Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #102742:07upheld S2 epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Speaker 2 earned 1 point.
“… you're gonna base a rule on the exception to the rule and put yourself in that sort of danger…”
Diogenes: He states the principle plainly (exceptions after an institution do not establish the norm), applies it with an analogy, and draws the conclusion, which is a direct answer to S1's Cornelius and thief-on-the-cross counterexamples.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has argued throughout alongside S0 for a sacramental, normative-means theology of baptism and the sacraments, and this line continues that same position by directly engaging S1's Cornelius/thief-on-the-cross counterexamples with a stated principle, an analogy, and a conclusion. The passage lays out a plain premise (exceptions predating or outside an institution do not overturn its normative rule), supports it with an analogy (cancer treatment), and draws an explicit conclusion, directly answering the counterexamples S1 had raised, which satisfies the elements of an explicit argument.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". S2 lays out premises plainly: baptism is the established normative means after its institution; a rare exception (Cornelius, prior to that institution per S0's earlier timeline point) cannot be used to found a general rule; illustrated by the cancer-treatment analogy; conclusion, that building doctrine on the exception rather than the rule is unsound and risky. This is a clearly stated premises-to-conclusion argument, not a jab standing in for one.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has consistently argued for the Orthodox sacramental/normative-means framework throughout the debate, and this line is a direct continuation and explicit defense of that position against S1's Cornelius/thief-on-the-cross challenges, not a departure. S2 lays out the premise that exceptions occurring before or after an institution cannot ground a normative rule, supports it with the cancer/specialist analogy, and concludes that basing doctrine on Cornelius or the thief on the cross as exceptions is unsound — this is a plainly stated argument with premises and conclusion answering S1's specific counterexamples.
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.