Appeal: explicit argument
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #8871:09:16tied, awaiting the moderator Trent Horn epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“… why presuppose the god of or [our] Eastern Orthodox Christian faith? Why is that our presupposition instead of all the other presuppositions I gave? The answer Jay will have to give is because it's true. And that, my friends, is circular reasoning.” quote corrected
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. This line applies the dilemma Trent had already laid out in full in his opening (either Jay argues for his presupposition from effects, which is natural theology in reverse, or he simply asserts it as revealed truth, which is question-begging): here he presses the second horn directly at Jay. It is not a straw man, since Jay's own later answer in cross-ex ('the justification for the Christian god... is only based on revelation') and closing statement confirm exactly the terminus Trent predicted, even though Jay also offers an explanatory rationale that Trent's opening already anticipated and labeled 'natural theology backward.'- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Trent has consistently held since his opening statement that presuppositionalism collapses into either covert natural theology or bare circular assertion, and this line is a direct, on-point pressing of that same dilemma rather than a new or unsupported claim. Trent declared in his opening statement the dilemma that presuppositionalism must either reason from created effects (natural theology in reverse) or simply assert the presupposition as true (begging the question), and he has held to that dilemma throughout cross-examination; this line is a direct, plainly-stated application of the second horn with premises (Jay must justify the choice of presupposition) and conclusion (the only available justification is circular assertion of truth). It is not a straw man foisted on Jay's back, since Jay's later cross-ex answer ("the justification for the Christian god... is only based on revelation") and closing statement bear out exactly this horn, so the prediction was accurate rather than invented.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This line is Trent driving home the dilemma he had already stated with explicit premises earlier in his opening (either Jay argues from creation to God, which is natural theology, or he presupposes God to justify reason, which is circular). It is a rhetorical prediction made just before cross-examination, but Trent goes on to actually ask Jay this very question and engage with his fuller answer (that the Trinity uniquely accounts for metaphysical problems), continuing to press the same dilemma rather than ignoring what Jay said. So this is fair rhetorical application of an argument already on record, not a fabricated straw man.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Trent's opening laid out a dilemma against presuppositionalism (either Jay argues from effects to his presupposition, which is natural theology in reverse, or he simply asserts it as revealed truth, which begs the question); this line presses the second horn directly in cross-ex, holding to the same framework rather than departing from it. The quote states a plain premise-conclusion structure (presupposition X is chosen over alternatives only because "it's true" → that is circular reasoning), applying a dilemma Trent had explicitly formulated in his opening and continued to press through cross-examination, satisfying "explicit argument."
- Thesmothetes leave: All three judges agree on the substance: Trent's dilemma was stated with premises and a conclusion in his opening ("either Jay argues from created things... or he presupposes God... which is circular"), and this later line is a direct application of that same dilemma, later borne out by Jay's own cross-ex answer that the justification "is only based on revelation." The disagreement is purely over whether restating an established dilemma while pre-supplying the opponent's anticipated answer still counts as fresh explicit argument worth crediting at that moment, or is merely rhetorical framing not yet earned — a genuine difference of judgment about fit to a label that no listed rule settles.
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.