Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #14951:09:16upheld Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“You can, but it's not the same question as the epistemic question of what books are in the bible. So you keep confusing the two questions.”
Diogenes: He grants the point about challenging an interpretation while separating it from the canon question, refusing to let a conceded hermeneutic point be cashed in against a distinct epistemic one.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay has consistently pressed the distinction between hermeneutic authority and canon-epistemic authority since his opening cross-examination; this line continues that distinction but is a corrective statement, not a request for clarification, so the label is a mismatch even though the move itself is legitimate. "Clarification" as defined requires asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; here Jay makes a declarative correction distinguishing two questions rather than posing a question seeking clarification. The substance is sound argumentative housekeeping, but it does not fit the specific philosopher category claimed.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Pedro had been treating "we can establish objective meaning within a text" (illustrated with Ephesians) as though it settled the separate matter of how one knows which books belong in the canon at all. Jay draws the needed distinction between the two questions, preventing Pedro's conflation of interpretive-meaning-within-scripture with the prior epistemic question of the canon's contents, a distinction consistent with the objection he has pressed throughout the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since his opening cross-examination of the canon (c. 43:00–65:00) that the canon-list question is logically prior to and distinct from questions of textual interpretation; this line is a restatement/application of that standing distinction, not a new clarification request. The quote is not a request for a definition or clarification (no question is posed); rather it is Jay's recurring, held-since-the-canon-discussion distinction between the hermeneutic question (interpretive disputes over meaning) and the separate epistemic/canon question (what books belong in scripture), which Pedro repeatedly tries to answer with hermeneutic material. That is better captured as a framework objection — naming the conflation and insisting the prior epistemic question be kept separate — than as "clarification," but a genuine philosopher-ledger move did occur here.
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.