Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #61456:02upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“If you can deny the oral tradition and that it... We don't... We're not bound by that, then I'm not bound by the claim of the church that Matthew disciple wrote Matthew's gospel, and I can throw out Matthew on your position.”
Diogenes: He lays out the consequence of his opponent's premise as a plain conditional, showing what the denial of binding oral tradition costs the canon.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is consistent with S0's running strategy throughout the canon discussion of testing what his opponent's stated principles entail for claims she does accept (Matthew's authorship, Trinity terminology), not a new or inconsistent move. This is a clean conditional argument: premise (S1 holds oral tradition is not told to be binding/infallible), inference (therefore nothing compels acceptance of any specific traditional claim), conclusion (therefore the traditional claim that Matthew the disciple wrote Matthew's gospel is likewise non-binding, so Matthew could be discarded from the canon on her own principle). That is premises and conclusion stated plainly, tracing out what her stated position costs her.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Dyer builds a clear premise-to-conclusion case: Brunner has just said oral tradition, while passed on, is not binding; but the claim that "Matthew the disciple wrote Matthew's gospel" is itself known only through that same oral/church tradition; therefore, on Brunner's own stated principle, he has no ground to insist on Matthean authorship either, which would undercut the apostolic-authorship criterion he had relied on for canonicity. This presses a real tension in Brunner's stated position rather than mischaracterizing it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's method throughout is to press the practical entailments of sola scriptura for canon and authorship questions; this line holds to that method by stating a plain conditional, if oral tradition carries no binding authority, then the traditional attribution of Matthew's gospel, itself known only via oral or church tradition, is equally unbound, threatening the canon Indiana relies on. This is a clearly stated premise-to-conclusion argument built directly on Indiana's own prior statement that oral tradition is not binding, drawing out a real consequence for his canon rather than an unsupported jab.
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.