Appeal: explicit argument
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #105928:41upheld Trent Horn epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Trent Horn earned 2 points.
“Either Jay is arguing from created things to god, and so he's doing natural theology, or he's arguing from the assumption God exists to created things in order to prove God exists, which is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.”
Diogenes: The dilemma that organises Trent's entire case is laid out with both horns stated and the consequence of each spelled out, so that it can be attacked directly.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Trent Horn opened defending natural theology as valid and warranted, and has held that position throughout; this dilemma is a direct expression of that standing case against presuppositionalism, not a new or inconsistent move. Trent lays out a clean dilemma with two exhaustive horns and states the consequence of each (natural theology or circularity), which is a plainly stated premises-to-conclusion argument that he then presses throughout the rest of the debate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Trent states a clear dilemma with premises and conclusion: Jay's presuppositionalism either reasons from creation to God (which is natural theology) or reasons from an assumed God to creation (circular reasoning). This structured argument is pressed through the cross-examination and later gets Jay to concede circularity "at this level," showing it did real argumentative work rather than merely asserting a false choice.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Trent declared from the opening that natural theology should not be rejected and that presuppositionalism collapses into either natural theology or circularity; this dilemma is the central engine of that case, stated plainly with both horns and their consequences, and he returns to it repeatedly (cross-ex, second rebuttal, closing) — a clear explicit argument, not a departure from anything. This is a textbook explicit argument: two exhaustive premises (the dilemma's horns) each paired with a stated logical consequence, forming the structural core of Trent's rebuttal case that he presses throughout 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.