Appeal: evidence
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7101:53:42upheld Jake the Muslim Metaphysician epainos: evidence (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jake the Muslim Metaphysician earned 1 point.
“He doesn't say that. Yes. He does. Doesn't say we don't know the meaning. Yes. He does. Where? Give the give the evidence.”
Diogenes: Against a contested attribution to Ibn Taymiyya that contradicts his own stated position — meaning known, modality unknown — he asks for the citation rather than trading assertions.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jake's standing practice throughout the debate (from his opening statement's heavy reliance on precise citations from Ibn Khuzayma, al-Bukhari, Suleiman, Boyarin, etc.) is to insist on textual specificity; this line continues that same practice by demanding Dyer substantiate a contested attribution to Ibn Taymiyyah rather than simply asserting it. Jake is demanding a citation from Dyer rather than himself citing checkable evidence, which fits "asking for... clarification instead of assuming" better than the "evidence" category (which describes a speaker citing their own checkable source); the underlying move is still sound and worth crediting, so the call is upheld under the better-fitting label.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than accepting Jay's claim that Ibn Taymiyyah says "we don't know the meaning" of the divine attributes, Jake presses him to produce the actual textual citation, holding the burden of proof on the specific claim being made rather than letting the characterization stand unchallenged.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jake's position on Ibn Taymiyyah (stated since the opening) is that meaning is known while modality (kayfiyyah) is unknown; when Jay attributes to Ibn Taymiyyah the claim that "we don't know the meaning," Jake presses him to substantiate that specific attribution rather than accepting it on assertion. The quoted line is a demand that the opponent produce a citation, not Jake himself citing something checkable, so "evidence" is not quite the right label; but insisting on substantiation instead of trading bare assertions is a legitimate philosopher-ledger move better captured as "clarification."
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.