Appeal: equivocation
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #64256:02upheld Muslim Lantern psogos: equivocation (+2)
The council upheld the call: Muslim Lantern gave away 2 points.
“I'm happy you threw your whole religion under the bus. Oh, I agree that the sun [son] is subordinate to the father. I agree. ... He said, yes. We agree. He's subordinate to the father. Excellent. That's what we believe as Muslims.”
Diogenes: Jay's stated position all along was subordination of person with identity of nature, so treating his "subordinate" as the Islamic sense of a creature submitting to God trades on two senses of the same word to manufacture a concession.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Muslim Lantern has held since early in the debate that Father-Son subordination language shows the persons are not coequal (Mark 13:32, John 17:3 running case); at 56:02 he extends that standing argument but crosses into equivocation by dropping Jay's repeated qualifier ("subordinate... but not according to essence," at 41:12 and 54:20-31) and sliding "subordinate" into the distinct Islamic sense of creaturely submission to God ("that's what a Muslim is"). The transcript shows Jay's stated sense of "subordinate" throughout was intra-essence, same-nature subordination of one divine person to another, explicitly excluding difference of essence; ML's declaration of agreement drops that qualifier and treats the word as equivalent to the Islamic concept of a creature submitting to its distinct Creator, which is trading on two senses of one term to manufacture a concession Jay never made.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation", on the same ledger as the callout. Throughout the debate Jay's stated position (from the opening statement's "archic cause and fount" language onward, and explicitly again at 42:50-43:11) is that the Son is subordinate to the Father in monarchical order while remaining fully equal in nature/essence, "not more human than the son" in his king-and-prince analogy. Here Lantern collapses that qualified position into flat agreement with the Islamic view that Jesus is simply inferior to God ("that's what we believe as Muslims"), dropping the "in nature" qualifier Jay had just insisted on moments earlier at 44:55 ("In nature. You're lying. I said in nature."), so the transcript itself shows the position being restated by Lantern is not the position Jay actually holds.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared, standing position since the opening (monarchical trinitarianism) holds subordination of person without difference of essence/nature; ML's line departs from engaging that qualifier and instead re-labels the bare word "subordinate" with the Islamic creature-to-Creator sense to claim victory. Jay's stated and repeated qualifier throughout ("subordination... but not according to essence," "in nature" they are equal) is dropped here, and ML treats Jay's agreement to bare "subordinate" as equivalent to the Islamic sense of a creature submitting to its Creator ("that's what we believe as Muslims... Prophet Muhammad was submitting to Allah"), sliding between two distinct senses of the word to manufacture a claimed concession that Jay's religion has been "thrown under the bus."
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.