Appeal: clarification
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #157311:53tied, awaiting the moderator Stephen De Young epainos: clarification (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“I doubt I'm going to disagree with any of, doctor Orland's positive statements about scripture. Sometimes this is framed as people who don't believe in soul [sola] scripture having a lower view of scripture. We don't actually have a lower view of scripture. We have a higher view of some other things.”
Diogenes: He grants his opponent's positive claims about Scripture outright and locates the real disagreement precisely, narrowing the dispute instead of manufacturing one.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S3 opened by distinguishing Orthodox "holy tradition" from the Roman two-source model, insisting scripture holds "pride of place" — this quote restates that same distinguishing framework, not a request for clarification. The quoted line is a declarative statement locating the dispute ("we have a higher view of some other things"), not a question seeking a definition or clarification from the opponent; "clarification" per the rubric requires asking for one instead of assuming, which is absent here. It is a reasonable framing move but does not fit the specific element the label requires.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a brief self-clarification forestalling a general caricature ("people think we have a lower view of scripture") before De Young goes on to state his actual position on holy tradition; it is not attributed to Gavin as something he said, so it is not misrepresentation, nor does it substitute for an answer to any point on the table (no point had yet been raised in this exchange - it opens his answer to the moderator's question). It is ordinary rhetorical framing, not argument, so it scores on neither ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held since his opening statement that Orthodox tradition is not a rival propositional deposit rejecting sola scriptura's esteem for scripture but a claim about the Spirit's ongoing corporate guidance in reading scripture; this line restates that distinction rather than departing from it. S3's stated method from the opening is to sharply distinguish Orthodox holy tradition from the Roman Catholic two-source model and from caricatures of "lower view of scripture" — he explicitly begins his very first answer with "this is important to disambiguate." This later line is a continuation of that same disambiguating project: he concedes Gavin's positive claims about scripture's inspiration/uniqueness rather than disputing them, and relocates the actual point of contention (the authority of the church's collective reading, not scripture's status). That is a good-faith narrowing of the dispute consistent with his framework, not a manufactured disagreement or evasion.
- Thesmothetes leave: The quoted line is a declarative disambiguation ("we have a higher view of some other things"), not a question, so Aristotle and Socrates say it fails the "clarification" definition (asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming) while Plato defends it as a good-faith framing consistent with S3's stated method of disambiguating Orthodox tradition from caricatures since his opening answer. This is a disagreement purely about whether the line fits the label, not one any listed rule resolves, so per the instructions it is left to the archon.
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.