Appeal: straw man
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11371:59:21upheld Jay Dyer psogos: straw man (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“Daniel tried to argue quite a bit for continuity there. But you'll notice that earlier we had heard the Bible was corrupted... It's only corrupted when it doesn't suit their purpose or their argumentation. That's a double standard.”
Diogenes: Daniel had just stated that he was arguing internally against the Christian position rather than asserting the Old Testament's authority — the very method Sam uses on the Qur'an all debate — so recasting it as a double standard answers a claim not made.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has consistently argued for theological/ritual continuity as his own framework throughout the debate; here he departs into attributing that same "continuity" framing to Daniel's current comparative-morality argument, which Daniel never made in this debate and explicitly disclaimed. Daniel's morality-round argument was explicitly framed as comparative/internal critique, and he stated this outright just before Jay's line: "I'm not condemning the bible or the church for this reason... I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency" (118:26-35) — not a claim that Islam has doctrinal continuity with the Old Testament. Jay's "Daniel tried to argue quite a bit for continuity there" imports a characterization from a separate, prior debate between the two of them rather than from anything Daniel said in this exchange, and Daniel explicitly protests this later (128:26: "I never said anything about continuity... I don't know why you're bringing it up in this debate... you didn't understand that debate"), confirming the mismatch. Jay then uses this misattributed "continuity" claim to charge a double standard, refuting a position Daniel did not take here rather than the comparative-consistency argument he actually made.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay states a plain premise-to-conclusion charge: Daniel earlier cast doubt on the Bible's textual reliability (no early manuscripts tracing to Moses or Jesus) to undermine Christian scripture, yet here treats specific Old Testament verses as settled, citable content to score points on morality — using the same text as unreliable or reliable depending on which serves his case. Whether or not the charge is ultimately decisive (Daniel could distinguish "content as currently read" from "provenance back to the original author"), it is a clearly stated inconsistency argument rather than a bare jab.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's position of record is Trinitarian orthodoxy paired with a running charge that Daniel argues inconsistently across debates; that charge is legitimate when tied to something Daniel actually said, but here it substitutes an argument from outside this debate for what Daniel in fact argued in it, which is a straw man rather than an engagement with his live parity claim. Daniel's actual morality-round opening was explicitly a parity or internal-critique argument, listing biblical laws on execution, genocide, and slavery and stating that he was not condemning the Bible or the church but pointing out a lack of consistency, never asserting doctrinal continuity between the Old Testament and the Quran. Jay's line recasts this as Daniel having argued for continuity, which appears to import a claim from a separate prior Jay Daniel debate, as Jay himself later admits, rather than anything said in this debate, and then convicts Daniel of a double standard for a position he did not take here. Daniel's later correction accurately flags this as a mischaracterization.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: straw man by example or weakest form. Reading past the excerpt: Daniel had just disclaimed, in his own words, that his morality-round list was "not condemning the bible or the church... I'm just pointing out the lack of consistency" — an explicit parity/internal-critique framing, not a claim that Islam shares doctrinal continuity with the Old Testament. Jay's own later clarification at [132:18] confirms the "continuity" charge was lifted wholesale from a separate prior Jay-Daniel debate ("I was referring to the topic that Daniel and I debated... In that debate, he argued that Islam has more continuity with the Old Testament... Here, he's using it as another way to say these are the texts"), which is precisely inventing a position for the opponent in this debate out of material from outside it. That is a straw man on the transcript's own terms, not merely a contestable label, so the tie is decided.
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.