Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #57711:40upheld Indiana Brunner epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Indiana Brunner earned 2 points.
“Jesus heals without dirt. Jesus heals with dirt. Jesus heals the, the nobleman's son without even being there, but then he goes physically to Lazarus.”
Diogenes: He supports the "no objective formula" objection with paired counterexamples from the same texts his opponent is using, which is an argument rather than an assertion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened and maintained that narrative accounts of miracles cannot ground a doctrine of objects mediating grace without an explicit apostolic formula; this quote is a direct application of that standing claim via concrete textual premises, not a departure from it. S1's opening framework held throughout is that descriptive miracle-narratives cannot yield a fixed doctrine/formula about objects and the Spirit. Here he lays out paired premises (heals with/without dirt, remotely vs. in person) and draws the conclusion that no consistent object-based formula exists, so context rather than the object itself is doing the work — a plainly stated premises-to-conclusion argument in service of that same standing position, not a mere assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. Brunner marshals several specific, checkable gospel episodes (healing without dirt, with dirt, remotely for the nobleman's son, but in person for Lazarus) to support his stated framework claim that no consistent formula ties healing to physical objects, so no doctrine of relics can be built on the narratives. This is not a hasty generalization but a direct, evidenced argument for the point he has held since his opening.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 declared and held throughout that descriptive miracle narratives cannot ground doctrine absent explicit apostolic teaching; this line is a restatement/support of that very position, not a departure from it. This line is part of S1's sustained method (declared from his framework: narrative accounts don't establish normative doctrine) — he marshals paired counterexamples (heals with/without dirt, heals remotely vs. in person) as premises supporting the conclusion that no consistent formula for physical mediation can be drawn from the healing narratives. That is premises stated plainly leading to a conclusion, fitting "explicit argument." It is not a mere assertion or rhetorical flourish; it is the evidentiary backbone of the objection he presses throughout the exchange.
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.