Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #58217:24upheld Indiana Brunner epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Indiana Brunner earned 1 point.
“… the context of that is not venerating the ark. It is it is... He's lamenting.”
Diogenes: He meets the Joshua proof text with a specific competing reading of the passage rather than dismissing it.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that scriptural episodes must not be over-read into doctrine; offering an alternative gloss on Joshua is consistent with that stance, but the specific line called is an unsupported assertion rather than a stated argument. The quoted line is a bare counter-assertion — "it is lamenting," not veneration — with no premises given at the point it is spoken; the reasoning behind it (that the ark was where God's presence was manifest) is only produced afterward under further questioning, so the quoted move itself lacks the premises-plus-conclusion structure "explicit argument" requires.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than sidestep Dyer's Joshua 7 example, Brunner engages it directly, offering a specific alternative reading of the same text, that the prostration is mourning/lament rather than veneration of the ark as an object, which is at least a plausible reading of the surrounding verses (torn clothes, dust on the head, until evening).
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that biblical episodes are narrative requiring careful, not automatic, reading into doctrine; offering a specific competing textual reading of the Joshua passage is consistent application of that stance, not a new position. Read together with the immediate follow-up in the same exchange ("because the ark was... where the presence of God was made manifest"), S1 offers a specific competing interpretation with a stated reason (the ark's significance as God's presence rather than an object of veneration), meeting the bar for a plainly stated premise and conclusion, even if brief.
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.