Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #132838:39upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“So did God put the old testament Israelites to sleep for centuries or for millennia when he had liturgical worship?... if your argument is that liturgy itself is a problem that puts people to sleep, then you're faulting God for giving liturgical worship.”
Diogenes: He takes his opponent's premise — that liturgy deadens faith — and runs it to a conclusion the opponent must reject, since God prescribed liturgical worship in the Old Testament his opponent holds perfect.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening statement that liturgical worship is a God-given apostolic/Old Testament practice necessary alongside the text; this argument is a direct extension of that same standing position applied against Pastor P's specific claim, not a new thesis. This is a clearly structured argument: premise (Pastor P claims liturgy "puts people to sleep" and stunts faith), a second premise supplied by the shared record (God himself prescribed liturgical worship for Israel in the Old Testament, which Pastor P treats as inspired and perfect), and a conclusion drawn from them (Pastor P's complaint about liturgy would fault God's own prescribed worship). Premises and conclusion are stated plainly and the inference is valid given the premises, satisfying "explicit argument."
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Pastor P had just claimed that liturgical worship "put them to sleep" and contributed to Europe's post-Christian decline; Jay lays out premises plainly — the Old Testament temple/synagogue worship was itself liturgical and was commanded by God (a claim he develops further a few lines later with the Nadab-and-Abihu example and Jesus's synagogue attendance) — to draw the conclusion that faulting liturgy as such for spiritual decline amounts to faulting God for prescribing it. This is a stated premise-to-conclusion argument exposing a real tension in Pastor P's position (later restated as "liturgical worship is fine for the Old Testament, is fine for heaven, but it's boring for the church"), which Pastor P does not resolve except by asserting synagogue worship "is basically nothing like" church liturgy, a claim Jay then also puts to the historical-liturgy-scholarship test.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 has held since the opening that liturgical worship is apostolic tradition rooted in temple/synagogue practice and is not itself an argument against truth; this move develops that same position into a direct logical challenge to S1's stated objection, not a new or inconsistent line. S1 had just claimed that liturgical worship "put them to sleep and didn't teach them," offered as an argument against liturgy's value. Jay's response lays out a clear premise-conclusion structure: Old Testament worship (which S1 does not dispute was divinely prescribed) was liturgical, so if liturgy itself deadens faith, that fault must be laid at God's own instituted worship — a genuine reductio stated plainly, not mere rhetoric.
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.