Appeal: evidence
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #6951:24:31upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 1 point.
“Richard Cartwright says on this passage, it seems to have been left to Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's younger brother, to notice that thus understood, consubstantiality of the father, son, and holy spirit appears to license saying that there are three gods.”
Diogenes: He grounds the counting objection in a named analytic philosopher's reading of the specific patristic text under discussion, keeping the dispute on checkable ground.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's standing method, evident from the opening statement onward, is to support his claims with citations to named scholars and primary texts (Ibn Khuzayma, al-Bukhari, Boyarin, Siegel, Suleiman); this line continues that same practice, not a departure. Jake cites a specific, named analytic philosopher's reading of the specific Gregory of Nyssa text under discussion to support the LPT-style counting objection, which is a checkable citation distinguishing claim from evidence, meeting the definition.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". Rather than merely asserting that consubstantiality licenses "three gods," Jake cites a named scholar (Richard Cartwright) and a specific, checkable claim about how Gregory of Nyssa himself grappled with the problem, grounding his argument in citable secondary literature rather than bare assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake's counting/LPT argument has been on the record since his opening statement; here he supports it by citing a specific, checkable claim from analytic philosopher Richard Cartwright's reading of the Gregory of Nyssa passage under discussion, rather than merely asserting his interpretation. This is a clean instance of citing a named, checkable secondary source on the specific patristic text in dispute, distinguishing claim from evidence as the philosopher-ledger criterion requires.
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.