Appeal: equivocation
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #110454:31tied, awaiting the moderator Daniel Haqiqatjou psogos: equivocation (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“I cited verse of the Quran in chapter 36 that even your hands, even your feet will intercede.”
Diogenes: He himself earlier quoted 36:65 as hands speaking and feet bearing witness against their owner; once Sam narrowed the point to intercession — pleading with Allah on someone's behalf — Daniel restates the verse with the verb "intercede" it does not carry.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Daniel's consistent position since 30:54 is that personification in scripture (hands, feet, rivers, stones) does not entail a separate mind, used to rebut Sam's mind-requiring trilemma about the Qur'an/suras; at 54:31 he preserves that general thesis but shifts his own earlier "speak/bear witness" characterization of 36:65 into "intercede" specifically to answer Sam's narrower challenge about intercession. Sam had deliberately narrowed the dispute from personification-in-general to intercession specifically ("will there be intercession... what exactly do you mean by personification?"), and Daniel's hands/feet verse (36:65) is testimony against the sinner, not advocacy on his behalf — a real distinction he himself did not use the word "intercede" for at 30:40–31:04. Relabeling it as "intercede" at 54:31 trades on the word to make an inapt counterexample appear to meet Sam's narrowed challenge, which is equivocation properly so called, though minor since it is a single terminological slip within an otherwise consistent and substantive personification argument.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This simply re-cites the Qur'an 36:65 hands-and-feet analogy already credited as evidence earlier, in answer to Sam's fresh challenge ("what exactly do you mean by personification... your appeal to the Psalms shows you don't understand"). Daniel doesn't engage the sharper distinction Sam is pressing — that the hadith describes surahs actively interceding/disputing with Allah at judgment, not merely bearing passive witness like speaking limbs — but bare repetition of a point already on the table is weak advocacy, not a fresh fallacy; the exchange continues honestly (Sam later lands the disanalogy at 58:50), so this is unproductive restatement rather than a sophist move.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's sustained rebuttal method against Sam's "interceding suras" trilemma has been citing personification examples (hands, feet, rivers, mountains) to show speech-like attribution doesn't require a mind; this instance departs from his own earlier, accurate paraphrase of the same verse by relabeling testimony as intercession to make the analogy fit Sam's narrower challenge. The verified transcript shows Daniel's own citation of Qur'an 36:65 at 30:49 describes hands "speaking" and feet "bearing witness" — testimony against the sinner — with no verb of intercession; when Sam narrows the challenge specifically to intercession (pleading for the reciter), Daniel at 54:31 recasts the same verse as saying hands and feet "will intercede," folding an adversarial-testimony example into the advocacy category Sam was actually pressing on. That shift lets his personification counterexample appear to answer Sam's specific "interceding suras" argument when the verse he is relying on does not actually establish the phenomenon in dispute.
- Thesmothetes leave: The dispute here is whether Daniel's recasting of 36:65 (hands "speak," feet "bear witness" against the sinner, per his own 30:49 citation) as hands and feet that will "intercede" — in answer to Sam's narrowed question about intercession specifically — rises to equivocation or is merely a weak, imprecise restatement of an already-standing personification argument. Aristotle and Plato read the word-swap as trading on ambiguity to manufacture an apt-seeming counterexample; Socrates reads it as bare repetition that fails to engage Sam's sharper distinction but commits no fresh fallacy. No listed rule fixes where loose paraphrase becomes equivocation proper; this is a genuine disagreement of judgment on whether the facts fit the label, so it is left to the archon.
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.