Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #60042:58upheld Indiana Brunner epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Indiana Brunner earned 2 points.
“I would say that the recognition of infallibility does not require the possession of infallibility. The simple historical fact, and this is a historical fact that I think we should all agree on, is that neither Jewish reception of the Old Testament nor early Christian reception of the scriptures happened through means of infallibility…”
Diogenes: Asked the canon question he states a clear principle and a historical premise to support it, which is the strongest form of his own position.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is S1's first substantive answer to the canon question that anchors the rest of the canon exchange, and it is consistent with, rather than a departure from, her stated method of resting doctrine on what can be shown rather than on claimed institutional infallibility. Asked "how do you know what the word of God is in terms of the canon," S1 states a distinct epistemological principle (recognizing infallible content does not require an infallible recognizer) and pairs it with a checkable historical premise (neither Jewish nor early Christian reception of scripture occurred through an infallible mechanism), aimed at defusing the canon challenge to sola scriptura. That is premises stated plainly in service of an implicit conclusion, regardless of whether the historical premise later proves contestable or whether Jay later presses a self-contradiction against it - the form of the statement is a genuine explicit argument.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Asked directly how he knows the canon, Brunner gives a stated premise (recognizing an infallible thing does not require the recognizer to be infallible) and a supporting historical claim (neither Jewish nor early Christian canon-reception proceeded through an infallible mechanism), building toward the conclusion that an infallible church is not needed to know scripture. It directly answers the question on the table rather than deflecting it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Indiana's opening method commits him to grounding doctrine in what can actually be shown rather than assumed; faced with Jay's canon question he holds to that evidentiary commitment by offering a stated epistemic principle rather than simply asserting the Protestant canon or deflecting. Indiana states a clear premise, recognizing something as infallible does not require the recognizers own infallibility, plus a historical premise, that neither Jewish nor early Christian reception of scripture proceeded through an infallible mechanism, aimed at the conclusion that Protestants need no infallible canon-declaring authority. This is a real, if compressed, argument offered directly in answer to the framework question Jay put, making it a legitimate explicit argument regardless of how well it survives the ensuing 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.