Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #13901:33:41upheld Solomon (caller) epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Solomon (caller) earned 1 point.
“… do you not see that you ended it with, I believe that that's the word of God, and that's what I understand? Because we're trying to we're trying to find the the objective, not the subjective.”
Diogenes: He isolates the exact form of the answer's failure — that it terminates in the speaker's belief rather than in anything public — which is what the whole debate had been circling.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Solomon opened by asking Pastor P to justify his claim about the word of God with something beyond "I believe," and the quoted line is a direct continuation of that same demand, not a departure from it. Solomon's opening question to Pastor P was explicitly "what is the word of God, and why do you believe that... instead of just saying I believe" — a demand that the justification be more than assertion. The quoted line simply restates and sharpens that same standing demand after Pastor P's answer again terminated in "I believe" / "as I understand it." It is consistent with his declared position throughout the exchange, not a new fallacy-naming or steelman, but it functions as a request that the answer be cashed out in something other than bare assumption, which is a fair reading of "clarification." It is a modest, defensible philosopher point, though "explicit argument" (he states the premise that ending in subjective belief fails to meet the objective standard both sides claim to want) fits at least as well.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Solomon presses Pastor P to give an objective justification rather than resting on "I believe," correctly noting that ending on subjective belief doesn't settle what is objectively the word of God. This is a fair clarificatory question that echoes (rather than substitutes for) the same demand Jay had been making, and Pastor P's prior answer had indeed just restated his belief without grounding it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S9 is a caller with no standing position of his own in this debate; his role here is to press Pastor P on the objective/subjective distinction, and this line is consistent with, not a departure from, the single question he opened his call with ("why do you believe that... instead of just saying I believe"). Solomon's line does not primarily request a definition (the classic "clarification" move); rather it names precisely how Pastor P's prior answer failed — it terminated in "I believe" and "what I understand" rather than anything public/checkable — and reasserts what kind of answer (objective, not subjective) the question demands. That is closer to a compact explicit argument (premise: your answer ends in subjective assertion; premise: we are seeking objective grounds; implied conclusion: therefore you have not yet answered) than to asking for a definition. Either way it is a genuinely well-reasoned philosopher-side move, accurately diagnosing the same structural gap (assertion vs. argument) that Jay had been pressing throughout, so a point is earned even if the label is imprecise.
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.