Response to Jay Dyer on Protestantism

Responding to Jay Dyer on Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today I have a returning guest. I think I've already had him on twice, I think that twice so far, and I've greatly enjoyed having him on.

Paul Facey. I have him on to kind of interact with, if you guys saw the thumbnail, I want him to interact with some of Jay Dyer's objections to Protestantism within the context of kind of an informal conversation.

If you guys are familiar with Jay, he's a popular Eastern Orthodox apologist and debater and he often has a segment on his channel where he just opens up the phone lines and a bunch of people call in, whether they're Protestants or Catholics or whatever, and he interacts with them.

Sometimes it's kind of just a generic like Q &A, other times people call in to debate him and things like that. And so what we're going to be doing here is we're going to be playing a segment from his show where a Protestant or evangelical, I should say, whatever that means, okay, an evangelical Christian who fancies himself as a debater calls in.

And let's just say he doesn't do very well. It is clear that Jay is dominating the conversation. I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean he obviously knows how to interact with some of these like pop Protestant claims and objections and so I think he did from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, I think he did a fine job just pushing back on really not very good points of response by the evangelical caller.

So my goal here is to have Paul interact with this discussion and hopefully teach our listeners here, our Protestant listeners, how you might interact with an Eastern Orthodox person and how to have these kinds of conversations and interact with some of the claims and counterpoints that you know you might hear in these sorts of discussions.

I want to point this out before I invite Paul. This is not the best representative, okay, of the evangelical side by any means or we say the Protestant side, nor does this give Jay in this small clip an opportunity to unpack all of the details as to why he thinks Eastern Orthodoxy is true.

If you want to know why he thinks it's true and listen to his arguments, you guys can check that out on his own channel. He's got a lot of videos that cover his own position. But for tonight, I want to use this as an opportunity for Paul to interact in this specific context and hopefully it'll be informative as to how one might interact with a proponent of Eastern Orthodoxy.

But before we do that, I would like to remind people January 21st is this Saturday. We are having the epic online Calvinism conference. I will be speaking on the topic of Calvinism versus Molinism. James White will be speaking on various problematic texts that come up within the Calvinism debate.

Scott Christensen, who authored two books, I don't remember the title off the top of my head, but they're excellent. One's in defense of compatibilistic freedom and another one has to do with God and evil and suffering from a Calvinist perspective.

Dr. Guillaume Bignon is going to be covering the importance of analogies. How do we use analogies properly when we're debating the issue of Calvinism with our non-Calvinist friends? How do we respond to non-Calvinism?

That means people are puppets, these sorts of things. Dr. Bignon is going to be presenting on that topic and Saiten Bruggenkade is going to be talking about the defense of Calvinism from the street-level approach when you have these sorts of discussions and debates, kind of like in regular conversation.

So if you want to sign up for that, that is on Saturday, January 21st from 1030 to 430, so it's a whole day thing with some breaks in between. You can sign up for that on revealedapologetics .com. Click the pre-sub you drop-down menu and you could RSVP your spot there.

It's a way to support Revealed Apologetics and I think it really is going to be an epic conference where at the end you could interact with each of the speakers. So that's January 21st. The last day to sign up for that is on Thursday by 1130 p .m.

So you want to make sure, if you're interested in that, you want to make sure you head over to the website and sign up. All right, well without further ado, I would like to welcome my guest and Australian buddy, the other Paul.

How's it going, man? Going great, mate. It.

Is a very fine early Australian afternoon, nice and sunny and we finally have a, at least where I am, a half-decent cool breeze because almost the whole summer it's been both hot and really muggy, which is bad, but heat plus a breeze, best feeling ever.

So it's going well so far. Hmm, excellent, very good.

Well, dude, I am so happy to have you back on. Every single time you've been on, I've learned so much and I've got positive feedback and so again, I want to kind of give a shout out again to your channel.

I'm not a huge channel, but my channel is larger than yours, so I'm gonna use my larger size of my channel to influence the people who listen to my channel to go over to your channel. Even real quick, if you have to click away for two seconds, go to the other Paul YouTube channel and please, please, please subscribe.

I think it's very important what you're doing. Protestants need to be equipped with knowledge of church history and they need to be able to know how to respond to the claims of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and related issues, so highly recommend you guys go over to his channel and please subscribe.

I want, you guys do me this favor, I want to hear tomorrow from Paul in his Australian accent, bro, I got a bunch of subscribers, thank you so much. I want to hear that because I think folks that are doing what he's doing need that support, so please, please, please, please do that.

All right, well, now I'm gonna stop making your head big and we're.

Gonna... Hey, I'm happy that I helped you learn and that you're promoting the heck out of me, thank you so much, it means a lot. Okay, well, well let's jump right in.

So we're gonna be looking at a call-in to Jay's show and this person identifies themselves as an evangelical and of course we can, we know how Eastern Orthodox folks and even Roman Catholics tend to view evangelicals and Protestants in a certain light, and so I want people to keep that in mind because I think Jay is going to do a good job pushing on the presuppositions of this caller, and of course because this caller really is not equipped to interact with these issues from that perspective, I don't think he does a very good job, so hopefully we can use this as kind of a sketch, if you will, not a sketch, but kind of just like a guideline as to how we should interact when having these kinds.

Of conversations. Does that make sense? Yep, makes plenty of sense, absolutely.

Necessary. All right, so let's, let's do this here. So I'm gonna share this on the screen here and then we're gonna jump right in, and now when this is playing I won't be able to see you, Paul, but I will stop the video when I think it's worthy of stopping or I will listen for your voice, you can let me know, hey, stop right.

There, and then we'll stop, okay? Yep, sounds good. All right, let's start. We.

Can start with this cool synthwave opening. I actually like those, I like.

Synthwave, but nevertheless. Hey, can you hear me? Yes, sir. First, thank you for taking my call. Mm-hmm. How you doing? Did you know I was a Protestant debater? Did I know what? Did you know I'm a Protestant debater?

Is that why you saved me for last? I didn't save you for last, I mean it just comes up in the.

Queue, so I have no idea who you are. Okay, no, I was just wondering, I thought maybe you want to close out the stream with a bang. I mean, is it gonna be a bang? I don't know, you tell me. Okay, somebody is.

I'm not gonna lie, I'm not gonna lie, that's my favorite part. Jay's face is so funny, because he, I mean, it's just coming in randomly for him, he's like, I have no idea.

All right, first thing, okay, I want to comment on a whole range of things, both on the argument side, the presupposition side, and the rhetoric side, and off the gate, oh my word, you don't, oh man, with any, when you're going against any competent, informal debater, especially Dyer, who is really, really good at controlling the conversation and making you look bad, you don't open up with hubris.

I mean, unless you are also a God debater and can turn things around, which this guy, as people will say, is not, he's literally a random guy, no offense to him, it's just conservation. You don't, no, no, right off the gate, really bad move, really, really bad move, because that's automatically, because I've actually been in one or two of these open call things, like just mainly observing, I actually called him once, but it's not just Jay and like one or two other people.

There's a, there's a bunch of people watching the same time. And so when you open like that, and you get diffused immediately, right at the start, your reputation in the eyes of Jay and everybody watching, which is for other people watching is especially important, because you're, maybe you won't convince Dyer, but your aim is to convince other people, your reputation just drops, like, right that within the, within the first 10 seconds, it's gone.

So don't do that, please just don't do that. That's the first thing.

Well, you gotta love, you gotta love. Jay's laid back, like, he's just like, yeah, they're gonna be a bang.

He handles it smooth as well. That's, that's a good thing. But he's like, okay, sure. Like, it's nothing.

All right.

Okay.

That's actually, that's actually helpful, even though we haven't gotten to any content yet. Here's step one, when engaging anyone, not just in Eastern, Eastern North America, don't come across as kind of a, a prideful kind of like, you know, you're coming off as, looking down your nose, so to speak.

Right.

Did you know I'm a debater?

Yeah.

Are you aware of this? Were you, did you, oh, is that why you saved me for last?

He was like, no, no, you're just in the cubo.

All right.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

I apologize.

I'm sure this person is really nice. I have no idea who this person is. This is a good example as to how not to start a conversation, but we're going to, we're going to continue.

Yep.

Patients you gave about Protestant theology earlier. Um, we can talk about natural theology or sociology. Um, and you also mentioned issues with the biblical canon. So which of those would you like to discuss?

Uh, let's you, you pick whatever you want to talk about. It's, uh, in open forum, we give you guys the floor so you can make whatever arguments you want.

All right.

So, so the sociology, uh, sociology of the Protestant, uh, we can start there. We'll start there just cause we have.

All right.

I'm going to stop right there. Uh, I think this is an important thing to keep in mind too. And maybe you can kind of, uh, give folks advice when you have the opportunity to speak with an Eastern Orthodox person or a Roman Catholic person, where do you think is the appropriate place to start.

When the person opens it up to you to start wherever you want a, surely it's not a coin toss. You should really know where to start so that you could have a meaningful, um, discussion.

Uh, yeah, that will, that will depend on the topic. Um, I think if it's going to be, it's going to depend if you're going to try it, if you want to have a debate on an external critique versus an internal critique.

So if it's going to be an internal critique, you could kind of like pick your poison, you know, it's like, Oh, well, Orthodoxy, you guys claim this, like for the big, the big one today, especially you guys claim this about icon of Julia was always held by the fathers, but your own patristic testimony shows us wrong.

How do you make sense of that? Otherwise, though, if you're trying to attack, if you're trying to come externally and attack the system, I refute the system itself, really the only thing that's going to, that's going to be, um, that's going to be fruitful at all is the core foundation, the core foundational claims of authority itself, the authority of the alleged consensus of the fathers and various topics.

And as I emphasize alleged quite strongly, um, uh, the authority of so-called ecumenical councils, um, with, with Romanists will be the papacy as well. Um, so on those core foundational claims that really do, uh, they're the only ones that really matter in the ultimate sense.

Uh, and so if you're going to do an external debate, you don't, don't come in and say, Oh, Jay, you Orthodox, uh, you guys believe, uh, that justifications by faith and work, but how do you explain Paul saying this in Romans three and four, blah, blah, blah.

And that can work to an extent just from arguing from the text. Cause, um, at least as far as from what I've seen with Jay, he doesn't, he doesn't often, in fact, I don't think I have yet seen it from him.

Um, going the whole epistemic nihilism thing like, Oh, you, you can't even interpret the.

Text without the church.

No, he's more common sense.

See, that was a really good, I'm famous for that.

I am.

I am very famous.

That was actually awesome.

Yeah.

So you're approaching the text from a, you're a silly, uh, Protestant priest oppositions and, uh, it's a classical foundationalism and yeah, I'm pretty, I've.

Gotten through, this is part of my claim to fame.

Yes.

My, okay. That, that your cool points just, uh, just went up there. So, so now my, so some of my questions, so the caller wants to start with soteriology. Do you think that's, that's, that's an appropriate place to start if you're talking with an Eastern Orthodox, uh,.

To an, to an extent. So this is the external thing like, um, with Dyer and with other Orthodox who take seriously that texts have meaning and they can be understood, you can get to a degree, but eventually you'll reach a point where even if the most, even the most ideal thing where you totally demonstrate your case just from the text alone, um, some Orthodox possibly even Dyer himself would say, well, your, your interpretation ultimately wrong.

Cause the church says otherwise. So whatever arguments you bring doesn't matter. The church says otherwise. And so that's ultimately where it could be futile. It could not all Orthodox are like that. I'm actually talking with an author who who's taking that more seriously and may, um, I won't spill any details, but may actually be reconsidering where he is because of direct issues of evidence and not just flouting all the church's authority.

So it can work, but a, an Orthodox or a Romanist or anyone from another tradition who knows what they're talking about, um, will eventually, whether later on or just right from the start, say, no, we have totally different presuppositions on what a correct interpretation is.

And so this debate will be fruitless. Um, so you're having a really, really big gamble. If you start with a non foundational issue, if you're going for an external critique, otherwise in an internal critique though, you can go for almost anything if you can demonstrate an inconsistency, if that makes sense.

Yep.

That makes perfect sense.

Okay.

Let's, let's continue.

Okay.

I want to draw out the scriptures. You made fun of imputed righteousness earlier and you inadvertently, you may have not realized this, but the word imputed is used about five times.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it means what you think it means.

So, so yeah.

Do you know what the word, you know, the word concept policy is?

Right, right.

No, no, I'm not, I'm not making the word concept policy.

No, I'm asking if you know what it is though.

Yeah.

If the word means this, it has to mean this one thing in every context.

So it's texts are interpreted, right? So the fact that imputed is used does not mean that the classical Protestant definition of imputed righteousness is true.

And that flips around to you because it can be in the use that I'm using it. It can be that.

It can't be that if you are.

Okay.

I'll, I'll look at that.

I'll briefly comment on that last bit where he talks about trinity. He doesn't go into detail with that. So if you got priest up things you want to mention about that, but otherwise, um, Jay's right. Jay's totally in the right.

Um, because the guy claimed he came up to say like, Oh, you, you reject imputed righteousness, but, uh, did you know that imputation is used five times in the new Testament, utterly debunked, destroyed L take the Coke.

Um, but, and, and then, uh, and Jay's like, well, that's a word concept policy and he's like, I know what it is. I didn't use a word concept policy. Yes, you did. Yes, you did. At least that was very much the trajectory of what you were doing.

Uh, don't do that. Don't do that. I genuinely do believe that an argument for imputation can be made, um, not entirely, but a good portion of it can be made from the very word use. So like the keyword would be log hits on my, uh, I reckon, or I, uh, I consider something or I count it one way.

Um, that argument can be made, but not merely because all that word is used. That's that's, that's not going to work. So Jay's totally right. Word concept fallacy. Uh, the guy did use it, even if he claimed he didn't.

Um, and then he did, and he did the weird, and he did the weird thing. Um, Jay said, um, Jay said, that's a word concept fallacy. So just because the words used for your position doesn't mean your position's.

Right.

And the guys, and then the guy replied, Oh, but it doesn't mean yours either. So what? So Jay, that wasn't Jay's argument. Jay wasn't saying you're, you're using a word concept fallacy. Therefore my interpretation of the words, correct.

That's, that's not what he's doing. He wasn't going into his interpretation. He was just showing that yours is not automatically correct just because he uses a certain word that is translated as imputation in English.

Right.

That's, that's, that's a big key thing as well. Cause Paul didn't write the word, literal word impute. He wrote the word, look, he's online. There's translation involved.

That's the problem.

Um, so yeah, off the bat, very bad start, very bad start. Um, and then I guess briefly comment, um, where Jay said it can't be a imputation because that would be a denial of the Trinity. Um, not, I'm not fully, fully versed in this, all the specific nuances of how Jay goes to those arguments.

It is very much a precept based thing. He tries to argue from the logic of the Trinity and the, the inter-trinitarian life that certain Protestant, uh, certain Protestant beliefs such as, uh, imputation.

And that I simply denied because otherwise they'll step into this heresy or that heresy basically play the, basically spin the heresy wheel and then just pick out your heresy. That very common tactic, very common tactic in the author world.

Um, but to Jay's credit, he does try to demonstrate it, even though I think it is quite stretched a lot of the time. Um, but yes, that's, uh, that's yeah. Don't do that. Don't do. Word concept fallacy.

Jay's right here. Um, do you have anything to say?

No, I think that's, uh, that's excellent. And I don't want to add too much cause then I don't want to get bogged down with like presuppositionalism and stuff like that. I want to be able to kind of just interact with the conversation.

But, uh, if something pops out at me, maybe I'll, I'll share my thoughts, but, uh, let's continue.

Well, let me explain to you why, because you, again, you misrepresented.

The way that I haven't misrepresented. I was a Calvinist, a seminary student. There's nothing I misrepresented.

Okay.

Uh, this is the first big from diet.

Okay.

Um, you went to a, you went to a protestant Calvinist seminary. You're trained there. Um, okay. Who cares? Literally who cares that all that proves is that you have experienced these things. You have interacted with these views.

That's definitely no guarantee. They accurately representing them. One can point to any number of people who are accredited or ordained or went to seminary, any field, and they shockingly misrepresent things.

Father perfect example, which the, um, online ortho bros love to go on about. I haven't seen J. Dyer specific responses to it, but many other authors in his sphere, um, father Joshua Shooping, former Orthodox priest went to seminary, did long, a good long while as an Orthodox priest.

Um, so really further along the line than, than Dyer was, but in the Orthodox world, and yet many Orthodox will very have very, very often, uh, impugned him with misrepresenting Eastern Orthodoxy.

Sure.

And now pastor shooping, he can't just say, Oh, well, I was trained in a seminary. Therefore I'm right. And I'm, and I'm not misrepresenting things. That's not, that's not how this works. That, that literally doesn't matter.

You could, you could go all the way up to PhD level and still bungle even basic.

It's like the used to be, I used to be a Christian and be like, yeah, exactly. I used to be a Christian. And then they, yeah, exactly, exactly. Belief and be way, way off. Now grant in defense of Jay, there are other videos in his, uh, you know, on his channel where he explains why he doesn't hold to Calvinism, but then you need to be able to listen to his reasons and see if he's accurately representing it.

Um, and if his rebuttals, um, actually hold any water. So, uh, just to let me, he has addressed these issues. It's really an issue of whether, you know, you think he's handling the, uh, the issues.

Yeah, that's it. That's I haven't gone majorly deep into it, but at least, at least from certain things, I would say that, no, he's not representing things right. There's a really, really good video on the channel, small guy, small guys channel.

So, uh, Hey, if he's watching this and he gets a nice sub boost, you're welcome. Uh, but Puritan posts, he made this big, like 15 minute response to Jay Dyer's video, 10 reasons why I'm not a Protestant and basically just thoroughly cut through a lot of it, whether it's statements of fact and claims that he would just refute from Dyer.

Um, I don't go, uh, so either that or multiple instances of like misrepresentation or just not understanding the sources properly. Um, so there, there is at least from, uh, from my seeing with that and with other things I have seen with Dyer where he does misunderstand things, but that's, that's immaterial to this.

Um, it's simply the claim that I went to a Calvinist or whatever seminary, um, that doesn't mean anything. That it doesn't, it doesn't. But yes, as you say, he does try to demonstrate his understanding in other videos.

So it's not like we're expecting him to do that here, but yeah, that, that argument doesn't work. Um, yeah, that's what I'd say.

All right.

I already see a super chat coming in. Um, I usually will kind of just put them on the screen right away and I really appreciate that. Thank you so much, Jay Athanasius. Uh, we're already towards the backend, but I do appreciate that.

I'll just put it up for now just to give them a shout out and then we'll address it later. So Jay Athanasius, thank you for your $10 super chat. Thank you for your support. I really appreciate it. But we'll, we'll get to your question a little bit towards the backend.

I hope you.

Fun fact, if you're not aware already in stream yard, when you look in the comments on the side, you can put a star on them and that'll put them into a separate star thing on the side so that you don't have to scroll all the way back up there, just right there.

Look at that. I I've been using stream yard and I am still a stream yard rookie, but nevertheless, let's continue.

Goal reformation doctrine of imputation.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm not talking about Calvinism. I'm talking about evangelical Christianity, biblical Christianity.

Okay.

Well, uh, how do you know that you're the biblical Christianity? I mean, wouldn't the classical reformers have a better claim to that than you?

Well, we got to stop them really fast here. Now this is the first, the first appearance of a very common tactic of very confident and skilled debaters, especially informal debaters like Dyer, um, where immediately take the reins of the conversation and ask you the question.

So it's not a debate anymore. It's an interrogation. Um, notice how this guy was wanting to come here. He wanted to debate something like soteriology or whatever. Um, and then, uh, Jay was like, no, I went to this Calvinist seminary or whatever.

So I understand the thing. And then the guy comes back. Um, no, I'm not Calvinist. I'm evangelical, which is no, please, please. Even that is hopelessly vague because there are Calvinist evangelicals.

There's Calvinist Armenians. There's Calvinist Pelagian. I mean, uh, provisionists. Um, so there's all these, there's, it doesn't mean anything that, that really doesn't mean anything so bad mood by him.

But, uh, what Jay ended up doing and what he does very frequently do is now he's seen the vagueness, he has seen the weakness, he has smell blood in the water. And then he immediately grabbed that and use that to change to now take hold and take the debate topic somewhere else.

So the guy wanted to debate soteriology. And then as soon as he said that really silly vagueness thing, um, rather than do what I genuinely think would be the more, um, honest thing to do and just say, maybe give like a snide comment, like, um, that's vague, but okay.

Give you a case. Instead, Jay took as an opportunity to say, oh, whoa, evangelical, but don't the reformed have better, uh, claim or have a better claim over the new of being the Bible believing Protestants.

Um, fair question.

Very fair question. Because just saying you're an evangelical, what on earth does that mean?

Right.

But not what this guy wanted to debate. Now, Jay has solidified. He has sunk his claws into debate and now he has taken control of it all. And that will define everything else that comes to you.

Right.

That's.

And I think from a debating perspective, it is a shift of the topic, but they're not formally debating. It's a phone call, but he did give the caller the option to pick a topic he wanted to discuss. So you do have a subtle shift.

And, and I think from a debate perspective, I think it's important to kind of learn something. What Jay is doing, which I think is useful in debate is he identifies a weakness and now he's going to pound on it and there is an appropriate context, definitely for that.

Um, but of course, if you're debating something or discussing something, you want to stay on topic, you want to be careful and he gave the guy the.

Impression, like if, if they, if he didn't give that impression, fair enough. It's like, whoever's the, basically it's mind makes right. In these kinds of debates, you can't say, Oh, that's mean. Well, that's kind of normal, too bad in these kinds of informal settings.

Right.

And he called in the show. So exactly.

Yeah.

He did give the guy the impression he can, we can debate what you want. And then suddenly bang. Jay's taking control of it.

All right.

Let's let's continue.

Well, that's what you think. That's what you think, but I don't think that, I think that's a heresy.

So, okay.

So let's, let's go to the common ground we have, which is the inspired scriptures.

So when we go to the, I don't think you have the right scriptures.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

You don't have the right scriptures.

What do you mean? I don't have the right scriptures.

I don't believe you have the right canon of scripture. So you don't even have that.

Do you believe in the 27 books of the new Testament?

I don't believe in the 27 books of the new Testament.

I do, but I also believe in the deuterocanon.

Okay.

Well, we can leave out the old Testament.

Let's deal with it.

All right.

Let's stop.

I mean, we're going to leave it.

Okay.

All right. Yep. Um, so again, furthering that thing. Um, but also on the evangelical guy's side, he does not know who he's interacting with. He does not know the depth of these issues. This is why I warned at the beginning, like with these kinds of things you want to have, um, well, I kind of alluded to it, but to make it more explicit, you want to have a grip.

On the foundational problems. You can't just come in and assume, Hey, Hey, Jay, let's go to our common ground.

The Holy scriptures.

No, they, okay. A bunch of the scriptures. I think Jay does go a bit overboard there. There is common ground. There is the majority of our canons, whatever author canon he holds to, because there is no single author canon, which I think he, he doesn't really, uh, well other times he does bring that up.

But then over here, he says, you don't have the right canon implying that there is a single, the right one, which is weird. And he says there is the due to our canon, which is not, not a thing like the, those extra books, some accepted more, some accepted less.

It's not a single collection, but whatever, whatever. Um, the, the problem, the evangelical guy does not know the fact that the foundational issues, he does not have a good grip on them. He just assumed there was this common ground.

And then now that Jay just came out and pointed out, I know we don't have this common ground, at least not to a big extent. Now the guys entire floor just got ripped out of under him. You can notice that the guy pause a little bit when Jay gave that comeback, uh, his entire, the, the floor, the rug's been pulled from right under him.

Now he is, uh, he, he, he made the mistake before from, uh, by giving into Jay's attempt to change the debate topic. Um, that's an unfortunately very common thing for people who are inexperienced at dating, debating, dating, debating.

I've experienced it myself. Um, but an experienced guy would have been able to say, well, hang on, let's not change the topic. Let's keep on task. And maybe they have a tussle on that, but whatever, but he already gave into that.

So he kind of already, uh, gave Jay the license and the implicit, okay, you control this. We'll go where you want. But now that's been fully set in now that Jay has pulled out the very foundational rug, the guy wanted to try and, uh, rely on.

And so now he's just in, he's entirely beholden to the guy Jay who knows who appears, I don't know the guy's knowledge, but he appears to just know orders of magnitude more than this other guy. Now Jay has just taken the reins entirely.

Um, it's, it's, it's the debate's done already. There's more to go, but it's, it's done at this point.

And I have to point out just from, again, I have to, uh, acknowledge this. I still think it's useful is the way that Jay carries himself, at least in this context, the confidence and what he says it almost the confidence actually made the caller apologize.

For something that you didn't have to, you know, he's like, well, I went to Calvin is, Oh, I'm sorry. Like you don't have to apologize, but there is, there is a, um, Jay knows very much how to dominate both with content.

Cause he's very familiar. He's very knowledgeable of these issues and the way he carries himself. So from a debate perspective, you want to be able to recognize that in someone else, but also be careful not to allow that to take advantage of the fact that you still need to talk about the issues.