Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #58930:14upheld Indiana Brunner epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Indiana Brunner earned 2 points.
“… why do you continually partake if Jesus says you will never hunger and you will never thirst?”
Diogenes: He turns from defending to a positive challenge drawn from the same chapter his opponent is using, putting a real difficulty to the eucharistic reading of John 6.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1's standing method treats explicit dominical statements as controlling over inferred liturgical practice; this argument applies that same method to challenge the Eucharistic reading, consistent with his opening position rather than a new one. The quoted question is the opening move of a fuller argument S1 completes in the same breath: Jesus promises no more hunger or thirst to the one who comes and believes; continual eucharistic partaking implies an unmet need; therefore the sacramental tradition "negates" those words while his own position does not — premises and conclusion stated plainly across the passage.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Brunner builds a clear premise from a specific, checkable verse (John 6:35, come to me and never hunger, believe and never thirst) and draws out its tension with the Orthodox practice of continual Eucharistic partaking, pressing Dyer to explain the apparent inconsistency. This is a substantive challenge grounded in the text rather than a bare rhetorical jab, and Dyer goes on to answer it (appealing to the possibility of falling from grace).
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's declared method rests doctrine on explicit textual claims rather than inferred practice; pressing a textual tension between the practice of continual Eucharistic reception and Jesus's promise in John 6 is consistent application of that method, not a departure. Read together with the sentences immediately following, S1 makes a full explicit argument: premise (Jesus promises no more hunger or thirst to the one who comes and believes), premise (Orthodox theology holds that grace can be lost and must be continually regained through repeated sacramental partaking), conclusion (therefore that theology negates Jesus's stated promise). The rhetorical question sets up premises and conclusion stated plainly enough to meet the bar.
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.