Appeal: clarification
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11542:54:46upheld Daniel Haqiqatjou epainos: clarification (+2)
The council upheld the call: Daniel Haqiqatjou earned 2 points.
“There's a difference between God sending pestilence or God, like, sending a catastrophe to punish a people. That's a that is a natural disaster that God commands. That's different from what the Bible says. The Bible Jesus is telling Moses, go and kill the women, children, and leave nothing that breathes.”
Diogenes: Against Sam's parity from the flood and Sodom, he draws the distinction his case needs — divine act versus a command issued to human soldiers — which is the relevant disanalogy rather than a denial.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with S2's standing comparative morality argument (that OT commands to human agents are worse than divine natural judgments), a distinction he draws to defend his position, not a new departure. This is not a question requesting clarification from the opponent, but a substantive distinction drawn to answer Sam's parity argument (direct divine act like flood/Sodom vs. a command issued to human soldiers to commit killing). It fits better as an explicit argument or distinguishing move than "clarification."
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Responding to Sam's parallel (that Allah also destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, and the people of Noah, including children), Daniel draws a substantive distinction rather than ignoring the parallel: a natural catastrophe executed directly by God differs morally from God commanding human soldiers to personally carry out killing of women and children, as in the Deuteronomy/Numbers texts he had cited. This directly engages the specific counter-evidence Sam raised with a relevant conceptual distinction.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's sustained method in the morality round is internal critique using parallel textual comparisons; here he responds to Sam's flood/Sodom parity argument with a stated distinction (natural catastrophe commanded by God vs. an explicit command to human soldiers to kill), which is a substantive move, though it is an assertion rather than a request for clarification. This draws a substantive, relevant distinction to answer Sam's parity argument, but as a stated assertion rather than a question, it fits "explicit argument" better than "clarification."
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.