Appeal: explicit argument
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #8881:19:46upheld Trent Horn epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Trent Horn earned 1 point.
“… what Jay is doing is just natural theology in reverse... I don't disagree with what he's doing. I just really believe it's just natural theology in a reverse direction because he's using arguments to select between presuppositions. If he doesn't do that, then it becomes circular reasoning.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Trent lays out a clear dilemma with premises and conclusion: either Jay is using reasoned argument to adjudicate between rival presuppositions (which is natural theology under another name) or he is not, in which case his commitment is unargued and circular; this is the same dilemma he stated in his opening statement, now applied consistently to Jay's own described method of "comparison of systems... internal critique."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Trent declared in his opening statement (and held throughout) the dilemma that any position adjudicating between presuppositions via reasons is natural theology, while any position that merely asserts its presupposition is circular; this quote restates that same dilemma applied specifically to Jay's own described method of "comparison of systems" and "internal critique," which is a legitimate explicit argument, not a departure from his framework. The passage states a clear premise-conclusion structure (either Jay argues for his presupposition, which is natural theology, or he doesn't, which is circular) and applies it to Jay's own stated method, satisfying the "explicit argument" definition; this is consistent with, not a new departure from, Trent's opening framework.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Trent states a clean dilemma with premises and conclusion: either Jay uses reason/arguments to select among rival presuppositions (which is natural theology by another name) or he simply asserts his presupposition is true without argument (which is circular reasoning). This is the same dilemma he raised in his opening and rebuttals, and Jay's replies ("category error," "metalogical question") assert a distinction without actually showing how his comparison-of-paradigms move escapes using reasons to prefer one system over another, so the argument stands as a legitimate, repeated piece of reasoning rather than a rhetorical trick.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Trent's opening declared a dilemma (natural theology vs. circular reasoning) against presuppositionalism, and here he restates and applies that same dilemma to Jay's own described "comparison of systems" method, which counts as a consistent, clearly stated explicit argument (premises and conclusion) rather than a departure. The quote plainly states a dilemma with premises (either Jay uses reasoned argument to select presuppositions, which is natural theology, or he doesn't, which is circular) and a conclusion, satisfying the explicit argument criterion; this is a legitimate philosopher point regardless of whether the dilemma was previously raised, since restating and applying one's core argument to new material is still constructing an explicit argument.
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.