Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11181:19:53upheld Sam Shamoun epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Sam Shamoun earned 2 points.
“He appealed to the Birmingham Quran, and then he compared that to the later codices, which were more complete and not to the papyri that appears from the second, third, fourth centuries.”
Diogenes: He identifies the false comparison in Daniel's dating argument — an early fragment set against complete codices rather than against the early papyri — and asks the checkable question of how many suras the Birmingham folios actually contain.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This continues S3's standing method of internal critique and comparative scrutiny of manuscript-based claims used throughout the scripture-authenticity round, consistent with his position since that round began. Sam identifies a real methodological asymmetry in Daniel's dating argument: comparing an early (and by his own account partial) Qur'anic manuscript against the earliest *complete* New Testament codex is not an apples-to-apples comparison, and Sam presses this with a checkable, specific follow-up question (how many surahs the early manuscript actually contains). This is a substantive challenge to the comparative structure of Daniel's claim, not a bare assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Sam directly engages Daniel's manuscript evidence and identifies a real asymmetry: Daniel required a "complete manuscript" standard for the New Testament (pointing to the fourth century) while accepting a single early, partial Qur'anic manuscript (Birmingham) as sufficient proof of preservation. Pressing Daniel to show a comparably complete early Qur'an manuscript holds both sides to the same evidentiary bar rather than letting the mismatched comparison pass unchallenged.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's sustained method includes identifying unfair or mismatched comparisons in Daniel's manuscript-dating argument (he repeats an "apples to pineapples" charge later); here he specifies the comparison error precisely—an early incomplete Qur'anic fragment set against complete NT codices rather than the comparably early NT papyri—which is a reasoned, checkable methodological critique. Identifying that Daniel compares different classes of evidence (fragment vs. complete codex) rather than like-for-like (fragment vs. fragment) is a legitimate fallacy-spotted move on a real methodological asymmetry, consistent with S3's sustained comparative critique throughout this round.
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.