Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #14109:52upheld Pedro epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Pedro earned 1 point.
“Because the scriptures are the only example of God breathed revelation in the possession of the church, they therefore formed the only infallible standard by which every other rule of authority of the church should be tested.”
Diogenes: Premise and conclusion stated plainly, with a definition of the thesis and cited texts (2 Tim 3:16, Matt 22:31) offered as support.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pedro opened by declaring he would defend sola scriptura as the sole infallible rule of faith grounded in scripture's God-breathed nature, and this quote is part of that very opening definitional argument, not a departure from it. The quote is a plainly stated premise-conclusion structure (scriptures are the only God-breathed revelation in the church's possession, therefore they are the only infallible standard) offered in support of the sola scriptura thesis Pedro was defending, with citations to 2 Tim 3:16 and Matt 22:31 immediately following. This is a textbook instance of the "explicit argument" category and is consistent with, not a departure from, his opening position.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "begging the question". Pedro's foundational premise ("scripture is the only example of God-breathed revelation in the possession of the church") simply asserts, without argument, the very point in dispute — that no oral/traditional word of God counts as theopneustos alongside scripture. He then uses that unproven premise to conclude scripture's sole infallible authority, which is just a restatement of sola scriptura itself. This is exactly the presupposition Jay spends the whole debate contesting (citing oral tradition, liturgy, 2 Thess 2:15, etc.), so the premise smuggles in the conclusion rather than earning it, and it recurs unrevised through the debate (e.g., his later "sola scriptura is true because... scripture" answers to the superchat questions repeat the same circle).
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pedro's declared opening thesis was that scripture, as the only God-breathed revelation, is the sole infallible standard for testing all other church authority; this quote is the plain statement of that very thesis with supporting citations, not a departure from it. This is part of Pedro's opening statement laying out his core thesis on sola scriptura, stated as a plain premise-conclusion structure and paired with cited texts (2 Tim 3:16, Matt 22:31). It matches exactly what "explicit argument" requires and is consistent with the position he declared at the outset and held throughout the debate.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: bare assertion: nothing offered for the claim. The quoted line states a premise and conclusion plainly, and Pedro immediately followed it with "We come to this conclusion from the apostle Paul in second Timothy three sixteen and the account of Matthew twenty two thirty one" — reasons were offered, not nothing. The rubric's own test for these calls is whether anything was offered for the claim, not whether the claim ultimately holds up to scrutiny; Socrates's "begging the question" objection goes to the soundness of the premise (a matter for the sophist ledger, and one that may separately be scored later in the debate when Jay presses it), but it does not erase the fact that premises, a conclusion, and cited support were plainly stated here, which is all "explicit argument" requires.
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.