Appeal: direct answer
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #65618:13upheld Jay Dyer epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… by reducing the idea of begetting to being an energy. Begetting is not an energy. So for Jake's argument to hold that he made earlier about the triad, begetting would have to be a common energy, and it's not.”
Diogenes: He goes straight at the load-bearing premise of Jake's parity argument, drawing the distinction between hypostatic property and energy rather than deflecting.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay opened by declaring that Jake's whole critique rests on conflating hypostatic properties (like begetting) with energies, and this line is the first statement of that standing distinction, which he repeats and defends (e.g., against the equivocation-on-power charge) through the rest of the debate. This is not a "direct answer" in the strict sense since no question had been put to Jay at this point — Jake made this power/energy argument as an assertion in his own opening statement, not as a question — but the substance is sound reasoning: Jay states a premise (begetting is not an energy) that yields a conclusion (Jake's parity argument fails because it requires begetting to be a common energy), which is an explicit argument engaging directly with the load-bearing premise rather than deflecting.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay states the premise plainly (begetting is not an energy) and draws the conclusion that Jake's argument, which requires begetting to count as a shared energy for the LPT/power-and-knowledge objection to work, therefore fails; he later substantiates the premise by tracing it to the Eunomius-versus-Nyssa dispute over whether begetting counts as a "power," giving the distinction a citable historical basis rather than leaving it a bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 declared at the opening that he would defend an essence/energy/hypostasis framework distinguishing personal properties (like begetting) from shared energies, and this line is the first application of that framework to rebut Jake's own opening claim that the persons must share "power" as an energy. Jake's second opening argument was a declarative claim, not a question, so "direct answer" is not quite the right fit; but the substance is sound and worth crediting under a different label — Jay states a plain premise (begetting is not an energy but a personal/hypostatic property) and draws the conclusion that Jake's parity argument fails, engaging the load-bearing premise rather than deflecting.
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.