Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #128633:48upheld Mike Lowry epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
“… it was that direct revelation to Peter that Jesus was referring to. He was making a remark on the fact that Peter had had a direct revelation through the father's spirit to him. And upon that, that individual relationship to the heavenly father, upon that, the brotherhood will be built.”
Diogenes: Mike argues his case from the disputed text itself, grounding the reading in the preceding verse ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you") rather than resting on personal experience alone.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike opened with a personal-experience epistemology plus "coherent, cogent" textual fit, and has held that position throughout; this line is him applying that framework to Matthew 16, deriving a plain conclusion (the church is built on the direct personal revelation Peter received, not on institutional/authoritative succession) from a stated premise (Jesus's remark following Peter's confession). The quote does lay out a premise (Jesus's statement following Peter's confession refers to Peter's direct inward revelation) and a conclusion (the brotherhood/church is built on that kind of individual relationship), which meets the bar for "explicit argument" even though the premise itself rests on Mike's experiential epistemology rather than independent exegesis; minor severity is appropriate since it's a single textual claim, not a fully developed case.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Lowry states a premise (Peter's confession was itself a personal, inward revelation from the Father) and draws a conclusion from it (the brotherhood/church is founded on that same kind of individual relationship to God, not on an office passed to Peter), directly engaging the Matthew 16 text Jay had earlier cited for apostolic succession. It is a contestable interpretation, but it is laid out as premises leading to a conclusion rather than a bare assertion or a fallacious move.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that inward personal revelation is the primary evidence and that revelation is credible when coherent with that inner acquaintance; here he extends that framework into a textual argument rather than departing from it. Mike lays out premises drawn from the text itself (Peter's confession following "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but my Father") and a conclusion (the church is built on that individual relationship of direct revelation), rather than simply asserting his personal experience. This is a genuine explicit argument, consistent with his stated method of finding his personal-revelation epistemology confirmed/coherent with the text.
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.