Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism.
- #16611:36:54upheld Ryan Dawson epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Dawson earned 1 point.
“I did not say that religions are money grabbing. It's not an intrinsic part of any religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, whatever. There are just people who are greedy. That they that's not because of their theology.”
Diogenes: Ryan separates his actual thesis — that religion is subverted by outside interests — from the stronger claim put in his mouth, keeping his own position precise rather than accepting the easier target.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Ryan's opening qualifier explicitly narrowed his complaint to religion's "political and financial aspects" and "business aspect," never claiming theology itself produces greed; this line restates that same standing distinction against Green Feathers' mischaracterization, but it is a declarative correction, not an act of asking for a definition or clarification. "Clarification" as defined requires the speaker to ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; Ryan's quoted line asks nothing — it flatly denies a claim attributed to him and restates his standing position. It is a legitimate correction of a mischaracterization (bearing on Green Feathers' side of the ledger, not Ryan's), but it does not contain the asking-element the "clarification" label requires.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Green Feathers had conflated two separate points from earlier in the debate — Ryan's opening remark about the "business aspect of churches and mosques" and Zionism, and his closing remark that religions reinterpret texts over time — into a single claim that Ryan called religion intrinsically "money grabbing." Ryan's reply accurately separates the two: he consistently located the fault in greedy people and political actors, not in theology itself, which matches what he actually said earlier rather than contradicting it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Ryan's opening standing objection was specifically that religion's political/financial abuse is the problem, not its theology or epistemology; this line holds that same distinction against Green Feathers's characterization by insisting the fault lies with greedy individuals, not with religion's essence. The line is not a request for a definition (the technical sense of "clarification" in the rubric) but a precise correction of how his own stated opening position was being characterized, holding to the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction he set out from the start; it is better labeled "direct answer" but is defensible as a philosopher point either way since it sharpens rather than dodges the issue.
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.