Appeal: direct answer
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #108830:43upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou earned 2 points.
“… in chapter 36 verse 65, we read in the Quran, on that day, we shall seal up their mouths, but their hands will speak to us, and their feet bear witness to everything they have done. Does that mean that our hands and feet have minds?”
Diogenes: He answers the interceding-suras narration with a cited parallel from his own scripture showing that speech is predicated of non-minded things, which directly attacks the inference Sam's trilemma depends on.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's opening and consistent position was that Islamic attributes/references are not separate minds or persons unlike the Trinity's persons; this line defends that same position against Sam's specific challenge, not a new or shifted claim. Daniel directly engages the substance of Sam's interceding-suras argument by producing a parallel case from the same source-type (Qur'an 36:65) where speech is predicated of non-minded body parts, attacking the very inference (personification/speech implies mind) that Sam's argument depended on. This is a genuine responsive engagement, not evasion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. In answering Sam's charge that a personified, interceding Qur'an implies separate minds, Daniel cites a specific, checkable verse (Qur'an 36:65) where hands and feet speak and testify, using it as a parallel case of personification without implied minds. This grounds his rebuttal in a citable text rather than bare assertion, directly engaging the point Sam had raised.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's consistent method throughout the theology round is to counter Sam's "interceding suras" argument by citing scriptural personification (hands/feet/stones speaking) as not implying separate minds; this quote is that exact move, matching his position from his first response to Sam onward. This is a substantive, on-point rebuttal to Sam's inference that speaking/interceding entities must have separate minds, citing a specific checkable Qur'anic verse as a parallel, consistent with S2's sustained line of defense.
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.