Appeal: direct answer
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #66436:01upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 1 point.
“… what Ibn Taymiyya says about orthodox trinitarianism is irrelevant to this debate. I didn't cite Ibn Taymiyyah as an argument against orthodox trinitarianism. I gave arguments in which I've made numerous times and you haven't responded to any of them…”
Diogenes: He correctly notes that his opening never rested on Ibn Taymiyya's critique of the Trinity, refusing the guilt-by-association framing and pointing back to the four arguments actually on the table.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jake's opening laid out four arguments against the Trinity (LPT, power/knowledge, epistemic schizophrenia, orthodoxy-in-orthodoxy) independent of Ibn Taymiyyah's critique of Trinitarian theology, and here he is defending that same framing by pointing out Jay attacked a position (Ibn Taymiyyah's view of the Trinity) he never relied on. "Direct answer" requires a question actually put and then answered; Jay's opening offered a critique of Ibn Taymiyyah's understanding of Trinitarian dogma, not a question, so there is no question on the record for this to be a direct answer to. The passage is better read as part of Jake's explicit argument reasserting what his case does and does not rest on.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Jay's opening spent considerable time attacking Ibn Taymiyyah's specific (mis)characterization of the Trinity as Nestorian/Arian; Jake correctly points out that his own arguments (the LPT, the power/knowledge argument, etc., which he in fact cited from his own opening, not from Ibn Taymiyyah's polemics) do not depend on that characterization, so the critique of Ibn Taymiyyah does not touch what he actually argued. This directly addresses the relevance of Jay's opening move rather than ignoring it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake's opening built his anti-Trinity case on Bo Branson-style LPT, power/knowledge, and epistemic-schizophrenia arguments, not on Ibn Taymiyyah's own confused critique of the Trinity; this line is consistent with that record, correcting Jay's opening framing that conflated Ibn Taymiyyah's misunderstanding of Trinitarian dogma with Jake's own case. Strictly, no question was put by Jay for Jake to "directly answer," so the label as filed is imprecise; but the substance is a real philosopher-grade move — Jake states a premise (he never used Ibn Taymiyyah's critique of the Trinity as his own argument) and a conclusion (so Jay's attack is beside the point, and the actual four arguments remain unanswered) — which fits "explicit argument" better than "direct answer."
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.