Appeal: misrepresentation
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #67352:53upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“And he says that, well, well, those even to me, a book's [Palamas] not even relevant for this for this debate.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Jake's actual claim was narrower — that Ibn Taymiyya's critique of Trinitarianism is irrelevant because he never cited it as an argument — not that the book as a whole is irrelevant, and the broader version is easier to attack.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's standing method through the debate is citing specific texts and holding opponents to precise distinctions (e.g., his own person/nature/mode terminology, his internal-critique framing); here he departs from that standing precision by broadening Jake's narrow claim ("what Ibn Taymiyya says about orthodox trinitarianism is irrelevant... I didn't cite Ibn Taymiyyah as an argument against orthodox trinitarianism," 36:04) into "a book's not even relevant for this debate," a claim Jake never made and which is easier to refute given Jake's other citations of the same book. The transcript at 36:04 shows Jake's claim was specifically that Ibn Taymiyya's critique of trinitarianism was irrelevant because he never used it as an argument against the Trinity; Jay's line at 52:53 restates this as a blanket claim that the whole book is irrelevant to the debate, which is a different and weaker position than the one on record, and Jay then spends the following twenty seconds refuting that weaker restatement rather than the narrower claim actually made.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". At 36:01 Jake's actual claim was narrow and specific: "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.e., Ibn Taymiyyah's characterization of the Trinity doesn't bear on Jake's own arguments against it. Jay renders this at 52:53 as Jake saying "even to me, a book's not even relevant for this for this debate," a much broader claim that the whole Ibn Taymiyyah text is irrelevant to the debate -- which is implausible on its face given Jake built his entire opening on quoting Ibn Taymiyyah to explain Tawheed. Jay then builds a several-line "gotcha" on this broadened claim ("why would he not be relevant... so the pillar of your tradition isn't relevant for this debate?"), making it more than a passing slip.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held throughout the debate that Suleiman's book on Ibn Taymiyyah is centrally relevant to the debate (citing it extensively in openings and rebuttals) and here responds to Jake's earlier remark by recasting it as a broader claim than Jake made. The transcript at 36:01 shows Jake's actual claim was narrow and specific — that Ibn Taymiyyah's critique of Trinitarianism is irrelevant because Jake never cited it as an argument against the Trinity — not that the Suleiman book as a whole is irrelevant to the debate; Jay's rendering at 52:53 substitutes the easier-to-attack broad claim ("a book's not even relevant for this debate") and then argues against that broadened version, which is a misrepresentation of the position actually on the record.
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.