Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #116837:53tied, awaiting the moderator Ijaz Ahmad epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“Notice the straw men that they have to create. They have to think that these are parts of Allah. Even some admitted you don't use this language. So if we don't use that language, we don't describe it that way, we don't teach it that way, why is your opinion of how you read it…”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Sam had repeatedly mocked "your god has two right hands... where's the left one" and pressed Daniel as if he held a crude literal anthropomorphism, before Daniel had ever affirmed that reading — indeed Daniel later clarifies the hand "can be a metaphor for his power... interpreted in many different ways." Ijaz correctly names this as attacking a literalist position that hadn't been established as the actual Muslim position on the table, which is a straw man rather than an engagement with what was actually claimed.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Ijaz's declared method is exegetical/internal critique defending Islam's textual coherence; here he correctly points out that Sam's charge assumed an anthropomorphist reading Daniel had not yet affirmed, consistent with his ongoing defense rather than a new or contradictory tactic. Sam's opening asserted flatly "this is his belief... Allah has a foot... shin... loins... two right hands" as established fact before Daniel had said any such thing, and Daniel later clarifies the hand "can be a metaphor for his power... interpreted in many different ways" and identifies with the Ash'ari school rather than confirmed literalism — showing Sam had attributed a specific literalist position to Daniel that was not actually established. Ijaz's naming of this as a straw man is therefore grounded in what Sam actually said and how the debate's later exchanges bore out the mischaracterization.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Ijaz charges that Sam and Jay "created straw men" by treating hand, shin, loins, etc. as "parts of Allah," but the transcript shows Sam explicitly disclaimed that move at the outset ("he wouldn't use the term body parts... I don't wanna misrepresent him") and cited the literal Qur'anic/hadith terms themselves; calling this a fabricated straw man mischaracterizes an opponent who had already hedged against exactly that charge.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Team Islam's position throughout is that Allah's "hand," "shin," etc. do not entail separate minds or literal corporeality in the way Sam alleges; Sam had repeatedly labeled Daniel a "Salafi anthropomorphist" and mocked "two right hands, where's the left one" before Daniel had committed to a literal reading, and Daniel only clarified afterward ("it can be a metaphor for his power") — so Ijaz's charge tracks a real prior mischaracterization rather than inventing one. The record shows Sam attaching a specific literalist/anthropomorphist label to Daniel's position and mocking it before Daniel had affirmed that reading, and Daniel's later clarification that the hand "can be a metaphor" confirms the caricature was not yet on the table when pressed; naming this as a straw man is a fair reading of the sequence, not an invented complaint.
- Thesmothetes leave: All three judges read the same passage — Sam's opening ("he wouldn't use the term body parts... I don't wanna misrepresent him. Allah has a foot. He has a shin... loins... two right hands") — and disagree only about whether that hedge-plus-citation of literal hadith terms amounts to a straw man of an unaffirmed literalist position or is legitimate internal critique from the opponent's own sources that Ijaz mischaracterized. That is a dispute over whether the label "straw man" fits the conceded facts, not a question any listed rule settles, so it is left to stand as called.
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.