Appeal: appeal to authority
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #6496:53overturned Jake the Muslim Metaphysician psogos: appeal to authority (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“The claim that ethnicity [Athari] traditionalists represent an overtly anthropomorphic theology has been refuted countless times and most recently by Fareed Suleiman when he states and I quote, Wesley Williams attempted in a 2002 article to show that Ibn Hanbal's conception of god was blatantly anthropomorphic, an untenable claim in my opinion, close quote.”
Diogenes: The quoted "refutation" is a scholar's bare stated opinion, offered as though it settled the charge, with the substantiation only gestured at rather than given.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1 opened by declaring explicit nominalism (no shared ontology between God and creation) as his first-principle rebuttal to the tashbih/anthropomorphism charge, giving that argument himself immediately before this line; the Suleiman quote is offered as corroborating scholarly support, not as a substitute for his own reasoning, and he explicitly flags that Suleiman "cites numerous other academics" and "goes into more detail substantiating his claim.". Appeal to authority requires that the cited authority's bare conclusion stand in for reasoning on the contested point; here S1 had already given his own independent argument (nominalism/no shared universals) moments earlier in the same opening, and the Suleiman citation is offered as corroboration with an explicit note that the source itself substantiates the claim further and cites other scholars. The Sulaiman book goes on to become a jointly-cited primary source throughout the debate, with both sides quoting specific pages from it in substantive argument, confirming this was a citation pointing to real scholarly argument rather than a bare appeal used to foreclose the question. The verifier's "not found" leaves the underlying content unresolved but does not itself establish the fallacy; judged on the transcript alone, the element of "authority substituting for argument" is missing.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than merely asserting that the anthropomorphism charge against Athari theology fails, Jake cites a specific, checkable scholarly source (Fareed Suleiman) responding to a named academic claim (Wesley Williams' 2002 article on Ibn Hanbal), consistent with his citation practice elsewhere in the debate credited as evidence.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S1's opening declared and consistently held a Athari-nominalist defense against the anthropomorphism charge, citing named scholars for support throughout (Ibn Khuzayma, al-Bukhari, and here Suleiman); this line is part of that declared pattern of citing checkable specialist sources, not a departure into pure appeal-to-authority. The callout's quote is truncated right before S1's very next sentence, which is part of the same breath: "Suleyman also cites numerous other academics who have refuted this falsehood and goes into more detail substantiating his claim." Read whole, S1 is not resting on Suleiman's bare opinion as if it alone settled the matter; he is naming a specific author, a specific book, and explicitly flagging that the source contains further citations and substantiation — that is citing something checkable (author, book, page-locatable claim), the hallmark of the "evidence" ledger, not an authority invoked to foreclose inquiry. This is also a case where expertise is directly relevant: the question at hand (whether early Hanbali/Athari theology is "overtly anthropomorphic") is a scholarly historical-interpretive dispute, exactly the kind of question on which citing a specialist's argument is fair game rather than fallacious.
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.