Appeal: direct answer
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #103846:20upheld Muslim Lantern epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Muslim Lantern earned 2 points.
“Whoever agrees with the Quran, we believe that is therefore accepted and true. Whatever disagrees, we reject. Whoever doesn't agree or disagree, we are agnostic about it. That is the Islamic position given by the prophet and the Quran.”
Diogenes: Asked three times for the criterion by which biblical passages are sorted, he states the criterion plainly, including the third case of suspended judgment, rather than evading.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since early in the debate ("we confirm what agrees, reject what disagrees") that the Qur'an is the filter over prior scripture; this statement is a plain, fuller articulation of that same standing criterion, including the previously-unstated third case of suspended judgment, not a new or evasive move. S0's repeated question was "what is your epistemic criterion for sorting true from corrupted biblical passages," and S2 states the criterion plainly — agreement with Qur'an/hadith accepts, disagreement rejects, neither yields agnosticism. That the criterion is itself vulnerable to a circularity charge (which S0 raises separately and which may earn S0 a "fallacy spotted" elsewhere) does not make this any less a direct answer to the literal question posed; direct answer credits responsiveness, not validity.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "begging the question". Jay had repeatedly asked what the epistemic criterion is for judging which parts of the Bible (or any scripture) are true versus corrupted; here S2's answer is that whatever agrees with the Quran is accepted and whatever disagrees is rejected. As a criterion for judging the Bible this can be non-circular if the Quran's own truth is independently established, but when this same principle is offered (as it is here and moments later) as the answer to "how do you know the Quran itself is true," it just assumes the Quran's veracity to prove the Quran's veracity, without naming any independent check at this point in the exchange.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's recorded position since the opening has been that the Qur'an functions as criterion (furqan) over prior scripture, confirming what agrees and rejecting what conflicts; when S0 presses him three times for the precise sorting criterion, this line states that standing position as an explicit rule (agree/disagree/agnostic) rather than deflecting. S0's repeated question was "what is your criterion for sorting true from corrupted passages," and this line names the criterion plainly and completely, including the suspended-judgment case; whether that criterion is itself circular (as S0 goes on to argue) is a separate matter from whether the question actually asked was answered, and here it was.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. S2's recorded first principle from the outset is that "the Qur'an is a criterion over prior scriptures, confirming that earlier prophets and revelations existed without endorsing the present corrupted texts" — and the quoted line simply states that standing position as an explicit three-way rule (accept/reject/agnostic) in response to a question asked three times. Judged against his own declared framework rather than smuggled back into a separate question about the Qur'an's own warrant, this is squarely responsive to "what is your criterion for sorting true from corrupted biblical passages," which is the question the record shows was actually asked; whether that criterion is itself vulnerable to a circularity charge is a distinct matter Jay pursues separately and does not make this reply any less direct.
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.