Appeal: evidence
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #10522:55:45upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“So that would be the critique critique of the Palmyrian [Palmyrene] creed, which is not his position, but on his position. I have the Ibn Taymiyyah book, oneness of God. I have the Sulaiman book, what we're talking about today with the quotes. So and then I've got all of the Hambali chapters in the Oxford Handbook.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Answering the charge that he has not read the tradition, he names four specific titles on air and holds them up rather than asserting his competence, and concedes in the same breath that four is short of the five asked for.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay declared from the opening that his critique rests on specific named texts (Suleiman, Ibn Taymiyyah's book, the Oxford Handbook) cited with page numbers, and this later moment of naming those same titles on camera is a continuation of that practice, not a departure. Jay had held throughout the debate (opening statement onward) that he grounds his critique of Ibn Taymiyyah's Salafi/Athari theology in specific texts (the Suleiman book with page citations, Ibn Taymiyyah's "oneness of God," the Oxford Handbook chapters), so naming these same titles here in response to a direct challenge is a continuation of his standing practice, not a new position. The line clearly separates the claim (I have read the tradition) from checkable evidence (specific named, held-up titles), which is exactly what the "evidence" category asks for.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Answering an audience dare to name his sources, Jay cites specific, checkable titles (Ibn Taymiyyah's "The Oneness of God," the Suleiman book he quoted throughout, the Oxford Handbook's Hanbali chapters) rather than merely asserting familiarity. This bears on the live credibility dispute Jake raised earlier in the debate, that Jay "just started reading about Ibn Taymiyyah... two weeks ago," giving checkable support instead of a bare claim.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay held throughout the debate (rebuttal one, closing) that he had done the substantive reading on Jake's tradition, against Jake's repeated charge that he only skimmed one book two weeks before the debate; this Q&A answer is a continuation of that same defense, not a new claim. Jay moves from the bare claim of having read the tradition to citing specific, checkable titles (the Ibn Taymiyyah "Oneness of God" book, the Suleiman book, Oxford Handbook chapters) held up on camera, which is exactly the claim-to-evidence distinction the label requires, and he does so on a live, recurring point of dispute about his preparation that Jake raised repeatedly across the debate.
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.