Appeal: direct answer
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #63748:45upheld Muslim Lantern epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Muslim Lantern earned 1 point.
“… whoever agrees with Islam, generally, the Quran and hadith, we will accept that this statement is true. ... Anything which we disagree, we will reject. ... that verse you quoted is talking about Allah's promise ... We're not talking about the revelation of the previous scriptures…”
Diogenes: He states his criterion for the biblical text plainly rather than evading, and draws a specific distinction (promise versus revealed text) against Jay's "Allah's word cannot be corrupted" verse.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern's opening first principle is that the Qur'an functions as a criterion over prior scriptures, confirming earlier revelation without endorsing the present corrupted texts; this answer restates and applies that same standing framework rather than departing from it. Jay's repeated question was what the epistemic criterion is for judging which parts of the Old Testament are true versus corrupted; Muslim Lantern states the criterion plainly (agreement with Qur'an and hadith) and additionally rebuts the specific "cannot be corrupted" prooftext by distinguishing promise-language from revealed-text language. That is a direct answer to the question actually asked, whatever one thinks of the criterion's soundness.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "begging the question". Jay's repeated challenge was for an epistemic criterion, independent of the Qur'an itself, for deciding which biblical passages are authentic; Muslim Lantern's answer here — accept what agrees with the Qur'an/hadith, reject what does not — makes the Qur'an, the very text whose reliability is in question relative to the earlier scriptures it claims to confirm, the standard by which the earlier scriptures are judged, without offering an independent check in this passage.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern's method, on record, treats the Qur'an as "a criterion over prior scriptures, confirming that earlier prophets and revelations existed without endorsing the present corrupted texts"; here, when Jay repeatedly asks for his epistemic criterion for judging biblical passages true or false, ML states that criterion plainly (agreement with Qur'an and hadith) and applies it to the specific verse Jay cited. This is a plain, direct statement of the criterion Jay had repeatedly asked for, plus a specific textual distinction (promise versus revealed scripture) applied against Jay's cited verse, which answers the question actually asked even though Jay separately and validly presses that the criterion is circular.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. Muslim Lantern's declared first principle is that the Qur'an functions as a criterion over prior scriptures, confirming earlier revelation without endorsing the present corrupted texts; when Jay repeatedly demanded his criterion for sorting true from corrupted Old Testament passages, ML stated exactly that standing criterion (agreement with Qur'an/hadith) and applied it to the specific verse Jay cited, distinguishing promise-language from revealed-text language. Whether that criterion is itself sound or circular is Jay's separate and valid critique, but judged against ML's own declared framework this is a direct, on-topic answer to the question actually asked, not an evasion of it.
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.