Appeal: explicit argument
From Muslim Twitter Triggered, Middleast Wars, Is America A Christian Country Debate With Sneako!.
- #18672:22:57overturned Myron Gaines epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Are you telling me that people had to explicitly refer to Jesus Christ for it to be considered Christianity, bro?”
Diogenes: Myron directly challenges the implicit standard SNEAKO is applying (that only an explicit "Jesus Christ" reference counts as evidence of Christian belief), pointing out that this is not how Christian identity/speech ordinarily works.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Myron's standing method is historical/evidentialist argument from founders' quotes; he does eventually state the underlying premise explicitly moments later, but the specific quoted line is rhetorical challenge, not the argument itself, so the label is unmet at this exact quote. The quoted line is a rhetorical, incredulous question ("Are you telling me... bro?") rather than a plainly stated premise-and-conclusion. "Explicit argument" requires the reasoning to be laid out, not merely gestured at through incredulity; Myron's actual substantive claim ("that's exactly what being a Christian is," "he was a Christian, bro") comes in the lines immediately following this one, not in the quoted line itself.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is an incredulous rhetorical question, but it accurately captures the standard SNEAKO had just invoked (that Washington "wasn't a Christian" because he didn't name Jesus explicitly), so it isn't a misrepresentation, and Myron immediately follows it with substantive argument rather than letting the jab stand in for one, so it isn't ad hominem either. It's rhetoric riding alongside the ongoing exchange, not a distinct fault or merit.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Myron has held since the opening thread that founders' generic God-language is sufficient evidence of Christian founding without requiring explicit Christ-naming, and this line is a direct application of that same standing premise against SNEAKO's stricter implicit standard, not a departure from it. Myron's opening thread and constant position hold that generic invocations of "God"/"Providence" by the founders count as evidence of Christian identity without requiring explicit naming of Jesus; here he applies that same standing premise as a reductio against SNEAKO's implicit demand for explicit "Jesus Christ" language, stating the premise (no explicit naming is required for Christian identity) and the conclusion (so Washington's "Almighty God" doesn't fail to count) via rhetorical-question form, which is a legitimate reductio structure rather than a bare question.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. The quoted line itself is a rhetorical, incredulous question, not a statement of premises and a conclusion; the actual substantive claim ("That's exactly what being a Christian is") comes in the lines immediately after. Plato's uphold reconstructs the premise-and-conclusion structure by importing Myron's standing position from earlier in the thread and treating the question as a reductio — but that link is supplied by the judge, not stated by the speaker in the quoted words, which is exactly what the rule against completing an argument for a speaker forbids scoring.
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.