Appeal: explicit argument
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #66639:51upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 2 points.
“… you can't claim that Jake and the etherey [Athari] saying that Allah has a hand is completely meaningless and on the other hand, say that it's teshbir [tashbih] or it's likening god to creation and having body parts. So you cannot have it both ways, Jay. Is the nominalist predication completely meaningless and devoid of any content? Or is it meaningful and therefore we're likening God to creation?”
Diogenes: He shows that Dyer's two charges — that the attributes are empty and that they are anthropomorphic — cannot both hold, and puts the choice as a clean two-horned question Dyer must answer.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's opening already addressed the teshbih (anthropomorphism) charge, arguing there is no ontological sharing between God and creation under nominalism, and this line extends that same standing position into a dilemma against Jay's twin charges of "meaningless" and "anthropomorphic" predication. The quote states a clear two-horned dilemma with an explicit conclusion (Jay cannot consistently hold both that nominalist predication is empty and that it constitutes anthropomorphic likening), which satisfies premises-and-conclusion argumentation; the point is central and recurs across the debate, supporting major severity.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jake constructs a clean dilemma against Jay's dual charge (that Athari predication is both empty of content and anthropomorphic): either the predication is meaningless, in which case there is no content left to call anthropomorphic, or it is meaningful, in which case Jay has no standing to object given his own tradition's doctrine of theosis/deification, which he had quoted in his opening. Both horns are addressed and tied back to material already on the table.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake's opening statement laid out the nominalist defense against the teshbih (anthropomorphism) charge, arguing there is no shared ontology between God and creation despite shared predicates; this line continues that same defense, turning it into a dilemma against Jay's own dual criticism (meaningless vs. anthropomorphic) rather than departing from it. The passage states two exhaustive premises about Jay's own charges (either the predication is empty, or it is meaningful and thus commits Jay to the same "likening" he criticizes) and draws a clear conclusion that Jay cannot hold both — a properly structured explicit argument central to Jake's ongoing nominalist defense.
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.