Appeal: fallacy spotted
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #63849:49upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… the Quran proves the Quran by citing the Quran passages in the Old Testament. And yet we read in the Quran that it actually says that you can go to the prior revelation to see that the new revelation is consistent with it.”
Diogenes: He names the circularity in the criterion just given, and grounds the charge in the Qur'an's own appeal to prior scripture as confirmation, which is where the circle bites.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's declared first principle from the opening is that Islam's claim that prior revelation confirms the Qur'an is circular unless an independent standard is given; this callout is a direct continuation of that same standing objection, applied to the specific circular criterion Muslim Lantern had just stated. At the point of this callout, Muslim Lantern's stated criterion was exactly self-referential: "whoever agrees with the Quran and hadith, we accept ... whoever disagrees, we reject" with no independent verification mechanism yet offered (the manuscript/preservation evidence appears only later, at ~55:22). Judging the true/false status of the Old Testament by agreement with the very book whose truth is in question is a genuine circularity present in what Muslim Lantern actually said at that point in the debate, so Jay's naming of it is a correctly spotted fallacy rather than a misrepresentation of an answer that had already supplied a mechanism.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". This accurately names what Muslim Lantern had just done: when asked for an epistemic criterion for judging the authenticity of biblical passages, he answered "whatever agrees with the Qur'an/hadith we accept, whatever disagrees we reject" — using the very text under dispute as its own standard. Jay's paraphrase, that the Qur'an is being used to prove the Qur'an, correctly labels that circularity rather than distorting what was said.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern's stated criterion, given moments earlier at 48:01, was "whoever agrees with Islam, generally the Quran and hadith, we will accept... whoever disagrees, we reject" with no mechanism yet offered for checking the Qur'an's own truth (the manuscript/preservation evidence he cites does not appear until later, around 55:22); at this point in the debate, Jay's charge of circularity is aimed at a circle with no named mechanism. Per the rubric's own "circle with a mechanism" test, a bare circle earns a fallacy-spotted point when the other side has not yet named a checking mechanism, and at 49:49 Muslim Lantern had stated only "the Quran and hadith" as his criterion for judging both Islam and the Bible, without yet citing manuscript evidence or any external check, so naming the circularity here is accurate rather than a misrepresentation of an answer that gave a mechanism.
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.