Appeal: direct answer
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11482:33:48upheld Sam Shamoun epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Sam Shamoun earned 1 point.
“… god appears to the nation visibly in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night... So when God shows up, then he has every right to tell you how to live.”
Diogenes: Asked whether he thinks the Old Testament death penalties were morally justified, he says yes and gives his reason — the theophany that left the nation without excuse — rather than retreating to "that was the old covenant".- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with S3's standing position defending the Old Testament as morally consistent when properly contextualized, held throughout the morality round. Sam directly answers Daniel's question about the moral justification of Old Testament penalties by giving a specific rationale (the theophany established God's existence to the nation, removing excuse), rather than retreating to a vague "that was the old covenant" dismissal.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Responding to Daniel's direct question of whether the Old Testament death penalties are morally justified, Sam lays out a clear premise-to-conclusion argument: since God provided public, visible proof of his existence and authority (pillar of cloud/fire witnessed even by the Egyptians), he has legitimate sovereign authority over life and death, unlike Muhammad who Sam claims offered no comparable proof. Whether or not one accepts the divine command framework, this is a stated argument answering the question rather than an evasion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's opening morality-round framework already held that God "in his love, condescended to the Israelites and allowed things he did not like" while the Old Testament remained under divine authority; here, pressed by Daniel's specific question of whether the death penalties were morally justified, Sam answers yes and gives his stated reason (the theophany removing excuse), consistent with that framework rather than dodging into "old covenant" alone. This is a direct, reasoned answer to the specific moral-justification question posed, tied to Sam's consistent theological framework rather than an evasive retreat.
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.