Appeal: dodge
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #110957:17upheld Sam Shamoun psogos: dodge (+1)
The council upheld the call: Sam Shamoun gave away 1 point.
“You said about scribes changing the text, so that is referring to the veracity of the scriptures. But even if we go with your very imbalanced approach to textual criticism…”
Diogenes: Ijaz asked three times a theological question — why the ignorance is predicated of the Son as person if he shares the Father's knowledge — and explicitly disclaimed textual criticism, yet Sam answers only the textual question.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Sam's declared method is internal critique using textual-critical and source-based arguments; he has held to that method throughout, but here it leads him to answer a manuscript-preservation point when Ijaz twice reframed the question as theological (why "the Son" as person lacks knowledge if he shares the Father's mind) and explicitly said "that wasn't my question... not about textual criticism.". The transcript bears out the referee's reading: Ijaz asks the person/nature theological question at 56:40, Sam's 57:17 answer is purely about scribal preservation of "the Father alone," Ijaz explicitly rejects that framing and restates the theological question at 57:59, and no theological answer to that reformulated question follows before the moderator moves on — a direct question asked twice and left unanswered, with no framework objection offered by Sam explaining why the theological framing is illegitimate.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "evidence". Ijaz's original question was itself ambiguous, opening with "why did those scribes omit" — a textual-critical framing — before folding in a separate theological point about person vs. nature. Sam takes up the textual half reasonably and backs his rebuttal with a specific, checkable point: whatever scribes did with the disputed "Son" clause, the phrase "the Father alone" (Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32) survives across the manuscript tradition, so the alleged doctrinal motive for the variant doesn't actually remove the problem. That's a concrete textual claim offered as support, not a bare assertion, even though Ijaz goes on to insist he meant the narrower theological question instead.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Sam's declared method is internal/textual critique of the New Testament's transmission; that method is a fair one for the authenticity topic, but here it substitutes for an answer to a distinct, explicitly-flagged theological question about Christology that he never engages, which is the dodge as charged rather than a restatement of his sustained textual-critical position. The transcript bears out a clean dodge: Ijaz's theological question — why Mark 13:32 predicates ignorance of "the Son" as person if the Son shares the Father's undivided divine knowledge — is put at 56:25, restated as explicitly theological ("I'm asking you theologically") at 56:40, and restated a third time with an explicit disclaimer ("that wasn't my question... not about textual criticism") at 57:56. Sam's answer at the quoted lines stays entirely on manuscript/scribal-corruption ground ("veracity of the scriptures... whatever the scribes did... that passage still has the father alone"), and when called on it he deflects again ("can you ask me about textual criticism?") rather than engaging the person-versus-nature question, and the round is cut off by the moderator before any theological answer is given.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: a dodge needs a question asked twice. Ijaz's question, however it began, was explicitly clarified as theological — not textual — at least twice: "This is theological," "I'm asking you theologically," and finally, after Sam's quoted answer, "that wasn't my question... not about textual criticism... why does it specify he's ignorant of it?" Sam's quoted words answer only the manuscript-preservation point, and after the clearest, third restatement he still gives no Christological answer, only "Actually I did" — an assertion, not a response — before the moderator moved the debate on. That satisfies the rule's test: a direct question, put more than once in unmistakably theological terms, left unanswered.
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.