Appeal: explicit argument
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11121:04:56upheld Ijaz Ahmad epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Ijaz Ahmad earned 1 point.
“Scriptural texts and doctrines are authentic if they can be traced back to the figures to whom they were revealed in the way that they were revealed. Otherwise, they are inauthentic.”
Diogenes: He states the criterion of authenticity openly before applying it, so his case can be tested — and so it can be turned against him if the Qur'an fails the same test.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is Ijaz's stated first principle from the position record itself (revelation comes with expectation of validation via traceable chain of transmission), restated here plainly at the start of the authenticity round, not a new or shifting claim. Ijaz states his authenticity criterion plainly as a testable standard (traceable transmission to the figure to whom revelation was given), which functions as a clear premise for his subsequent argument against the New Testament's authenticity — and is explicitly stated as applying symmetrically, so it can be tested against the Qur'an as well.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Ijaz states plainly the first principle underlying his whole case on scriptural authenticity: a text is authentic only if traceable back to the figure it was revealed to, in the manner revealed, and inauthentic otherwise. This is a clearly stated premise that structures the rest of his argument (that the New Testament fails this test while the Qur'an passes it), rather than an implicit or buried assumption.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's first principle on record is exactly this: "Revelation comes with the expectation of validation: a text or doctrine is authentic only if it can be traced back to the figure to whom it was revealed, in the way it was revealed; otherwise it is inauthentic" — this quote states that criterion plainly at the start of the authenticity round, matching his position without departure. This is a plain statement of premise/criterion that structures the rest of his case, stated openly before application, which is a textbook explicit argument and consistent with his declared framework.
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.