Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #127124:42overturned Mike Lowry epainos: clarification (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“That's a really good question. We should address that. But before we do, can I press you again to see what's your answer to specifically what I'm asking?”
Diogenes: Mike keeps the original question on the table instead of letting a counter-question displace it, while explicitly promising to return to Jay's point.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Mike opened by grounding his position in personal spiritual experience and coherence rather than formal argument, and here he is simply holding his own line of questioning open rather than seeking a definition, so the labeled fault-type is not actually present. The line is not a request for a definition or clarification of a term; it is Mike declining to let Jay's counter-question ("Don't you think we need to go back to those people?") substitute for an answer to his own prior question about what the apostles preached, and promising to return to Jay's point later. That is good practice (a question deserves an answer before a counter-question), but it does not fit the "clarification" element — nothing is being defined or clarified, a prior question is simply being re-pressed. No other listed philosopher label (direct answer, steelman, concession, evidence, explicit argument) fits this act either, since Mike is asking, not answering.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is S2 insisting that Jay return to and directly answer the original question ("what were they preaching") rather than being diverted by Jay's counter-question about apostolic tradition. It is procedural floor-management — asking to keep the question on the table — rather than itself an argument, a dodge, or a direct answer; no premises are advanced and no claim is conceded or refuted here, so it earns nothing on either ledger.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike has held since the opening that his authority is personal/experiential and coherence-based, not a method of formal question-clarification; the called line is ordinary discourse management (holding his own question open) rather than the clarification-move the label names. Mike's opening framework is experiential/personal-revelation epistemology; he has not, at any point, staked out a practice of "asking for definitions/clarification instead of assuming" as a recurring rhetorical virtue. The quoted line is Mike simply re-asserting his own prior question ("what were the apostles preaching?") after Jay pivoted to a counter-question about apostolic succession, promising to come back to Jay's point later. That is a floor-holding move — insisting a question be answered before a counter-question is entertained — not a request for a definition or clarification of a term. Nothing in the quote seeks to pin down an ambiguous concept; it simply restates and defers. The label "clarification" does not fit the transcript action, and no other listed philosopher category (direct answer, steelman, concession, evidence, framework objection, fallacy spotted) fits either, since Mike isn't answering, conceding, or citing anything — he's managing turn-taking.
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.