Appeal: dodge
From HEATED DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Jake Muslim Metaphysician | Trinity Vs Tawhid -Modern Day Debate.
- #7111:54:00upheld Jay Dyer psogos: dodge (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“Where does he say we don't know the meaning? Okay. What he says is that what it means is that it exists in a manner befitting Allah. That tells us nothing.”
Diogenes: Asked twice to produce the passage where Ibn Taymiyya denies knowledge of the meaning, he silently substitutes a different and weaker claim rather than withdrawing the attribution or citing it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dyer's standing method throughout the debate (upheld repeatedly as "evidence") was to cite specific pages from Sulaiman's book on Ibn Taymiyyah (e.g., pages 331, 252) for exactly this claimed contradiction on body-part predication; here, pressed twice by name for the actual passage denying knowledge of meaning, he departs from that practice by substituting his own paraphrase without a citation. My own reading of the primary transcript disagrees with the verifier's re-attribution: at [113:55] and [114:00] Jake twice asks Dyer to "show that he says we don't know the meaning" / "where does he say" it, and the transcript tags the answering line at [114:01] — "what he says is that it exists in a manner befitting Allah, that tells us nothing" — to S2 (Dyer), not S1; this is a paraphrase/gloss substituted for the citation Dyer had produced earlier in the debate (pages 331, 252) but does not reproduce here, so the direct question asked twice remains unanswered with the actual textual evidence demanded.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". Jake asked twice for the specific place where Ibn Taymiyyah says "we don't know the meaning" ("Where does he say we don't know the meaning?" ... "Show that he says we don't know the meaning"), a request for a citation distinct from Athari doctrine's own explicit distinction (stated in Jake's opening) between the known meaning of an attribute and its unknown modality (kayfiyyah). Rather than producing that citation, Jay answers with his own restated gloss -- "what it means is that it exists in a manner befitting Allah. That tells us nothing" -- which treats "unknown modality" as if it were "unknown meaning" without ever pointing to text saying the meaning itself is unknown, leaving the specific evidentiary question unanswered.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has held throughout the debate (echoing his opening's "contradiction" charges against Ibn Taymiyyah, citing Suleiman by page) that Athari theology says both that meaning is affirmed and that meaning is unknown; Jake's standing position since the opening has consistently distinguished meaning (known) from modality/kayfiyyah (unknown), so when pressed to cite where Ibn Taymiyyah denies knowledge of meaning itself, Jay's answer departs from producing that citation. My copy of the transcript tags [114:00] "Where does he say we don't know the meaning?" to S1 (Jake) and [114:01] "Okay. What he says is that what it means is that it exists in a manner befitting Allah. That tells us nothing." to S2 (Jay), matching the referee's original attribution rather than the verifier's reassignment; on that reading, Jake asks the citation question at least twice (113:46 "give the evidence," 113:55/114:00 "show/where does he say"), and Jay never supplies the passage, instead restating his own gloss and conclusion — a genuine dodge of a direct, twice-asked question.
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.