Appeal: clarification
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #16061:36:10upheld Stephen De Young epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Stephen De Young earned 1 point.
“But you are asking me for more than just where are the biblical building blocks for this. You are asking me for historical account that this was happening.”
Diogenes: He states plainly the two distinct burdens in play and admits which one he has not discharged, keeping the disagreement honestly located rather than blurring the two.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S3 has held since his opening that Orthodox claims rest on both scriptural building blocks and historical continuity of practice, and this statement restates that dual framework rather than departing from it; the issue is simply that the labeled category requires an act of asking, which is absent from the quoted line. The rubric defines "clarification" as asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming — this quote is not a question but a declarative statement distinguishing two burdens (biblical building blocks vs. historical attestation). While it is a fair and honest dialectical move, it does not fit the "asking" element the label requires; there is no question posed here, only an assertion clarifying the terms of the ongoing dispute.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "steelman", on the same ledger as the callout. De Young accurately pinpoints the actual standard Ortlund is applying — not merely "are there scriptural seeds for this," which De Young argues he can supply for icon veneration too, but "is there positive historical attestation that the practice was occurring" — a stricter, different demand than the one used to validate the Trinity. Naming the real shape of the opponent's requirement, rather than arguing against a looser version of it, lets the exchange close with both sides agreeing on where exactly they differ ("we'll just differ on whether that's a building block").
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held throughout that biblical/theological building blocks and independent historical attestation are different kinds of evidence (a distinction he also drew regarding Mary's assumption and the trinity earlier); this line is consistent with that standing distinction, now applied precisely to locate what Gavin's challenge actually demands. Unlike a bare rhetorical dismissal, this line does genuine clarifying work: it names and separates two distinct standards (scriptural "building blocks" versus independent historical proof of practice) that had been running together in the exchange, honestly identifying which bar he has not met — this is a fair, if loosely-worded, instance of clarification.
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.