Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #14042:24:57upheld Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… that's different from the for the notion of individual epistemic certitude. Everybody's in the same boat when it comes to how does an individual come to to know and to have certitude... all of us affirm that at the at the final stage, it's the holy spirit that leads the individual to to have certitude. Everybody professes that. But the question in my view that's distinct here is where we differ is the means.”
Diogenes: He separates normative authority from personal certitude and concedes that on the second question both sides stand in exactly the same place, resting his case only on the first — the cleanest statement of the real disagreement made all night.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 has consistently argued that Scripture requires an ecclesial/tradition-based mechanism for authority; this passage is a distillation of that standing thesis rather than a new clarifying question, so while a genuine philosopher-point move occurs here, it is better captured as an explicit argument than a clarification. This is not a request for clarification (Jay is not asking his opponent to define a term); rather he lays out his own two-part distinction with premises (normativity concerns institutional authority to bind; individual epistemic certitude is common ground across all three traditions via the Holy Spirit) and a conclusion (the real dispute is over the means: text alone, papal decree, or conciliar/patristic tradition). That is a clean explicit argument, not the philosopher move named "clarification."
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay draws a clear distinction between normative institutional authority and individual epistemic certitude, concedes that all three traditions equally rest their final certitude on the Holy Spirit (the same kind of circle), but then names a specific mechanism for how that circle is checked in his own tradition — apostolic succession embodied in the church fathers, liturgy, councils, and the lives of saints — as against the Protestant's bare individual-plus-text and the Catholic's individual-plus-papal-decree. Naming a checkable historical mechanism, rather than resting on the bare circle, is the distinguishing move the rubric credits as evidence.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening that individual certitude is mediated through the historical, ecclesial "means" (church tradition, fathers, councils) rather than the text or papacy alone; this line is a natural, consistent articulation of that standing position, isolating precisely where it differs from Pastor P's sola scriptura account of certitude, not a departure from it. The quoted material is not Jay asking for a definition or clarification from an opponent — he is himself offering a distinction (normative authority vs. individual epistemic certitude) and stating premises and a conclusion about where the real disagreement lies. That is a well-formed explicit argument, not the "clarification" move (which requires the speaker to ask a question rather than assert a distinction), so the label as given does not fit, though the underlying move is a genuine and creditable one.
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.