Appeal: clarification
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #67555:20upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: clarification (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 2 points.
“You didn't respond to my argument about them not having the same power or knowledge other than assuming that I said that these must be energies. No. My entire critique is that the Orthodox say that they're not energies. They make an exception between the begetting and the spirating and god's knowledge and these other things when they're not shared.”
Diogenes: He corrects the reading of his own argument and states its real form — that the exceptions for unshared items are unprincipled — putting the objection back in a shape Dyer's "begetting is not an energy" reply does not touch.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jake's opening argument was that the divine persons lack identical power/knowledge because Orthodox theology makes ad hoc exceptions for unshared items (e.g., only the Father begets); this line in his second rebuttal restates that same standing argument to correct Jay's earlier reduction of it to "begetting must be a common energy," rather than departing from his original claim. "Clarification" requires the speaker to ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming; here Jake is not asking anything — he is restating and defending the actual content of his own prior argument against a misreading. That is better captured as explicit argument (or as calling out a misrepresentation of his position) than as the clarification move as defined.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay had accused Jake of equivocating by calling begetting an "energy"; Jake directly clarifies that his actual point is different — that Orthodox theology carves out an unprincipled exception (treating begetting/spirating as not needing to be a shared "energy" while treating knowledge and power as shared energies), which is consistent with his original opening argument and responds precisely to Jay's mischaracterization of it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake's opening declared as his second argument that the Father, Son, and Spirit lack the same power/knowledge and that Orthodox theology makes unprincipled exceptions for items not shared (e.g., begetting); this line restates and defends that same standing argument against Jay's "begetting is not an energy" reply, not a new position. The label "clarification" is imprecise (Jake is not asking for a definition), but the substance is a legitimate explicit argument restating the actual premise (unprincipled exceptions for unshared powers) that Jay's reply about energies does not address, and this argument is central to Jake's case and repeated in cross-examination, supporting major severity.
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.