Appeal: evidence
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #20876:53upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 1 point.
“The claim that ethnicity [Athari] traditionalists represent an overtly anthropomorphic theology has been refuted countless times and most recently by Fareed Suleiman when he states and I quote, Wesley Williams attempted in a 2002 article to show that Ibn Hanbal's conception of god was blatantly anthropomorphic, an untenable claim in my opinion, close quote.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Rather than merely asserting that the anthropomorphism charge against Athari theology fails, Jake cites a specific, checkable scholarly source (Fareed Suleiman) responding to a named academic claim (Wesley Williams' 2002 article on Ibn Hanbal), consistent with his citation practice elsewhere in the debate credited as evidence.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's declared method from the opening includes appeal to scholarly authorities and named sources (Ibn Khuzayma, al-Bukhari) to ground his claims, and this line continues that same practice by citing a specific, checkable scholarly work (Suleiman) responding to a named academic (Wesley Williams, 2002) rather than resting on bare assertion. The verifier's finding is "not found" rather than "misquoted or unsupported," so per the rubric I judge as I would without it: the citation names a real scholar, a real monograph, and a real prior academic claim it purports to answer, which is exactly the kind of checkable, claim-versus-evidence distinction the philosopher point rewards, independent of whether the precise wording could be technically re-verified.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than merely asserting that the anthropomorphism charge against Athari theology fails, Jake cites a specific, checkable scholarly source (Fareed Suleiman) responding by name to a named academic critic (Wesley Williams' 2002 article on Ibn Hanbal), quoting Suleiman's verdict directly. This distinguishes the claim from a citable piece of evidence the audience could go check, rather than resting on Jake's bare say-so.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's opening declared and has held throughout an Athari-nominalist defense against the anthropomorphism charge, and his citation practice throughout the debate (Ibn Khuzayma, al-Bukhari, and here Suleiman) consistently backs assertions with named, checkable scholarly sources rather than bare assertion. Jake names a specific scholar (Farid Suleiman) and a specific book responding to a specific named academic article (Wesley Williams, 2002 IJMES), a citation both sides treat as real and checkable throughout the debate (Jay cites page numbers from the same Suleiman volume repeatedly); the verifier's inability to access the text is a "not found" rather than a "misquoted" finding, so per the rubric I judge the passage as I would without it, and on its face this is exactly the claim/evidence distinction the philosopher point rewards.
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.