Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #243011:53overturned Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Note, I am not saying that the Jews of that time were all Trinitarians. I'm not saying that it's okay. I'm not saying that Jews necessarily accept Trinitarianism.”
Diogenes: Filed again from #620, overturned as "clarification": Aristotle and Socrates named it "explicit argument". On the record: S0 opened by presenting Jewish/Second Temple scholarship as evidence that ancient Judaism was not strictly unitarian, and here he pre-emptively qualifies that this evidence does not show the Jews were Trinitarians; this is consistent self-qualification of his own thesis, not a departure from it. The rubric defines "clarification" as asking for a definition or clarification instead of assuming — a question put to an interlocutor. Here Jay is not asking anyone anything; he is preemptively qualifying his own claim to avoid being misread. That is a precise statement of one's own thesis (part of explicit argument), not the philosopher point of clarification as defined.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer opened by declaring that the Trinity is rooted in the Torah and prophets through Jewish exegesis. He cited Sommer, Boyarin and others to show Second Temple Judaism was not generic unitarianism, and he has held that since. The called line only limits that claim and does not depart from it. The line is a disclaimer that restates the scope of his thesis. It has premises of a sort, but it has no stated conclusion and no stated link between them. The rubric excludes a claim and its restatement from explicit argument, so the elements are not all there. Whether they are is at best a toss-up, which means overturn.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay limits his claim before anyone challenges it. He denies that Second Temple Jews were all Trinitarians. He claims only that the cited scholars (Sommer, Segal, Boyarin) show there was no uniform Unitarian monotheism. He then states what follows from that: the early church's view was not foreign to its Jewish setting. The premises, the narrowed conclusion and the link between them are all stated. This is a restraint on his own claim, not a concession, and he gives no argument here that is more than the narrowed claim.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer opened by declaring the Trinity is rooted in the Torah and prophets and continuous with Second Temple Jewish exegesis, and he has held that throughout; the called line is a self-qualification within that thesis, not a departure. The line is a disclaimer: "I'm not saying Jews were all Trinitarians." It states no premises and draws no conclusion, and it does not state the link between them. So it is a qualification of his thesis, not an explicit argument. The argument itself comes right after it ("these scholars prove that... there was not a generic Unitarianism"), and the call does not rest on that part. The elements of explicit argument are not all found in the quoted words.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. The quoted line is a disclaimer limiting Jay's own thesis. It states no premises, draws no conclusion from them and states no link between them. The argument (the scholars show there was no generic Unitarianism) comes in the next sentences, and the call doesn't rest on those. The elements of explicit argument are not all found in the quoted words.
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.