Appeal: direct answer
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #108323:43upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou earned 1 point.
“God having a hand does not mean that the hand has its own mind, that the hand is its own entity, its own god, its own person.”
Diogenes: He meets Sam's reductio with a stated distinction — attributes are not minds or persons — which is the relevant disanalogy to the Trinity charge rather than a dismissal.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's opening thesis held that Islamic attributes are not separate persons/minds unlike the Trinity's persons; this line restates and defends that same distinction against Sam's specific "115 persons" reductio, not a new or evasive move. Sam's opening had explicitly framed the hand/shin/loins material as implying "a 115 divine persons or divine beings" — S2's line directly answers that specific claim by drawing the relevant distinction (attribute ≠ separate mind/entity/person), which is responsive to the charge as actually made, even though other threads of Sam's challenge (embodiment/space) remain separately addressed elsewhere.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". In response to Sam's charge that Allah's hand, shin, etc. entail a plurality of divine persons, Daniel directly addresses the point by drawing the relevant distinction: possessing an attribute like a hand does not entail that the attribute is a separate mind or person, unlike the Trinitarian claim of distinct minds. This meets the actual objection rather than sidestepping it, even though Sam continues to press the point in later rounds.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's position of record since the opening is that Islamic monotheism has no parallel to the Trinity's contradiction because attributes are not separate persons/minds; here he directly engages Sam's opening reductio about Allah's hand/body parts with that same distinction, consistent with his stated framework. Sam's opening posed the body-parts challenge as an implicit demand to explain how this squares with tawhid, and S2 responds substantively with the relevant distinction (attribute vs. mind/person) rather than deflecting, which is a direct answer consistent with his declared position throughout.
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.