Appeal: misrepresentation
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11512:40:29upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou psogos: misrepresentation (+3)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou gave away 3 points.
“Jay refuses to condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile. That's shocking. I hope all the Christian listeners, especially the Protestants listening, note that these heretics, Sam and Jay, are down with pedophilia.”
Diogenes: Jay had just said he had no problem condemning Aquinas and Sam had already condemned child marriage outright, so the refusal being reported did not happen — and it is used to brand both opponents as endorsing paedophilia.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Daniel's standing comparative-morality method has been to press Christians on child marriage using Aquinas and canon law, a legitimate line held throughout; but escalating a specific, disputed point (whether Jay will use the word "pedophile") into "these heretics... are down with pedophilia" — against a Sam who had already explicitly condemned the practice — departs from accurate reporting of the opponents' stated positions, as Daniel's own later, narrower restatement confirms. The record contradicts the specific claim reported here on both counts. Sam had already stated flatly at 134:07, "So, yes, I condemn it, which is why I condemn your prophet" — directly refuting "Sam... [is] down with pedophilia." And Jay, immediately upon hearing this charge, protests "Did you not hear my condemnation? I explicitly said I don't have a problem condemning Aquinas, so you just blew past me" — and Daniel himself later walks this exact claim back at 184:59 to the much narrower and accurate point that Jay condemns Aquinas generally but declines the specific word "pedophile," which I have already credited as a genuine concession. That later narrowing confirms the broader charge made here — flat refusal to condemn, and both men being "down with pedophilia" — is not what the transcript shows either man saying or holding.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Daniel claims Jay "refuses to condemn Thomas Aquinas," but the transcript shows Jay explicitly said "I do condemn" Aquinas's position in the immediately preceding exchange, and later reiterated, "I explicitly said I don't have a problem condemning Aquinas, so you just blew past me" (161:xx). Daniel himself effectively corrects this later, at 184:59, saying more accurately "He condemns him... " — confirming the earlier blanket "refuses to condemn" claim overstated what the record shows.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Daniel's sustained morality-round method is a parity argument citing Christian tradition's tolerance of child marriage; pressing that argument is consistent with his method, but asserting that Jay refused to condemn Aquinas and that both opponents endorse pedophilia departs from what both men are shown saying in the transcript just before this line. By this point in the transcript both opponents had already given explicit statements contradicting the claim: Sam had already said outright yes, I condemn it, which is why I condemn your prophet, regarding child marriage, and Jay had already said I do condemn Aquinas moments earlier in this very exchange. Declaring that Jay refuses to condemn and branding both men as down with pedophilia states the opposite of what the transcript shows they said, and does so as a serious, inflammatory accusation rather than a fair characterization of any hedge in their answers. Daniel himself later partially walks this back, which confirms the original claim overstated the record.
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.