Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #24312:06:26overturned Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I said that when he uses the terminology of inseparability, that he's using the idea of counting by division. And it's simply saying that if you say, for example, that the attributes are undivided or that the essence is one and undivided, that's also counting by division.”
Diogenes: Filed again from #717, overturned as "clarification": Aristotle and Plato named it "explicit argument". On the record: Dyer's standing counting-by-division/identity framework, held since his opening statement and pressed repeatedly in cross-examination, is restated here in clearer form rather than changed; this is the same claim Jake demanded he substantiate earlier. This is not a request for a definition but Dyer plainly stating his own claim with content — that predicating "undividedness" of the attributes/essence is itself a mode of counting by division — which is the specific explanation Jake had demanded in cross-examination; this fits "explicit argument" better than "clarification," but the underlying move (finally supplying the promised content) is real and worth crediting.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer declared in his opening that Jake counts by both identity and division, since he calls the attributes really distinct yet inseparable, and he has held that through the cross-examination and closing; the called line restates it and adds "undivided" as a further instance, so it keeps to that position. The line repeats a claim Dyer had already made at 21:11 and 50:02. It adds "undivided" as another example but gives no new premises and draws no new conclusion. The link to the Trinity is not stated here, so the call does not meet the explicit argument label's requirement that the premises, conclusion and link all be stated. It restates a standing position and does not make a new move. This is a close call, so I overturn it.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This restates Jay's position from his opening (21:16): that "inseparable" and "undivided" language counts by division. It is a contested claim, but a restatement is not a new move. He gave a reason elsewhere, citing al Ghazali and Maximus, so it is not a bare assertion. He uses "division" in the technical sense throughout, so no shift between senses is shown. Neither a clear fault nor a clear merit.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer declared at the opening, and has held since, that Jake counts God's attributes and essence by both identity and division, which is the same method Trinitarians use. The called line restates that thesis in the closing and departs from it only by adding "undivided". The line mostly restates a position Dyer has held since 21:11 and repeated in the rebuttal and cross-examination. Its one new element, that "undivided" is also counting by division, is asserted with no premises or link stated. Under the rubric a restatement is not a move and an argument needs its premises and link stated, so the elements are missing. At best this is a toss-up, so it is overturned.
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.