Appeal: explicit argument
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11131:11:32upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… we're told that we can go to check it against the prior revelation. If the prior revelation is corrupt, how foolish then that we're checking it against something corrupted. And in fact, the text actually don't say that the prior revelation is corrupted.”
Diogenes: He puts the strongest form of the Christian reply in two lines: the Qur'anic instruction to verify against earlier scripture presupposes those scriptures were sound, so Ijaz's corruption case is in tension with his own authority.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with the Christian team's standing internal-critique method (using Muslim sources against Muslim claims), continuing Sam's parallel argument that Muhammad's confirmation of prior scripture undercuts claims of textual corruption. Jay states a clear premise (the Qur'an instructs checking new revelation against the prior scripture, which presupposes that prior scripture's soundness) leading to a conclusion (Ijaz's corruption claim conflicts with his own authority's presupposition), a checkable and testable argument rather than mere assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay lays out a plain reductio: the Qur'an instructs hearers to verify the new revelation against the prior scriptures, but this instruction only makes sense if those prior scriptures were reliable at the time; a corrupted standard would be useless for verification. He states the premise and conclusion directly, engaging the substance of the authenticity framework Ijaz had set up rather than merely asserting the Bible is reliable.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S4 has argued throughout for continuity and reliability of the biblical tradition against Muslim claims of corruption; this quote states a plain premise (checking new revelation against a corrupted text would be foolish) and conclusion (so the Qur'an's instruction to verify presupposes the prior scripture's soundness), consistent with his sustained position. This is a clearly stated premises-to-conclusion argument targeting an internal tension in Ijaz's position, matching the team's declared internal-critique approach and Jay's consistent stance defending scriptural reliability.
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.