Appeal: dodge
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #110149:18overturned Sam Shamoun psogos: dodge (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“What's your position? What do you believe…”
Diogenes: Daniel asked repeatedly how God having a hand contradicts monotheism — the actual topic of the round — and Sam answers only with a further demand about Daniel's school, never connecting the anthropomorphism charge to oneness.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Sam has held since the opening that any hand/shin/foot/loins language in Islamic sources entails an embodied, spatially-located, finite deity incompatible with a transcendent single creator, and this exchange is consistent with pressing that same standing argument rather than a departure into non-answer. Sam's standing method since the opening is internal critique keyed to what the anthropomorphic texts actually say (hand, shin, foot, loins), and his consistent argument — repeated across multiple rounds — is that an embodied deity with such parts cannot also be the timeless, spaceless creator of all space, which is itself a direct answer to "how does a hand contradict monotheism/coherent divine unity." His question here ("What's your position? What do you believe") is a legitimate follow-up tied to Daniel's own move of citing multiple schools (Ashari vs. Salafi/Athari) with different readings, since which reading Daniel holds determines which version of the embodiment critique applies; this is clarification, not substitution for an answer already given and re-argued at length elsewhere in the debate (his four-minute turns on hand/shin/loins/space).
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "clarification". Daniel had just answered by listing possible interpretive schools (Ash'ari metaphorical, Salafi/Athari literal) without stating which one he himself holds. Rather than assuming or moving on, Sam presses him to specify his own actual position, a legitimate request for clarification before continuing the argument.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Sam has held since the opening that a literally affirmed divine hand entails embodiment incompatible with the transcendent creator of tawheed; pressing Daniel on which school he holds fits that standing argument. Sam's own opening had already laid out his substantive answer to how a hand contradicts monotheism, so this is not a fresh unanswered question; asking Daniel to specify his interpretive school is a legitimate clarifying question tied to Sam's own argument, not a substitution for answering.
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.