Appeal: evidence
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #108729:17overturned Ijaz Ahmad epainos: evidence (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“… the scribes of the bible, they don't see it that way, which is why they had to repeatedly change this word over several centuries. They clearly saw a problem with it. If there was no problem, why did the scribes change it?”
Diogenes: He answers Jay's "it is rhetoric" reading with a checkable manuscript claim — that copyists altered the clause — which is an argument from evidence rather than restatement.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that the New Testament text is unreliable/inauthentic due to scribal changes, and this line restates that standing claim; but restating the claim is not the same as substantiating it with a checkable source at this specific point, so the "evidence" label is not met here even though it is met elsewhere in the debate. The quoted line asserts that "scribes... repeatedly change this word" but names no specific manuscript, variant, or scholar at this point in the debate; it is a bare claim followed by a rhetorical question, not a citation of something checkable. The more specific citations (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, named textual critics) come later at ~38:47-38:56, not here. Read strictly, this line does not distinguish claim from evidence.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "loaded question". The rhetorical question "If there was no problem, why did the scribes change it?" smuggles in the disputed premise that scribes did in fact change the word, without citing a specific manuscript or variant at this point in the debate. Jay later objects that Ijaz "is just asserting these things... these are all assertions," and no specific textual evidence for this particular claim is ever supplied, so the question presupposes what it needed to prove.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S1's declared method includes textual critique of the New Testament, and he does elsewhere name specific manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus); but in this particular quote he offers no manuscript, scholar, or specific citation—only the bare assertion that "scribes changed" the text and that no textual critic disagrees. The line as quoted names no checkable manuscript, textual critic, or source, so it functions as an assertion of a controversial claim rather than "evidence" in the sense of citing something checkable; that bar is met by his manuscript-naming lines elsewhere in the debate but not by this one.
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.