Appeal: fallacy spotted
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7091:52:36upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“So you're still using a paper is a creative [created] thing... These are creatures. These are creatures... another creature, which is totally unlike Allah, tells us nothing about all so these names and these predicates aren't telling us anything…” quote corrected
Diogenes: He identifies the disanalogy in Jake's paper-and-forehead illustration: both terms are created particulars, so the example cannot show how a predicate bridges the created and the uncreated, which is the case actually in dispute.The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held since his opening statement that Ibn Taymiyyah/Jake's predication of divine attributes is circular and empty because it only ever appeals to created analogues, and this line is a continuation of that same charge rather than a shift. Jay declared in his opening (and repeated in this passage) that Ibn Taymiyyah/Jake's account of divine attributes is "circular" and "tells us nothing" because predication is only ever cashed out via comparison to other created things — this is a consistent, standing objection, not a new departure. However, the passage does not correctly name a fallacy from the catalogue (e.g., begging the question, false analogy); it is instead a substantive argument pointing out that Jake's illustration (paper/forehead, and the textual gloss on "hand") never gets outside created particulars to establish meaning for the uncreated — premises stated leading to a conclusion, which is better captured as an explicit argument than as a fallacy correctly named and pinned on what Jake actually said.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay turns Jake's own paper/forehead analogy back on him: both paper and forehead are created things, so a same-word-different-referent comparison between two creatures cannot show that the same word, applied to an uncreated referent, carries any determinate meaning. The premises (the illustrative referents are creaturely; the disputed predicate is applied to an uncreated being) and the conclusion (the predication is empty/circular) are stated plainly, holding Jake to the disanalogy in his own chosen example.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since his opening statement that nominalist predication about "uncreated" body-parts is empty because any explanatory analogy (paper, forehead, etc.) only ever compares one created thing to another and never reaches the uncreated; this passage restates that same standing objection rather than introducing something new. The quoted lines lay out a premise (Jake's illustrative comparisons — paper, forehead — are both created particulars) and a conclusion (such comparisons cannot establish meaning for a predicate applied to the uncreated), which is a real explicit argument on the point in dispute; however, no specific named fallacy is stated in this passage (Jay says "circular" moments later but that is not in the quoted text), so "fallacy spotted" is not quite the right label even though a philosopher point is earned here.
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.