Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #146347:52upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… it doesn't mention all kinds of things that are necessary for salvation like prayer or like the gathering together of the saints. So if you're gonna restrict that text to only being what's necessary listed in that text, then prayer isn't necessary and gathering together isn't necessary.”
Diogenes: A clean reductio against Pedro's central proof text: the sufficiency reading of 2 Timothy 3:17, applied consistently, would exclude things both men grant are necessary.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held since his opening that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot bear the weight Pedro places on it as a sola scriptura proof text; here he lays out a plain reductio (premise: if the text's silence on X excludes X's necessity, then prayer and gathering are excluded; conclusion: that's absurd, so the sufficiency reading fails) consistent with that standing argument. The quote states a premise and conclusion plainly and applies Pedro's own interpretive principle back against his central proof text, meeting the definition of an explicit argument.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay lays out a plain reductio: if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is read as listing everything necessary for the man of God, then things it doesn't mention (prayer, gathering together) would count as unnecessary, which is absurd, so the text cannot bear the exclusive weight Pedro is putting on it. Premises and conclusion are stated plainly.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Consistent with Jay's opening and sustained critique that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is repeatedly misapplied by Pedro as a stand-alone proof of sola scriptura; this is the same line of attack he maintains throughout, not a new departure. This is a clean explicit argument: premise (if 2 Tim 3:16-17's list of what scripture equips for is read as exhaustive of what's necessary, then anything not listed, like prayer or assembly, would be unnecessary), and conclusion (that consequence is absurd since both sides grant those things are necessary), directly rebutting Pedro's central proof-text for sola scriptura.
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.