Appeal: ad hominem
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11412:10:02upheld Ijaz Ahmad psogos: ad hominem (+2) tempered from flagrant to major
The council upheld the call: Ijaz Ahmad gave away 2 points.
“… whether a person can take donation money, spend it incorrectly, maybe spend it on young girls. Wouldn't be surprised to find you an [on] Epstein's list, to be honest.” quote corrected
Diogenes: An insinuation of child sex offences with nothing offered to support it, aimed at the man rather than at anything he argued about the morality of the two scriptures.Herodotus (partly): Ijaz Ahmad and Sam Shamoun have a documented decade-long history (a 2013 Paltalk debate "Is Masjid al Haram in Makkah?" and a joint Shamoun/Albrecht vs Ijaz/Ibn Anwar debate), with Ijaz's own site accusing Shamoun of habitual insults, curses and mockery in that earlier encounter — so there is real personal animus between these two specific men, not a one-off. Shamoun separately carries a public (contested) reputation for personal invective and has faced unrelated public accusations from Anthony Rogers of wife-beating, child abandonment and misappropriating funds, plus a self-admitted marital scandal ("the plumber") — real material Ijaz appears to be alluding to. However, on this site Ijaz Ahmad has only one prior recorded debate with no ad hominem faults (misrepresentation x2), so there is no established pattern of this severity here; and within this very debate, personal attacks were already being traded by both sides before his line (Daniel/Ijaz raised the "plumber" jab first, and Shamoun responded with a graphic personal-sexual jibe about Muhammad "mounting" a child). The specific leap to an Epstein-list insinuation of child-sex offences, though drawing on real underlying rumors about Shamoun, is itself unsupported by anything in the record and is Ijaz's own invention layered atop those separate, unproven claims. Sources: https://callingchristians.com/2013/01/28/debate-sam-shamoun-vs-ijaz-ahmad/ https://callingchristians.com/2013/01/29/debate-sam-shamoun-vs-ijaz-ahmad-is-masjid-al-haram-in-makkah/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEcN5ItxW9A https://x.com/MMetaphysician/status/1717941478738047381 https://x.com/RedPillSayian/status/1823868741299413285 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wROGGD3epP4
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Ijaz's declared method is exegetical/internal critique on scriptural questions, and his standing move in this segment was pressing Sam and Jay for a direct yes/no on whether they condemn child marriage; the Epstein-list line is a gratuitous personal insinuation layered onto that legitimate question, not a continuation of any argued position. The remark fails relevance (an insinuation of child-sex criminality has nothing to do with whether Church tradition condoned child marriage) and truth (per Herodotus's research, even granting real prior animus and unrelated public accusations against Shamoun, the specific Epstein-list leap is Ijaz's own unsupported invention, not something borne out by the cited history); invoking a specific real-world criminal association with zero evidence, purely to discredit the man, is exactly the kind of jab the rubric scores rather than exempts, and the flagrant severity is warranted given the gravity of the unsupported accusation even amid a debate where both sides had already traded lesser personal jabs.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Ijaz floats, with no basis anywhere in the transcript, that Sam might be "on Epstein's list" — a serious, specific accusation of association with a child-trafficking ring, backed by nothing checkable. It fails the truth test outright (pure speculation, "wouldn't be surprised") and the relevance test (no prior claim about Sam's finances or conduct with donations has been established in this debate to ground it); it functions to smear rather than to press a point Sam could actually engage.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Ijaz's declared position throughout the morality round is a comparative/parity argument that Christian tradition tolerates child marriage as much as or more than Islam does; that argument continues in the very next sentence ("Do you accept, Sam? Do you accept child marriage?"), but this specific insinuation is a personal smear inserted alongside it, not required by or answering anything in the exchange, and departs from argument into unsupported character assassination. This insinuation fails all four ad hominem tests: it does not substitute for an answer but also does not itself function as an argument — it is a gratuitous aside dropped before Ijaz's actual substantive question ("Do you accept, Sam? Do you accept child marriage?"); it bears no relevance to whether Christian scripture or tradition permits child marriage, the actual point on the table; nothing in the debate substantiates the specific leap to Epstein-level child-sex-trafficking association, and the verifier confirms even the real-world rumors about Shamoun (financial, marital) don't reach this specific, invented accusation; and it functions to humiliate rather than to invite continued examination. That two sides had already traded lesser personal jabs (the "plumber" reference, Sam's "mounting" jibe about Muhammad) doesn't launder this into rhetoric — it is a distinct, unsupported, and far more serious insinuation of a specific heinous crime with nothing checkable behind 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.