Appeal: direct answer
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11291:39:17upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou earned 2 points.
“… what Torah is the prophet prophet or or Torah Torah is is the the prophet prophet referring to? Is he referring to the Masoretic text? Is he referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls? Is he referring to the Septuagint?”
Diogenes: Having been pressed on the confirmation argument all round, he finally answers it in four ordered points — general versus specific affirmation, the disputed authenticity of the hadith, which recension is meant, and the absence of any Muslim canonisation of the Bible.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with S2's standing position (and Ijaz's parallel argument) that the Qur'an's confirmation of prior scripture is general and conditioned, not a specific endorsement of the text Christians hold today; not a departure from earlier claims. This is part of a genuinely multi-pronged direct answer to Sam's repeated "Muhammad confirmed the Torah" challenge, addressing general-vs-specific affirmation, disputed hadith authenticity, which textual recension is meant, and the lack of Muslim canonization of the Bible — substantively engaging the question rather than evading it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Sam's argument treats "the Torah" Muhammad confirmed as a single, fixed text, but Daniel points out there were multiple distinct textual traditions in circulation (Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint) and asks which one is meant, rather than letting the ambiguity pass unexamined. This directly targets a real ambiguity that bears on whether the reductio Sam is running actually goes through.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Sam's central scripture round thesis (repeated across multiple exchanges) is that Muhammad's confirmation of the Torah/Injil commits Muslims to biblical reliability; here Daniel finally directly engages that specific argument with a structured, multi-part rebuttal (general vs. specific affirmation, hadith authenticity, ambiguity of which recension, absence of canonization), addressing the substance rather than deflecting. This is a substantive, structured direct answer to Sam's long-standing "confirmation" challenge, addressing its ambiguities and presuppositions point by point rather than avoiding it.
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.