Appeal: clarification
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #16131:35:46overturned Gavin Ortlund epainos: clarification (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“But that's not the argument I made. That that's not the argument I made. Because I said, you know, in the New Testament itself, we have all of the pieces for the trinity. So I would make a distinction in that way.”
Diogenes: Answering the Unitarian-parity charge pressed since 31:20, he draws the distinction his position actually turns on — scriptural building blocks versus later historical attestation — rather than letting the parallel stand unexamined.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Gavin has held since his opening that scriptural "building blocks" (explicit deity of Christ, baptismal formula) ground trinitarian doctrine differently than icon veneration, which he holds lacks such biblical grounding; this line is a consistent restatement of that same distinction, deployed to correct De Young's Unitarian-parity charge rather than a new position. The rubric's "clarification" is defined as asking for a definition or clarification, which is not quite what happens here — Gavin is correcting a mischaracterization of his own argument and restating the distinguishing principle, which fits "direct answer" (answering the parity charge De Young pressed since 31:20) better; but the underlying credit for good reasoning is earned either way, so the call is upheld with the better label suggested.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". De Young claimed Gavin "makes substantially the same argument" as a Unitarian who says only "show me a church father before Nicea teaching the Nicene doctrine" — i.e., a purely historical-silence argument. But Gavin's recorded position, stated earlier in this same exchange (85:53–86:20), is explicitly different: he grounds the Trinity in scriptural "building blocks" (monotheism, repeated affirmations of Christ's deity, the triadic baptismal formula) present in the New Testament text itself, not merely in absence of early patristic silence. Gavin's reply here ("that's not the argument I made... we have all of the pieces for the trinity") correctly points out the transcript does not support the parity De Young drew.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held since ~86:00 that Trinity doctrine has explicit New Testament building-blocks while icon veneration does not, and this line at 95:46 is a direct reassertion/defense of that same standing distinction against De Young's parity charge, not a departure or a fresh clarification-seeking move. Gavin here pushes back against De Young's attempt to align his position with the Unitarian's argument, and restates the building-blocks-versus-later-attestation distinction he had already laid out at 86:23-87:24 as his actual grounds for distinguishing Trinity development from icon veneration. This is responsive engagement with De Young's parity charge, not a dodge or new material invented on the spot, but the rubric's "clarification" label specifically means asking for a definition instead of assuming — here Gavin is not asking anything, he is asserting and defending his own already-stated distinction, which fits "direct answer" (or continued explicit argument) better.
- Thesmothetes leave: All three judges actually agree that "clarification" — asking for a definition instead of assuming — does not literally fit; Gavin is not requesting a definition, he is rebutting De Young's parity analogy by restating the "building blocks" distinction he had already laid out at 86:00-87:24. Where they split is purely on which better label the moment deserves: Aristotle and Plato both say it should be re-tagged "direct answer," while Socrates would instead route the credit onto a "misrepresentation" call against De Young for mischaracterizing Gavin's argument as identical to the Unitarian's. That is a real disagreement of judgment about labeling and attribution, not one any rule on the list settles, since the rubric's caution that a label mismatch alone does not resolve a callout applies with equal force to a philosopher-point mislabel as to a sophist-point one — so 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.