Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #14831:02:24upheld Pedro epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Pedro earned 1 point.
“So is the list infallible that we have today? No.”
Diogenes: After a confused exchange he corrects his own misreading of the question and gives the plain answer his position requires, even though it hands Jay the premise of the fallible-list objection.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pedro declared at the opening that the canon list possessed by the church is fallible while the true list exists infallibly only in God's mind, and this answer is a plain restatement of that same position when Jay asks the question directly. Jay asked plainly whether the list of books is infallible, and after a brief self-correction over terminology, Pedro answers "No," which is exactly the position he committed to in his opening statement; this is a direct answer to the question asked, not evasive despite the concession costing him ground.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Asked point-blank whether the canon list possessed today is infallible, Pedro answers "No" without hedging, directly engaging the question rather than retreating into restated premises about God's sovereignty. This is a clear, direct answer to the question actually asked, and it stays consistent with the rest of his stated position throughout the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 declared at the opening that the canon list we possess is fallible while the infallible list exists in the mind of God, to which he has no access; this answer is a direct, consistent restatement of that very position, not a departure from it. Jay's question was whether the list of canonical books is itself theopneustos/infallible; after a moment of confusion over terminology, Pedro directly restates the question in plain terms and answers "No," which is exactly what his framework requires (canon list fallible in human possession, infallible only in God's mind) and matches his opening statement's own concession recorded at the outset. This is a clean, unevasive answer to the question actually asked, not a restatement dressed up as evasion.
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.