Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #63339:49upheld Muslim Lantern epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Muslim Lantern earned 2 points.
“… we look at Jesus in Mark thirteen thirty two who explicitly mentions and says that he does not know the hour while the father knows the hour ... So how does Jesus not know something and you claim that he's equal to the father?”
Diogenes: He puts a specific text against a specific plank of the definition Jay accepted (co-equality) and pre-empts the expected two-natures reply, which is argument rather than assertion.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern's declared method is citing specific texts and demanding precise definitions before accepting doctrinal claims; this line continues that same method applied to the co-equality plank Jay had just defined, not a departure from it. This is a clear premises-to-conclusion structure: Mark 13:32 shows Jesus states he does not know the hour while the Father does; Jay had just agreed the persons are co-equal in nature; therefore a being ignorant of something the Father knows cannot be co-equal, with an anticipatory rebuttal of the two-natures reply built in. That is a plainly stated explicit argument, not bare assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Muslim Lantern lays out a clear premise-to-conclusion argument with a checkable citation: Mark 13:32 says only the Father knows the hour, not the Son; he preemptively rules out the "human nature" escape by noting Jesus is claimed to possess both natures at once; and he draws the conclusion that this undercuts the claim of co-equality.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern's opening framework holds that the Trinity as defined (three co-equal, co-eternal persons) is not supported by scripture; here he presents a specific text (Mark 13:32) as a premise against the "co-equal" plank Jay had just affirmed, concluding the persons are not equal — a stated premise-to-conclusion argument with a checkable citation. The passage lays out a clear premise (Jesus states ignorance of the hour, the Father does not) and draws an explicit conclusion (equality is thereby contradicted), directly engaging the co-equality plank of the Trinity definition Jay had accepted moments earlier, which is a textbook explicit argument rather than bare assertion.
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.