodox opponent's tradition is a real defect — Jay is right to say it "doesn't have anything to do with what we're arguing today" — but that is a rebuttal on relevance/applicability of the analogy, not proof that Pastor P was leading the argument away from the point in dispute; the fault, if any, is a weak or mismatched analogy, not a red herring.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "red herring". The moderator had twice just asked Pastor P to address Jay's opening arguments ("can I have you address the arguments Jay was making?"), and instead of doing so he tells this anecdote about a priest, purgatory, and the Diet of Worms. Jay's own reply names the diversion directly: "as Orthodox, we don't believe in purgatory... a council that condemns Martin Luther really doesn't have anything to do with what we're arguing today" — a Catholic-specific dispute is substituted for engagement with the Orthodox positions actually on the table.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's standing position is that the perfect written word outranks councils that err, illustrated repeatedly by the Diet of Worms and purgatory anecdote first given in his opening; here, responding to Jay's direct denial that the apocrypha was added, he repeats that anecdote, but it concerns a Roman Catholic doctrine and a Latin proceeding against Luther that has nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox canon or Carthage actually in dispute with this opponent. The live question was whether the apocrypha's inclusion in the canon relevant to this debate was illegitimate; S1's supporting anecdote concerns a wholly different tradition's doctrine and council, which Jay immediately flags as irrelevant since Orthodox do not hold purgatory and that council has nothing to do with what they are arguing. This is evidence that fails to bear on the dispute with this particular opponent, matching the red herring diagnosis; minor severity is fair since it is quickly set aside and the discussion returns to the canon question.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 26:29upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 1 point.
hasty generalisation (+1)
“I didn't find Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox having bible studies, bible studies, bible studies, nor nor did I find Catholics or Anglicans or even Lutherans. It was us us Baptist…”
Diogenes: From his own experience in one city he generalises about the biblical seriousness of four entire traditions, and the conclusion bears on nobody's argument about the canon anyway.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's declared and consistently held position is that the perfect written word, studied directly, is superior to liturgical/church-mediated worship; this line advances that same standing theme (Scripture-centered piety vs. liturgical tradition) via an unsupported generalization from limited personal experience, which is a continuation of his framework rather than a departure from it, but the generalization itself is still a genuine reasoning fault. Pastor P moves from a personal anecdote about one New York City experience to a sweeping claim covering four entire, multi-million-member traditions ("Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox... Catholics or Anglicans or even Lutherans") not having Bible study while "it was us Baptists" who did — a small, local, anecdotal sample generalized into a claim about whole traditions' biblical seriousness. This is a genuine hasty generalization rather than a mere assertion of opinion, and Jay's very next reply ("maybe that was an experience that you had at a Greek parish in New York... that hasn't been my experience") correctly identifies the anecdotal-to-universal leap.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "hasty generalization", on the same ledger as the callout. Pastor P generalizes from his own limited personal experience in one city ("I didn't find... having bible studies... nor did I find Catholics or Anglicans or even Lutherans") to a sweeping claim about five entire traditions worldwide, offering no checkable data on Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran bible-study practice. This repeats the same move as his earlier "everyone... came knowing nothing of the word of God" remark minutes before, again substituting a small unrepresentative sample for an argument about which tradition is more scripturally grounded.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's opening and running theme is personal-experience testimony about ministry, including corruption he has witnessed and his own bible-teaching schedule; this line continues that same anecdotal mode, now extended into an unsupported categorical claim about whole denominations rather than a departure from his standing approach. S1 draws a sweeping conclusion about the biblical seriousness of four entire traditions (Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran) from his own limited personal experience in one city's parishes, offered in support of his implicit claim that scripture-focused Baptist ministry is superior to liturgical ministry. This is a textbook hasty generalization, and Jay's immediate rebuttal that in his experience Orthodox worship is constant biblical reading shows the claim was neither conceded nor demonstrated, just asserted from anecdote.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 8:09overturned
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
self-contradiction (+1)
“I do thank God for the early some of the early councils, and maybe this is hypocritical of me, but the church gets it right sometimes. And the Council of Carthage got it right when they said, these are the books, and these others are not the books.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Pastor P's entire thesis is that "the word of God is perfect" while "churches... make mistakes," yet here, in the same opening breath, he must credit one specific council, Carthage, with having "got it right" in order to know the canon at all — and he himself flags this as "maybe hypocritical." He never actually resolves that tension: for the rest of the debate, when Jay presses him on why he accepts Carthage's New Testament list but rejects Carthage's Old Testament (Deuterocanon) and other Carthage-affirmed doctrines, Pastor P can only answer "I believe they were consistent... we're gonna have to agree to disagree," never supplying the principle that would let a fallible-church view non-arbitrarily elevate this one council's ruling to reliable status. The self-diagnosed "hypocrisy" of 08:09 is thus the seed of the very inconsistency (an imperfect, error-prone church is nonetheless trusted absolutely for the canon) that structures and is never resolved in the rest of the debate.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Pastor P's opening thesis is that Scripture is perfect while churches and councils are fallible, and moments later, in the same breath, he states "the church gets it right sometimes," citing Carthage as an example of a council getting it right and the Diet of Worms as an example of one getting it wrong — a qualification of, not a contradiction of, his fallible-church premise. Self-contradiction requires contradicting an earlier claim without acknowledging it, but here Pastor P explicitly flags the very tension himself ("maybe this is hypocritical of me"), which is acknowledgment, not silent inconsistency; moreover "churches make mistakes" and "the church gets it right sometimes" are logically compatible, not contradictory. The genuine, sustained fault the referee describes — accepting Carthage's New Testament list while rejecting Carthage's Old Testament/Deuterocanon ruling — is a live pattern later in the debate (32:03–35:07) and is better captured as special pleading (two like cases, both Carthage rulings, treated unlike) than as a self-contradiction rooted in this single opening line.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question", on the same ledger as the callout. Pastor P declares Carthage "got it right" and Worms "got it wrong," but the only stated criterion for "right" is that Carthage's result matches the 66/27-book canon he already holds, while Worms is condemned for reaching a different result (accepting the Apocrypha). This presupposes the correctness of his own canon as the standard for judging which councils are trustworthy, rather than independently justifying why Carthage's authority should be accepted — precisely the circularity Jay presses him on repeatedly later ("Why is Carthage right? ... that's begging the question").
- Plato overturn: On the record: Pastor P's opening thesis is that Scripture is perfect while churches/councils are fallible yet sometimes providentially "get it right"; this line states that nuanced position candidly, with self-aware hedging, rather than silently contradicting it. Self-contradiction requires an unacknowledged contradiction of an earlier claim; here Pastor P explicitly flags the very tension himself ("maybe this is hypocritical of me"), which is the opposite of an unacknowledged contradiction. Substantively, "churches/councils make mistakes generally" and "this particular council, Carthage, got the canon right by God's blessing" are not strictly inconsistent — it is a fallibilist position (fallible bodies can occasionally be providentially right), the same nuanced standing view I already found, on this identical passage, did not constitute a "concession" either. The real, recurring fault in this territory (Pastor P's inability to supply a non-arbitrary principle for why Carthage is right on the NT canon but wrong elsewhere) is already captured throughout the debate under "begging the question" (fallacy spotted) calls against him, not as a self-contradiction here.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: a slip of the tongue is not a self-contradiction. Self-contradiction requires contradicting an earlier claim without acknowledging it; Pastor P does the opposite, flagging the tension himself in the same breath ("maybe this is hypocritical of me") before stating that Carthage got the canon right while Worms erred. Two of three judges (Aristotle and Plato) independently locate the decisive point here: an admitted, explained qualification of "churches err" is not a silent self-contradiction, whatever other fault (begging the question, special pleading) the underlying Carthage-picking pattern may commit later in the debate.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 30:03upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 1 point.
non sequitur (+1)
“Yes. It does. Because if there's a thousand people watching out there or 10,000 people watching out there, they want to know, wait a minute, which one's right?”
Diogenes: That an audience wants an answer does nothing to show that disagreement between traditions is itself an argument against either, which was the point he was asked to defend.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's declared position from the opening is that Scripture is an objective, perfect absolute standard, yet throughout the middle of the debate he repeatedly treats the existence of disagreement or the audience's need to choose as if it bore on which tradition is objectively correct; this line is a clear instance of that recurring slide, not a one-off, and is not a departure from a different stated position so much as an internal tension in his standing case that Jay is entitled to press. Jay's stated claim was that mere disagreement between traditions "doesn't constitute an argument" bearing on truth or falsity; Pastor P responds "Yes. It does" and supports that conclusion only with the premise that an audience of thousands "wants to know... which one's right." The audience's desire for a verdict is simply irrelevant to whether disagreement itself is evidence of truth or falsity — the conclusion does not follow from the premise offered, which is a genuine non sequitur and part of the same disagreement-equals-relativism move that recurs through the debate and that this bench has already credited Jay for correctly flagging elsewhere (e.g., at 53:53).
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "non sequitur". Jay had just said the mere fact of East/West disagreement "doesn't have anything to do with the truth or falsity of each position," to which Pastor P replies "Yes. It does" and justifies this only by noting that the audience "want[s] to know... which one's right." That the audience desires an answer does not show that disagreement itself bears on which position is true; the premise offered does not support the conclusion he's defending, and he goes on to insist "it's begging the question" simply because a decision must eventually be made, never actually answering why disagreement is evidence of anything.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's declared framework treats Scripture as authoritative and doesn't hinge his case on audience sentiment; here, having just been told by Jay that mere disagreement between traditions doesn't constitute an argument for either side, S1 insists it does, but the reason he supplies, that an audience of thousands wants to know which is right, is a non-answer to that specific logical point. The premise that viewers want an answer is true but irrelevant to whether disagreement itself is evidence of truth or falsity; it doesn't rebut Jay's point, it merely restates the practical stakes of the disagreement, so the reply is unsupported by what follows it.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 32:14upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 2 points.
begging the question (+2)
“I believe that there are times when the church when the church has gotten it right and when it agrees with the word of God, it it gets it right there.”
Diogenes: Asked how he knows Carthage picked the right canon, he answers that the church is right when it agrees with the word of God — but the contents of the word of God is precisely the question at issue.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's opening and consistently held position is that the perfect written word of God (the 66-book Protestant canon) is the standard against which everything, including church councils, is measured; here, pressed on how he knows Carthage got the canon right, he answers that the church is right "when it agrees with the word of God" — but which books constitute the word of God (specifically whether the Deuterocanon belongs) is exactly the question Jay had just put to him. This is a genuine instance of begging the question: Pastor P validates Carthage's canon decision by appeal to agreement with "the word of God," but his working definition of "the word of God" already presupposes the very 66-book canon under dispute, so the premise smuggles in the conclusion — a circularity Jay explicitly names moments later at 35:30 ("if the deuterocanon is part of the Old Testament, then that doesn't work"), confirming the fallacy was actually present in what Pastor P said, not merely alleged.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question". Pastor P offers "agrees with the word of God" as the criterion by which he judges a council's ruling correct, but the content of "the word of God" — specifically, which books belong in it — is exactly the point in dispute in this exchange over the canon. Jay immediately names this same circularity in the next line ("word of God is just your views"), and it repeats the identical move Pastor P made earlier at 08:09 in judging Carthage right and Worms wrong.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pastor P's standing position since the opening is that Scripture's perfection makes it authoritative over the fallible church, yet when asked how the canon itself (the content of that Scripture) is known to be correctly identified by Carthage, he repeatedly falls back on this same circular "agrees with the word of God" criterion rather than an independent test, and this line is the plain statement of that recurring circularity, not a new departure. Pastor P is being pressed on why Carthage's canon decision should be trusted, and answers that the church "gets it right" when its decision "agrees with the word of God" — but the very content of "the word of God" (which books belong in it) is the question on the table, so this criterion is circular. This is the identical passage that immediately provoked Jay's on-record naming of the fallacy at 32:31 ("this is about the putting in... the books of the word of God... How do you know they're right?"), which I have already upheld as a legitimate "fallacy spotted." The sophist point here for Pastor P and the philosopher point for Jay's correct naming of it are two sides of the same coin, not in tension.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 34:54upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 1 point.
dodge (+1)
“Again, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.”
Diogenes: Asked repeatedly on what basis he takes the canon from a council whose other teachings he rejects, he twice retreats to "agree to disagree" rather than giving the basis.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Pastor P's declared and consistently held position is that Carthage's decision on the New Testament canon was divinely blessed and criterion-based (agreement with the Old Testament as he understands it, plus apostolic supervision); the "agree to disagree" lines are offered as an acknowledgment of a genuine point of disagreement (whether the deuterocanon counts as Old Testament) rather than a refusal to continue engaging, and he goes on in the same breath to restate his standing criterion rather than departing into silence. Both times Pastor P says "we're gonna have to agree to disagree," it is not followed by silence but by an immediate, substantive (if circular) attempt at a basis: after the first instance he adds "I accept what they decided as far as the canon of the New Testament," and after the second he adds "I believe that they were consistent on their decision and their criteria." A dodge requires the question to go unanswered; here Pastor P keeps supplying the same criterion (OT agreement plus apostolic supervision, as he construes them) each time, which is why this exact stretch of dialogue has already been credited on this bench as "begging the question" (32:14) and as bringing him to aporia (35:30) — he is answering, badly and circularly, not stonewalling into silence.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". Jay has asked essentially the same question at least twice by this point — on what principled basis Pastor P accepts Carthage's ruling on the New Testament canon while rejecting Carthage's inclusion of the deuterocanon in the Old Testament ("on what basis is that the counsel that you're going to when you don't accept what they say about anything?"). Rather than giving the criterion, Pastor P simply says "we're gonna have to... agree to disagree" and reasserts that Carthage "were consistent," without ever identifying what makes his selective acceptance non-arbitrary.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that Scripture is perfect while the church errs, yet Carthage got the canon right; asked what basis lets him keep Carthage on the New Testament while rejecting Carthage on the deuterocanon, he twice answers agree to disagree rather than give a basis. The specific question of basis for selective trust in Carthage was asked twice and met both times with agree to disagree plus a restated circular criterion, not a real answer; the ensuing aporia shows no basis was ever supplied.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 36:53upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 2 points.
non sequitur (+2)
“I looked up the Eastern churches and there are forty fifty different branches.”
Diogenes: He runs the argument from disagreement a second time immediately after having it identified as fallacious, without answering the objection that disagreement bears on nobody's truth claim.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P has held throughout the cross-examination that the fact of ecclesial division and disagreement is itself evidence against any single tradition's claim to be uniquely correct, a position he never abandons despite being told repeatedly it is fallacious; this line is a direct continuation of that recurring move, not a one-off lapse, which supports treating it as a real and repeated (major) fault rather than a minor slip. Pastor P cites the multiplicity of Eastern Orthodox "branches" as though the mere existence of division counts against Jay's position, immediately after Jay explicitly named the fallacy ("that's a logical fallacy... the fact that people disagree has nothing to do with which one is true or false") — and Pastor P runs the same disagreement-implies-no-one-knows-truth move yet again without ever answering why disagreement bears on truth. This is the identical reasoning pattern this bench has already repeatedly credited Jay for correctly spotting as fallacious elsewhere in this debate (29:49, 32:31, 35:30, 46:54, 49:16, 53:53); crediting Pastor P with the corresponding sophist point for actually committing it here is the consistent counterpart.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "non sequitur". Pastor P raises the existence of "forty fifty different branches" of Eastern Christianity as if their number counts against Jay's position, but the mere multiplicity of branches does not establish which (if any) is false — this is the same disagreement-implies-no-truth move Jay had already named as a fallacy minutes earlier and immediately names again here ("You're going back to a fallacy. This has nothing to do with what's true or false").
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held since around 29:49 that the existence of disagreement between traditions bears on which is true, a move already identified as fallacious once in this debate; this line is not a new departure but a repetition of that same fallacious argument after having it named, which is what makes it a distinct, worse instance rather than a first offense. Just minutes after Jay explicitly identified the disagreement-implies-falsity move as a fallacy at 29:49-30:03, S1 runs the identical move again, citing the number of Eastern Orthodox branches as though multiplicity itself were evidence against Jay's position; Jay immediately flags it again in real time as going back to a fallacy, and the premise, that many branches exist, still does nothing to establish which, if any, is false.
- Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History at 42:33upheld
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 2 points.
tu quoque (+2)
“… as far as the Council of Carthage, you keep going back to that and I'm I'm almost sorry because it's it's because it's what you it's an arbitrary choice for you that that's the one that's right.”
Diogenes: He turns the arbitrariness charge back on an opponent who has said he accepts Carthage entire and as reaffirmed at Trullo and Nicaea II, while it is his own position that keeps one canon of that council and discards the rest — and it still leaves the question unanswered.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's declared position throughout is that he accepts Carthage's ruling on the New Testament canon while rejecting its Old Testament/Deuterocanon ruling, and when repeatedly pressed on why this selective acceptance is not arbitrary, this line deflects the charge back onto Jay rather than answering it. The transcript confirms Jay had explicitly disclaimed picking and choosing, stating he accepts Carthage's ruling in its totality as reaffirmed at Trullo and Nicaea II, while Pastor P himself had just conceded he accepts Carthage's New Testament list but not its Deuterocanon ruling; rather than supplying the non-arbitrary principle Jay was demanding, Pastor P answers the charge of arbitrariness by asserting, without support, that Jay's own choice is equally arbitrary — a textbook "you too" deflection that leaves the original question unanswered.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge", on the same ledger as the callout. By this point Jay has already asked several times, in several forms, why Carthage's canon decision should be trusted (e.g. "Why one that the church got it is Carthage right?" and "why should we follow that when you reject everything else that Carthage says?"). Rather than offering a principled answer here, Pastor P expresses weariness at the repetition ("you keep going back to that... I'm almost sorry") and then simply restates the bare assertion "the church gets it right sometimes" — a continuation of the same non-answer rather than a new response to the standing question.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pastor P has held since early in the exchange (34:26 onward) that he accepts Carthage's NT decision while rejecting its deuterocanonical OT canon, without ever supplying a non-circular principle for the split; this line continues that unresolved pattern by deflecting the arbitrariness charge onto Jay rather than finally answering it. Rather than answering Jay's repeated, still-unanswered question (why trust Carthage's New Testament list while rejecting its Old Testament/deuterocanon and other rulings), Pastor P deflects by accusing Jay of the same arbitrariness he's been charged with. But the transcript shows this doesn't land: Jay has explicitly stated he accepts Carthage "in its totality," as reaffirmed at Trullo and Nicaea II, including the deuterocanon — he is not the one picking and choosing from that council. It is Pastor P's own stated position (34:38-45) that keeps Carthage's NT list while discarding its OT canon. Turning the charge back on an opponent who has disclaimed the very fault, instead of answering it, is a textbook tu quoque.