Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #110655:41upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“He's a divine subject that assumed a human mind, a human nature, a human will, a human energy. So he shared it's a both and and not an either or, so your whole question is predicated on a false either or.”
Diogenes: He answers the "two minds" demand with the person/nature distinction and correctly identifies that Daniel's question is framed as an exclusive either/or that the doctrine denies.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has consistently defended the shared-divine-mind/distinct-human-mind Chalcedonian framework throughout the debate; this is a continuation of that standing position, not a departure. Jay's person/nature answer is a substantive engagement, but characterizing Daniel's question as committing a "false either/or" is itself contestable: Daniel's question (does the Father also have a human mind; if not, isn't there an asymmetry) reflects a genuine binary inherent in the Christological claim (only the Son has a human mind, per orthodox doctrine), not obviously an invalid dichotomy excluding some real third option. This is better scored as a direct theological answer (person/nature distinction) than a clean, uncontested fallacy-spotting.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Daniel's question ("explain how Jesus can have a separate mind from the father, and they be the same mind") presupposes that the answer must be either strict identity or full separation. Jay correctly names this as a false dilemma and offers the third, "both-and" option from Chalcedonian Christology — one shared divine mind plus an additional human mind/nature — directly resolving the presupposed binary rather than merely asserting a conclusion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S4 has consistently defended the Trinity using the person/nature distinction (divine person with two natures, two wills, two energies); here he applies that same framework to identify that Daniel's question forces a binary (either same mind or separate mind) that the doctrine explicitly denies by holding both a shared divine mind and a distinct human mind. Naming the false dilemma in Daniel's question and answering it with the consistent two-natures framework is a legitimate fallacy-spotted move grounded in Jay's sustained theological position, not a bare assertion.
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.