Appeal: evidence
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #60850:28upheld Jay Dyer epainos: evidence (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“I've got canon 85 of the apostolic canons pulled up right here. This is one of the earliest. The other earliest is the canons of Laodicea. And the canon that's listed in the apostolic canons from the three hundreds, it includes, uh-oh, the deuterocanon.”
Diogenes: He meets a disputed historical claim with the named document he has open in front of him and offers to walk through it, which is evidence rather than assertion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is a direct continuation of S0's declared method of resting arguments on named documents and patristic testimony rather than bare assertion, not a departure from anything he has held. This is a clean citation to a specific, named, checkable document (Canon 85 of the Apostolic Canons, alongside the Canons of Laodicea) that he says he has open and offers to walk through - precisely distinguishing an assertion from evidence for it, and it is corroborated later when he walks the audience through the Lee McDonald tables in detail.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than just asserting Brunner is wrong, Dyer names a specific, checkable historical document, Apostolic Canon 85, and states its content (inclusion of the deuterocanon) to directly rebut Brunner's claim that early lists were closer to the Protestant canon; this is a citable, verifiable source rather than a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's method throughout is to ground claims in named, checkable historical documents (patristic canon lists, later formalized with the Lee McDonald book); this line holds to that method exactly, naming the specific document, offering to walk through it, and stating its content. Citing a specific named primary source (Canon 85 of the Apostolic Canons, plus the Canons of Laodicea) that he has open and offers to walk through is a clear instance of citing something checkable rather than merely asserting a historical claim, directly rebutting Indiana's prior unsubstantiated claim about the early lists.
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.