Appeal: misrepresentation
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #109741:57upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou psogos: misrepresentation (+2)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou gave away 2 points.
“I just wanna emphasize that they did not address the trinity at all. We addressed all of their complaints against the Quran, against monotheism, against Tahit. They haven't even started to defend the trinity.”
Diogenes: Jay had already answered the two-minds objection with the two-natures/one-person distinction and Basil's Letter 234, and had given a reading of Mark 13:32, so "did not address the trinity at all" contradicts the transcript, and this is the third time he has said it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Daniel has held since the opening that the Trinity must be explained plainly or it remains unaddressed/incoherent, but restating "they haven't addressed it at all" after Jay's repeated substantive attempts (two-natures framework, Basil citation, rhetorical reading of Mark 13:32) goes beyond judging those answers inadequate to denying they were given at all. Daniel's opening thesis was that the Trinity is contradictory unless explained in plain, non-technical terms to a layperson, and he has consistently pressed that bar. But the categorical claim "they did not address the trinity at all... haven't even started to defend the trinity" is checkable against the record and is false: Jay had already offered the two-natures/one-person distinction with a shared divine mind and human mind (25:18), invoked Basil's Letter 234 on the rhetorical reading of "no one is good but God," and applied the same exaggeration/rhetoric analysis to Mark 13:32 (25:18-26:01). Whatever one thinks of the adequacy of those answers, saying flatly that the opponents "did not address" and "haven't even started" to defend the Trinity states something the transcript shows is not true, and this is the third time Daniel has made this categorical claim despite the intervening explanations — that repetition after correction is what tips this from rhetorical hyperbole into misrepresentation.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Daniel's claim that Sam and Jay "haven't even started to defend the trinity" is contradicted by the record: Jay had already offered a direct attempt to resolve the very two-minds problem Daniel's opening posed, explaining that Christ "shares a divine mind with the father" while having "limitations in his human mind" (25:18-25:35), and would go on to press the distinct-but-not-separate parallel again shortly after this line (43:46). Whether or not that explanation succeeds, it is a defense that was offered, so declaring that no defense was even attempted mischaracterizes what the transcript shows occurred.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Daniel has held since the opening that the Trinity is incoherent and that Christians evade the contradiction; a claim that Jay's specific answer failed to resolve it would fit that stance, but flatly denying any defense was attempted departs from the record. Jay had already given a substantive answer at 25:18, the two natures one person Christology explaining the two minds issue and citing Basil Letter 234, and had addressed Mark 13:32 as rhetorical exaggeration, and Daniel himself had just disputed that very answer. Saying they did not address the trinity at all and have not even started contradicts what the transcript shows occurred.
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.