Appeal: direct answer
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #24381:35:47upheld Gavin Ortlund epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Gavin Ortlund earned 1 point.
“But that's not the argument I made. That that's not the argument I made. Because I said, you know, in the New Testament itself, we have all of the pieces for the trinity. So I would make a distinction in that way.”
Diogenes: Filed again from #1613, overturned as "clarification": Aristotle and Plato named it "direct answer". On the record: Gavin has held since his opening that scriptural "building blocks" (explicit deity of Christ, baptismal formula) ground trinitarian doctrine differently than icon veneration, which he holds lacks such biblical grounding; this line is a consistent restatement of that same distinction, deployed to correct De Young's Unitarian-parity charge rather than a new position. The rubric's "clarification" is defined as asking for a definition or clarification, which is not quite what happens here — Gavin is correcting a mischaracterization of his own argument and restating the distinguishing principle, which fits "direct answer" (answering the parity charge De Young pressed since 31:20) better; but the underlying credit for good reasoning is earned either way, so the call is upheld with the better label suggested.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Gavin declared at the opening that sola scriptura makes Scripture the only infallible rule, and that doctrine may be inferred or deduced from it. He has held that since. This line applies the same position and does not depart from it. De Young had pressed the Unitarian parity charge: someone could demand a pre-Nicene father who states the Nicene doctrine, just as Gavin demands an early advocate of icon veneration. Gavin answers that charge in its own terms. He says he made no such historical demand for the Trinity, because the New Testament already holds the pieces (the baptismal formula, the deity of Christ). That matches what he said at 86:11 and 86:40. It is a direct answer to the parity point, given before any counter-question, so I uphold it as a minor direct answer.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted", on the same ledger as the callout. De Young likened Ortlund's demand for pre-Nicene attestation of icon veneration to a Unitarian's demand for pre-Nicene attestation of Nicene Trinitarianism. Ortlund rejects the parallel and gives a reason: his case for the Trinity rests on New Testament building blocks, not on patristic attestation. This matches the record, since he had said earlier that "the building blocks are all there." It is a fair rebuttal of a misdescribed argument.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S2 opened by defining sola scriptura as scripture being the only infallible rule, with doctrine allowed by inference, and has held that icon veneration lacks the scriptural building blocks the Trinity has; this line restates that distinction and does not depart from it. De Young did not put a question to Gavin here. He made a Unitarian-parity remark at 95:07. Gavin's reply corrects what De Young said his argument was and restates the building-blocks distinction he first made at 86:11. That is a restatement of a held position, so no direct answer to a question is shown. The rubric says to overturn a call whose line only restates a standing position. The "direct answer" label needs a question that bears on the dispute and is answered in its terms, and none was put. The line fits "clarification" or a restatement better, and the earlier "clarification" call on this same line was already 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.