Appeal: evidence
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10222:03:22upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“Hans Urs von Balthasar, he reads Maximus a confessor through a Thomistic lens to try to make it, mesh with Thomism. ... Even Christian Kopis, their top uniate scholar, theologian admits you can't mesh these two. There's no way to mesh essence energy between Palamas and Aquinas.”
Diogenes: He supports the abstract claim that patristic reading is paradigm-laden with named, checkable cases, including a scholar from the opposing side conceding the point.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with Jay's standing argument throughout the exchange that interpretation of the Fathers is paradigm-laden; here he substantiates that recurring claim with named, checkable examples rather than merely asserting it again. Jay grounds his abstract claim that patristic reading is paradigm-dependent with specific, checkable named cases (Balthasar's Thomistic reading of Maximus, Christiaan Kappes as a named uniate scholar conceding the Palamas/Aquinas essence-energy mismatch), which is a genuine distinction of claim from citable evidence.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than resting on bare assertion, Jay Dyer cites specific, checkable scholarly positions (Hans Urs von Balthasar's Thomist reading of Maximus, and Uniate scholar Christiaan Kappes's admission that Palamite essence-energy and Thomism cannot be reconciled) as evidence for his claim that patristic readings are paradigm-dependent.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has maintained throughout that patristic texts are read through rival, non-neutral paradigms; here he supports that general claim with specific, checkable named cases (Balthasar's Thomist reading of Maximus, Kopiec's admission that Palamas and Aquinas can't be reconciled), which is a direct extension of his standing argument, not a new claim. Naming specific scholars and their documented positions as support for the abstract claim of paradigm-dependence is exactly the distinction between claim and checkable evidence the category requires.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.