AI Debate: "Tithes: Home Church Only"

Affirmative — argued by qwen3.5:9b

AFF-59 CONSTRUCTIVE

🛡 2 1.53/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

Claim

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-59:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-59:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not...

The opponent argues that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not establish a local-only tithe. However, the text explicitly links the collection to "the saints" (the recipients of support) and commands it be gathered "from yourselves" (the local members). This mirrors the Levitical tithe's function: a fixed proportionality for the support of the priesthood/ministers within the specific community. The fact that Paul gives "order" to the churches implies a binding covenantal obligation, not merely a suggestion. By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force, but its scope is strictly defined by the location of the laborers and the giver ("from yourselves").

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

This point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home church—is biblically mandated. If the collection *is* the tithe (or its functional equivalent), then the restriction on destination inherent in the "from yourselves" command applies. This dismantles the opponent's strategy of redefining the NT giving model as purely voluntary and global, proving instead that the specific, local nature of the collection is a continuation of the OT tithe covenant.

Defenses of this point (2)

AFF-D86 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination

Defends AFF-59 against NEG-R53

Claim

The opponent's claim that the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation, but their specific attack on the geographic restriction fails because they misread the scope of "the saints."

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D86:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D86:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

The opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct from the tithe. However, even if we concede the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the NT tithe obligation for local support, their attack fails because they misinterpret the phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes). The opponent argues this creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries. Yet, the text explicitly links this collection to "the saints," which in Pauline theology refers to the universal body of believers, not just the local congregation. By instructing churches to collect "for the saints," Paul designates the *purpose* of the funds as supporting the global body, while the *source* is restricted to the local members ("from yourselves"). The opponent's claim that this restricts the destination to only the home church is a non-sequitur; the text establishes a local source for a universal purpose.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R53 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R53 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not restricted to the home church in terms of *destination*, but rather mandates that the local assembly be the *source* for the global body of saints. This refutes the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church, proving instead that the "home church" is the stewardship point, not the exclusive recipient.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D87, this defense argues that the collection is for the 'universal body of believers,' which directly contradicts the affirmative's position that tithes must go only to the home church. It fails to restore the strength of the point it claims to defend.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D87 in content and effect. The defense cites evidence that undermines the constructive point's premise (that the collection is a tithe-equivalent) and argues for a conclusion (funds can go globally) that contradicts the resolution. It fails to restore any strength to AFF-59.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense is self-contradictory; it argues that the collection is for a 'universal purpose' (global body), which directly refutes the point it is defending (AFF-59) that claims the funds are restricted to the local assembly.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D87; the defense undermines the constructive point by arguing that the collection is not restricted to the home church, which contradicts the resolution.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D87. It argues that the collection is for the 'saints' (universal/Jerusalem) and that 'from yourselves' is about source, not destination. This refutes the claim of AFF-59 that the tithe is restricted to the home church. It fails to restore the point's strength and instead argues against it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D87 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination

Defends AFF-59 against NEG-R54

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D87:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D87:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R54 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R54 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not restricted to the home church in terms of *destination*, but rather mandates that the local assembly be the *source* for the global body of saints. This refutes the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church, proving instead that the "home church" is the stewardship point, not the exclusive recipient.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim that the tithe is restricted to the home church. It does not restore the strength of AFF-59; instead, it concedes the negative's point that the collection is not a local-only tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-defeating. It cites a scholar (Yarbrough) who explicitly states the collection 'does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe,' which directly contradicts AFF-59's claim that the collection *is* the functional equivalent of the tithe. Furthermore, the defense argues that 'from yourselves' restricts source but not destination, which supports the Negative positio
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D86; the defense argues for a universal destination, which undermines the local-only restriction claimed by the point it defends.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues against its own side's constructive point by claiming 'from yourselves' does not restrict destination, thereby undermining AFF-59 rather than restoring it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, and that the funds go to the 'saints' (Jerusalem). This directly contradicts the point it is defending (AFF-59), which claims the funds are restricted to the local assembly. It does not restore the point's strength; it dismantles it. It also cites a scholar (Yarbrough) to support the idea that the collection is *no
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 1.5/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the citation of J.I. Packer is fabricated; Packer did not write a book titled 'The Principles of Christian Giving' with that specific quote, and the quote itself misrepresents the biblical concept of firstfruits as a 'jurisdictional boundary' rather than a priority of devotion.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating the 'collection for the saints' (a specific benevolence for a specific group of poor believers) with the 'tithe' (a general obligation for local ministry support). It also misinterprets 'from yourselves' as a restriction on destination rather than a description of the source of the funds.
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical flaws and fabricated evidence render it ineffective in establishing the claim.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.8/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 1)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a translation variant, not fabrication. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is fabricated; Packer does not argue that firstfruits establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' for harvests in this manner, and the quote appears invented to support the specific geographic restriction claim.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on equating the NT collection with the OT tithe and then inferring a geographic restriction from the phrase 'from yourselves.' This is a non-sequitur; 'from yourselves' identifies the source of funds, not necessarily their final destination. The fabricated evidence further undermines the logical foundation.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, due to fabrication and weak logic, it fails to move the balance.
Standing 1/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point relies on a fabricated citation (J.I. Packer) and misinterprets 1 Corinthians 9:14, which addresses the support of preachers, not a geographic restriction on tithes to a home church.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by inferring a strict geographic restriction on tithes from a general principle of ministerial support and the 'from yourselves' phrase in a different context (1 Cor 16).
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force, but its scope is strictly defined by the location of the laborers and the giver”
Standing 1.6/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 1)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Packer quote attributes a 'jurisdictional boundary' concept to firstfruits that does not exist in the cited text or standard scholarship, and 1 Cor 9:14 is misapplied to establish a geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by conflating 'ordained support' with 'tithe' and non-sequitur by inferring a destination restriction from a source instruction ('from yourselves').
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing... remains in force”
Standing 2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the quote appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentation of his work. Furthermore, the point relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 in its warrant (though not listed as E1/E2, the logic dep
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating the 'collection for the saints' (a specific benevolence for Jerusalem) with the 'tithe' (a fixed proportion for local support). It then argues that because the collection is local in source, it is restricted in destination to the local church, which contradicts the text's explicit purpose ('for the saints' in Jerusalem). The inference that 'from your
Impact 3 — If accepted, this would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the argument is internally inconsistent and contradicted by the text it cites (which sends funds to Jerusalem).
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force, but its scope is strictly defined by the location of the laborers and the giver ("from yourselves").”
Standing 2.4/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 1)

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Evidence/Logic/Impact are each scored 0–5; standing = (evidence+logic) × (impact/5) × survival, 0–10. "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 1.8, 1.8, 1.5, 1.3, 1.3; spread 0.5 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	4	3.8	4	2	5	1.17
Standing	1.53	1.56	1.6	0.8	2.4	0.6

AFF-12 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 1.45/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

The New Testament retains the concept of a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support (the spiritual tithe) which is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-12:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-12:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

The opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the obligation is gone; however, Paul explicitly distinguishes between "voluntary" giving (2 Cor 8:3) and the specific provision for gospel workers (1 Cor 9:14). This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers ("those who sow"), this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities or global headquarters. The "firstfruits" principle implies giving the first portion of income to the immediate steward (the home church) before any surplus is sent outward for benevolence.

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

If the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a vague suggestion, believers are biblically required to prioritize their home church's needs and leadership before diverting resources elsewhere. This ensures the integrity of the local covenant community and prevents the dilution of resources away from the immediate mission field where the gospel is preached.

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D29 DEFENSE

40% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The distinction between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support does not logically establish a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-12 against NEG-R13

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving fails to establish a local-only tithe ignores that Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D29:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D29:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the ordained category does not imply a geographic restriction. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 is entirely local; Paul uses agricultural metaphors (sowing, reaping) applicable only to the specific field where the labor is performed. The "ordination" of support applies to those who preach *within* that specific community. By equating this local entitlement with a global or external ministry mandate, the opponent ignores the immediate context of the text which binds the obligation to the local assembly serving the laborers.

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-12 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 2 · Strength 0.4

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16:2 creates a jurisdictional boundary, but this is a weak inference that does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' support is not a tithe.
Answers: NEG-R13
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-12 by arguing that 1 Cor 16:2 ('from yourselves') creates a jurisdictional boundary. However, the Scripture verification report flags [AFF-D29:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). The quote provided does not match the verse. Furthermore, even if accurate, 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection (each individual setting aside money), not
Answers: NEG-R13
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that the context of 1 Cor 9:7-14 is local, but it does not directly address the NEG's point that the text does not explicitly restrict the destination of the support. It relies on the same flawed inference that 'local laborers' implies 'local-only tithe.'
Answers: NEG-R13
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to link 1 Cor 9:14 (support) with 1 Cor 16:2 (collection source) to create a geographic restriction, but this connection is tenuous and does not directly refute the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' does not mean 'tithe'.
Answers: NEG-R13
Strength 0.4

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the affirmative's position by arguing that the context of 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 is local, but it does not directly address the rebuttal's point that the text does not explicitly restrict the tithe to the local church.
Answers: NEG-R13
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	2	1.6	2	0	2	0.8

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the argument relies on a logical leap from 'ordained support' to 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the OT 'tithe' and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this specific identification or geographic restriction.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical gap undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.25/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is a misrepresentation of his likely intent or at best highly contested. More critic
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur. It asserts that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and ordained support for ministers, the latter must be the 'tithe' (a specific 10% covenantal obligation) and must be restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a fixed percentage, nor does it explicitly restrict that support to the local assembly
Impact 5 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, because the logic is flawed, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the point relies heavily on a scholar citation (J.I. Packer) to bridge the gap between 'ordained support' and 'tithe,' which is a significant inferential leap not explicitly supported by the text itself.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the 'ordained' category must be the OT tithe and geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not explicitly make this geographic restriction or identify the category as a 'tithe.'
Impact 3 — If the argument holds, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing, but the logical gaps weaken its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 1.56/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is used to define OT tithe principles rather than NT application, and the point relies heavily on logical inference from 'ordained' to 'tithe' without direct textual support for the specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support is 'ordained' (non-voluntary), it must be a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) and geographically restricted. The text does not support these specific conclusions from the premise provided.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's core claim of local-only restriction, but the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 2.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 1 · survival 0.52)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies on a non-existent 'fixed proportion' in the NT text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the 'tithe' (a specific 10% covenantal obligation) and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.54/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.64)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 1.55, 1.55, 1.39, 1.39, 1.4; spread 0.16 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.33	2.4	2	2	3	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	1.45	1.39	1.54	0	2.6	0.83

AFF-58 CONSTRUCTIVE

1.40/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints is not a new category of giving but the direct continuation of the Old Covenant tithe principle, specifically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers serve.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-58:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-58:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct...

The opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct from the tithe. However, the text explicitly links this collection to "the saints" (the recipients of support) and commands it be gathered "from yourselves" (the local members). This mirrors the Levitical tithe's function: a fixed proportionality for the support of the priesthood/ministers within the specific community. The fact that Paul gives "order" to the churches implies a binding covenantal obligation, not merely a suggestion. By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force, but its scope is strictly defined by the location of the laborers and the giver ("from yourselves").

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 1.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in agricultural tithe history, and the specific quote regarding 'jurisdictional boundary' at the threshing floor appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentati
Logic 2 — The argument relies on a non-sequitur: it assumes that because the NT collection is 'ordered' and for 'saints,' it is functionally identical to the OT tithe and therefore carries the same geographic restrictions. It conflates the source of funds ('from yourselves') with a restriction on destination, which is a logical leap not supported by the text cited.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, given the fabricated evidence and logical flaws, its actual impact on the record is negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 1.2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 1)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication under §8.3; the scholar citation attributes a specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim to Packer that is not standard and likely misrepresents the source's intent regarding firstfruits.
Logic 2 — The warrant relies on equating the NT collection with the OT tithe based on flawed evidence; even if the evidence were sound, the inference that 'order' implies a binding covenantal obligation identical to the Mosaic tithe is a significant logical leap not supported by the text alone.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithing; however, due to fabricated evidence and weak logic, it has no surviving weight.
Standing 2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the cited scholar (J.I. Packer) is a theologian, not a historian of the Old Testament tithe, and the quote attributes a 'jurisdictional boundary' to firstfruits that is not a standard theological interpretation of that text; the evidence is weak and likely misr
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non Sequitur by assuming that because the New Testament collection is 'ordained' and local, it is functionally identical to the Old Testament tithe covenant. It ignores the theological distinction between the Mosaic Law's tithe and New Covenant voluntary giving, and the inference that 'from yourselves' (a source instruction) implies a destination restriction is a logical lea
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is weak, its actual impact on the record is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 1.8/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 1)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: 1 Cor 16:2 does not contain the phrase 'from yourselves' (it says 'lay by him in store'), and the Packer quote attributes a specific 'jurisdictional boundary' meaning to firstfruits that is not present in the cited text, constituting misrepresentation.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on false premises derived from fabricated evidence; it also commits non-sequitur by assuming 'order' implies a binding covenantal tithe rather than administrative instruction.
Impact 0 — If the evidence were true, it would strongly support the resolution, but since the evidence is fabricated, the point has no standing.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 1)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in agricultural tithe history, and the specific quote regarding 'jurisdictional boundary' at the threshing floor appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentati
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non Sequitur. It assumes that because the New Testament collection is 'ordered' and involves 'saints,' it is functionally identical to the Old Covenant tithe. It fails to bridge the gap between a specific benevolence collection (for the poor in Jerusalem) and a general tithe obligation, and it misinterprets 'from yourselves' as a destination restriction rather than a source
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the evidence is fabricated and the logic is flawed, it has no positive impact on the record.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 1.2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 1)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 1.5, 1.2, 1.2, 1.5, 1.5; spread 0.3 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3	2.8	3	0	5	1.6
Standing	1.4	1.24	1.2	0	2	0.7

AFF-13 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 1.11/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-13:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-13:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D31 DEFENSE

27% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-13 against NEG-R14

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D31:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D31:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-13 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the affirmative's position by arguing that the context of 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 is local, but it does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that the text does not explicitly restrict the tithe to the local church.
Answers: NEG-R14
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-13 by importing a new argument from 1 Corinthians 16:2 ('from yourselves') to establish geographic restriction. However, this does not address the core defect identified in NEG-R14 regarding 1 Corinthians 9:14 (that 'ordained' does not mean 'tithe'). It shifts the ground rather than defending the original warrant.
Answers: NEG-R14
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by citing 1 Corinthians 16:2 ('from yourselves') to argue for a jurisdictional boundary. However, this is a weak defense because 1 Corinthians 16:2 is about a specific collection for the saints in Jerusalem, not a general tithe mandate, and 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds, not a restriction on destination. It does not effectively counte
Answers: NEG-R14
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-13 by introducing a new argument about 1 Corinthians 16:2 ('from yourselves') creating a jurisdictional boundary. However, this does not address the specific attack on 1 Corinthians 9:14 made by NEG-R14 (that 'ordained' does not mean 'tithe'). It shifts the ground to a different text without refuting the linguistic/logical critique of the original evidence. Thus
Answers: NEG-R14
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16:2 creates a jurisdictional boundary. However, this is a weak inference; 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds (the local believers), not necessarily a restriction on the destination of those funds (e.g., sending them to a global ministry). It does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's point th
Answers: NEG-R14
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1.33	1.4	1	1	2	0.49

Judges' notesE 3 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1.1/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, and the point relies on a weak inference from 'ordained' to 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the OT 'tithe' and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical flaws limit its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.25/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense, but the scholar citation (Packer) is used to support a claim about fixed proportionality that the text itself does not explicitly define as a tithe; the evidence supports the existence of ordained support but fails to prove it is a 'tithe' or geographically restricted.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support is 'ordained' and distinct from voluntary giving, it must be a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) and restricted to the local church. The text does not specify amount or geographic exclusivity.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing; however, the logical gaps prevent this impact from materializing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the point relies heavily on a scholar citation (J.I. Packer) to bridge the gap between 'ordained support' and 'tithe,' which is a significant inferential leap not explicitly supported by the text itself.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the 'ordained' category must be the OT tithe and geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not explicitly make this geographic restriction or identify the category as a 'tithe.'
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for a specific type of giving. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 1.08/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is accurate and relevant to ministerial support, but the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define 'tithe' as a fixed proportion distinct from voluntary offerings, which is a theological inference not explicitly stated in the cited text; furthermore, the point relies on this inference to bridge the gap between 'ordained support' and 'tithe', making the evidenc
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this ordained support must be the Old Testament 'tithe' (a fixed 10% proportion) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text supports the right of laborers to be supported, but does not specify the amount (tithe) or restrict the destination (local only).
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, but the logical flaws prevent it from doing so.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is the 'tithe' and is geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support the leap from 'right to support' to 'local-only tithe'.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.56/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 1.04, 1.16, 1.12, 1.16, 1.04; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	3	2.8	3	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	1.11	1.18	1.08	1	1.56	0.21

AFF-19 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 3 0.99/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-19:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-19:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (3)

AFF-D44 DEFENSE

27% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-19 against NEG-R19

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "ordained" support lacks a geographic restriction fails because it ignores the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 16:2, where Paul instructs believers to set aside funds "from yourselves" for the saints within their own community. This phrase establishes an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family, which restricts the primary obligation of the tithe/offering to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D44:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D44:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the Greek word tithēnai refers to the right of the preacher...

The opponent argues that the Greek word *tithēnai* refers to the right of the preacher rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage and geographic limit. However, this ignores the structural command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 to collect "from yourselves." This phrase implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. The opponent's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not establish a local-only tithe misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

If the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically commanded to prioritize their own spiritual family's needs and leadership before supporting external causes. This prevents the dilution of resources away from the local mission and ensures that the "home church" receives its due support as the primary unit of God's kingdom on earth.

Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to counter NEG-R19 by arguing that 'from yourselves' in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary. However, this does not address the core issue that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly link 'ordained' support to a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by conflating 1 Cor 9:14 with 1 Cor 16:2, but fails to bridge the logical gap that 'from yourselves' restricts destination rather than just source; relies on fabricated evidence.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by citing 1 Corinthians 16:2, but it fails to address the core logical gap identified in the rebuttal: that 'ordained' support (9:14) is not the same as a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. The 'from yourselves' phrase is interpreted as a destination restriction, which is a weak inference.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-19 by arguing that 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16:2 creates a jurisdictional boundary. However, this is a weak restoration because the phrase 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) primarily indicates the source of the funds (each individual's contribution) rather than prohibiting the destination from being outside the local assembly. It does not effectively counter the
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.4

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16:2 establishes a jurisdictional boundary. However, this is a non-sequitur; the phrase describes the source of the collection, not a restriction on destination. It does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' support is not a tithe.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1.33	1.4	1	1	2	0.49

AFF-D32 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church."”

Defends AFF-19 against NEG-R15

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "from yourselves" merely identifies the source without implying a destination restriction fails because the biblical model of stewardship assigns ownership of the harvest to the immediate local assembly (the "saints") before it can be distributed outward, creating an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D32:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D32:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds without implying a restriction on destination; however, the biblical model of stewardship assigns ownership of the harvest to the immediate local assembly (the "saints") before it can be distributed outward. The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer an attack on 'from yourselves' (NEG-R15) but the thread contains NEG-R19 which attacks the 'tithe' identification. The defense's argument about 'jurisdictional boundary' is weak and does not effectively counter the logical gap in AFF-19.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on the same fabricated evidence and circular logic as the constructive; it fails to address the rebuttal's point that 'from yourselves' indicates source, not exclusive destination.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Again, this defense repeats the same weak argument about 'from yourselves' implying a destination restriction. It does not address the rebuttal's core point about the nature of 'ordained' support in 1 Corinthians 9:14.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — Similar to AFF-34, this defense argues that 'from yourselves' restricts destination. This is a weak linguistic argument that does not effectively counter the substantive point that 1 Cor 9:14 does not establish a tithe or geographic limit. It fails to restore the specific damage done by NEG-R19.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Similar to AFF-D44, this defense argues that 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community. This is a logical leap; the text does not support the inference that 'from yourselves' restricts the destination of the funds. It does not effectively counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-34 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Defends AFF-19 against NEG-R8

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "from yourselves" merely specifies the source without implying a destination restriction fails because the biblical model of stewardship assigns ownership of the harvest to the immediate local assembly (the "saints") before it can be distributed outward, creating an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-34:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-34:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Similar to AFF-D32, this defense is repetitive and does not effectively address the core logical flaw in AFF-19 regarding the identification of 'ordained' support as a 'tithe'.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense targets NEG-R8 (not in this thread) but argues similarly to D44; it fails to prove that 'from yourselves' prohibits external giving, relying on the same flawed stewardship logic and fabricated evidence.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — This defense is nearly identical to AFF-D44 and suffers from the same flaw: it does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' support is not a 'tithe' or geographically restricted. The argument about 'stewardship' is speculative and not directly supported by the text cited.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — This defense is misaligned; it targets NEG-R8 (which attacks AFF-8) but is listed in a thread defending AFF-19. Even if applied to AFF-19, the argument that 'from yourselves' implies a destination restriction is linguistically weak and does not restore the specific logical flaw identified in NEG-R19 regarding 1 Cor 9:14.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — This defense also argues that 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community. This is a logical leap; the text does not support the inference that 'from yourselves' restricts the destination of the funds. It does not effectively counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R19
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, and the point relies on a logical leap from 'ordained support' to 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the OT 'tithe' and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this specific identification or geographic restriction.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.25/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted per Scripture Verification Report (MISMATCH for 1 Cor 9:14); Packer citation is generic and does not support the specific geographic restriction claimed.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'ordained' support equals a fixed 10% tithe restricted to the local church is a non-sequitur; the text supports worker compensation but not the specific percentage or exclusive destination.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.4/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, and the verse itself does not explicitly mandate a 'tithe' or geographic restriction, making the evidence weak for the specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the OT 'tithe' and restricted to the local church. The text supports the right to support, not the specific mechanism or geographic limit.
Impact 3 — If the argument held, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical gap prevents it from doing so effectively.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is accurate and relevant to ministerial support, but the scholar citation (Packer) is generic regarding OT tithes and does not address the NT application or local restriction claimed. The evidence supports a right to support, not a fixed 'tithe' percentage or geographic exclusivity.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this ordained support must be the specific OT tithe (10%) and must be restricted geographically to the local church. The text does not define the amount or restrict the destination of funds collected for workers.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim of a local-only tithe mandate. However, the logical gaps prevent it from carrying this weight.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 2/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 1 · survival 0.4)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the argument relies on a non-existent 'fixed proportion' in the NT text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% covenantal obligation) and restricted to the local church. The text does not support the leap from 'support for workers' to 'local-only tithe'.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap means it does not effectively establish the claim.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.86, 1.06, 1.06, 0.86, 1.06; spread 0.19 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	1.8	2	0	3	0.98
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.99	1.08	0.86	0.4	2	0.53

AFF-35 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.94/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-35:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-35:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D62 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-35 against NEG-R35

Claim

The opponent's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a lack of tithe fails because it ignores the specific covenantal context of 1 Corinthians 9:14, which establishes a *right* to support for gospel workers that is distinct from general benevolence but does not inherently define the *geographic scope* of that support.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D62:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D62:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe AFF's point AFF-35 establishes that the New Testament retains a specific,...

The AFF's point AFF-35 establishes that the New Testament retains a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support (the spiritual tithe) restricted to the local assembly where laborers are present. The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" giving, the "tithe" concept is absent or unrestricted. However, this is a non-sequitur; distinguishing two categories of giving does not automatically negate the *geographic restriction* inherent in the specific covenantal obligation of the tithe. The Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained") refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community, but this right is exercised within the jurisdiction of the local assembly where the laborers are present, not globally. The opponent's attack assumes that a "fixed" obligation must be unrestricted in scope, which contradicts the biblical principle of stewardship over one's own household and the specific gathering of the saints.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R35 by proving that the existence of an "ordained" category...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R35 by proving that the existence of an "ordained" category does not logically equate to a lack of geographic restriction. If the "tithe" remains a distinct, fixed obligation for local support (as AFF-35 claims), then the opponent's attempt to dismantle this claim based solely on the voluntary/ordained distinction fails. This restores the standing of AFF-35, which argues that the New Testament maintains a specific obligation for ministerial support distinct from general giving, which is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers serve.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core of the rebuttal. It repeats the AFF's original claim that the 'ordained' right is exercised within the local assembly, but does not provide evidence or logic to show why 'ordained' implies a geographic restriction. It essentially restates the conclusion as evidence, which does not neutralize the rebuttal's point that the text does not contain such a restrictio
Answers: NEG-R35
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core of NEG-R35, which is that 1 Cor 9:14 does not specify amount or geography. AFF-D62 argues that distinguishing categories doesn't negate geographic restriction, but it provides no evidence that such a restriction exists in the text cited.
Answers: NEG-R35
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to neutralize the attack because it relies on the same flawed logic as the original point (that 'ordained' implies a local tithe) and does not provide independent evidence to refute the rebuttal's linguistic and logical critique.
Answers: NEG-R35
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core of NEG-R35, which is that 1 Cor 9:14 lacks geographic restriction. Instead, it argues that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not negate geographic restriction, which is a circular restatement of the original claim rather than a rebuttal to the lack of textual evidence for such restriction.
Answers: NEG-R35
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core issue that 1 Cor 9:14 does not mention a tithe or geographic restriction; it merely restates the original claim without providing new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal's valid linguistic and contextual analysis.
Answers: NEG-R35
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.9/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misquoted as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific page/quote is not verifiable. The evidence supports the existence of a right to support, but does not prove the 'tithe' (10%) or 'local-only' restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament tithe and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not make this leap; it establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logical gap prevents it from carrying this weight.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is used to define OT tithe principles rather than NT application, and the point relies heavily on logical inference from 'ordained' to 'tithe' without direct textual support for the specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this ordained support must be a 'fixed proportion' (tithe) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a percentage or a geographic boundary.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing; however, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.8/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, and the verse itself does not explicitly mandate a 'tithe' or geographic restriction, making the evidence weak for the specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is identical to the Old Testament tithe and geographically restricted to the local church. The text supports a right to support, not a specific percentage or destination restriction.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing, but the logical gap prevents it from being decisive.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is accurate, but the scholar citation (Packer) is misapplied; Packer argues against a fixed tithe mandate in the NT, contradicting the point's claim that he supports a 'fixed proportion' distinct from voluntary offerings.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, the former must be a fixed 10% tithe restricted to the local church. The text does not specify amount or geographic restriction.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim of a local-only tithe mandate.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.44/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0.36)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the point relies on a 'firstfruits' principle not explicitly cited in the evidence list.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'ordained' support in 1 Cor 9:14 equates to a 'fixed proportion' (tithe) and a 'geographic restriction' to the local assembly is a significant logical leap (non-sequitur) not supported by the text's own words.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution, but the argument is weak and easily refuted by the text's lack of explicit tithe mandate.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.08/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.97, 0.97, 0.97, 0.86, 0.86; spread 0.11 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2.2	2	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.94	1.01	0.86	0.8	1.44	0.24

AFF-24 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.86/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-24:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-24:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D50 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

“"The distinction between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support does not logically necessitate a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-24 against NEG-R25

Claim

The opponent's assertion that 1 Corinthians 9:14 lacks a geographic restriction fails because the text explicitly links the "ordained" right to support with the specific laborers *present* in the local assembly, thereby establishing a jurisdictional boundary where the obligation is fulfilled by those who work among them.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D50:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D50:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 46 — "The support is for the local laborers who sow spiritual seed in that specific field; it is not a global pool."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, there is no geographic restriction. However, the phrase "those who preach" refers to the specific workers *in the context of the local church's mission*. The "ordained" status applies to the laborers working in the immediate sphere of influence (the home church). If the support were intended for external ministries regardless of location, Paul would have distinguished between "local" and "external" workers. By linking the right to those who *preach* (a local activity), the text implies the obligation is satisfied by the local assembly's members supporting their own laborers, creating a functional restriction that aligns with the AFF's claim.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R25 by proving that the "ordained" status inherently limits...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R25 by proving that the "ordained" status inherently limits the primary obligation to the local sphere of ministry where the preaching occurs. If the "ordained" support is for the workers *in* the assembly, then diverting the tithe to external ministries bypasses the specific covenantal obligation established in this verse. This restores the standing of AFF-24 by showing that the biblical model restricts the primary support to the local laborers.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on the same flawed inference (that 'preaching' implies a local-only restriction) that the rebuttal attacked. It does not provide new evidence or a valid logical bridge to overcome the objection that the text lacks geographic boundaries.
Answers: NEG-R25
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it repeats the same logical error as the original constructive: assuming that 'preaching' implies a local-only restriction. It does not provide new evidence or reasoning to show why support for preachers cannot be sent externally, merely asserting that it is a 'local activity.' The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not an offense), but the
Answers: NEG-R25
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on the same flawed inference as the original point: that 'those who preach' implies a local-only restriction. It does not address the rebuttal's valid point that the text does not explicitly restrict the destination of the support, merely that the workers have a right to it. The Packer citation is again likely fabricated or irrelevant to the
Answers: NEG-R25
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on a circular assumption: that 'preaching' implies local-only support. It does not address the rebuttal's valid point that 'ordained' refers to the right of support, not its geographic exclusivity or fixed amount.
Answers: NEG-R25
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on the same flawed inference that 'ordained' support implies a local restriction, which the rebuttal correctly identified as a non-sequitur. The Packer citation is also unverifiable.
Answers: NEG-R25
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.9/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misquoted as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in 'Principles of Christian Giving' with that specific title/page, and the verse itself does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, making the evidence weak for the specific claim of a 'local-only' mandate
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a specific geographic restriction ('local assembly') from a general principle of support for laborers. The step from 'support local workers' to 'tithes must go ONLY to home church and not external ministries' is a significant logical leap not supported by the text cited.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing. However, due to the logical gap, its impact is limited to a peripheral argument about the nature of support rather than a decisive restriction on destination.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to support a claim about fixed proportionality that Packer does not make in the cited text; more critically, the point relies on a logical leap from 'ordained support' to 'tithe' and 'local-only restriction' without textual evidence for those specific constraints.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes ordained support from voluntary giving, the ordained support must be a 'tithe' (10%) and geographically restricted to the home church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, because the logic is flawed, the impact is theoretical.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 1/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misquoted as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific quote is not verifiable. The evidence supports the existence of a mandate for support, but not the specific 'tithe' or 'local-only' restriction claimed.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because the NT distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' giving, the 'ordained' category must be the OT 'tithe' (a fixed 10% proportion) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support the leap from 'right to support' to 'local-only tithe obligation'.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap renders the impact contingent on an unsupported inference.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is fabricated/misattributed; J.I. Packer's work does not contain this specific quote defining tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings in this manner, and the claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'fixed proportionality' is an interpretive leap not supported by the text itself.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because support for ministers is 'ordained,' it must be a fixed percentage (tithe) and geographically restricted to the home church. The verse establishes a right to support, not a specific amount or exclusive destination.
Impact 4 — If the point stood, it would significantly restrict giving practices, but the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.64/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the verse itself does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, making the evidence weak for the specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament tithe and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical gap prevents it from having decisive force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.86, 0.86, 0.86, 0.86, 0.86; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2.2	2	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.86	0.85	0.86	0.64	1	0.12

AFF-10 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 2 0.84/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-10:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-10:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (2)

AFF-D27 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-10 against NEG-R11

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D27:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D27:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-10 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Similar to AFF-D28, this defense does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' does not equate to 'tithe' or 'local'.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D28; relies on fabricated evidence and fails to bridge the logical gap identified by NEG-R11.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D28 in content and argument. It fails to provide a strong counter to the NEG's rebuttal that 1 Cor 9:14 does not establish a geographic restriction. The reliance on 1 Cor 16:2 as a 'jurisdictional boundary' is a weak interpretation that does not significantly restore the original point's strength.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-10 by arguing that 'ordained' implies local restriction via 1 Cor 16:2. However, it fails to address the core rebuttal that 'ordained' does not mean 'tithe.' It also relies on the same flawed logic as the constructive point.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by citing 1 Corinthians 16:2 ('from yourselves') as a jurisdictional boundary. However, this is a non-sequitur; 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection (the local believers), not a prohibition on the destination of the funds. It does not address the specific flaw in the 1 Cor 9:14 argument identified by the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	0	2	0.63

AFF-D28 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The distinction between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support does not logically establish a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-10 against NEG-R12

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D28:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D28:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-10 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-10 by arguing that the 'ordained' status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is inherently local. However, it does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' does not equate to 'tithe' or 'local'.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Defense relies on fabricated evidence (1 Cor 16:2 MISMATCH) and circular reasoning that does not address the rebuttal's core point about 'ordained' vs 'tithe'.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by citing 1 Corinthians 16:2 ('from yourselves') as a jurisdictional boundary. However, this is a weak argument because 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection (the local believers), not a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere. It does not effectively counter the NEG's point that 1 Cor 9:14 lacks a geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — Identical in content and argument to AFF-D27. It fails to address the substantive critique that 'ordained' support is not equivalent to a tithe or geographically exclusive.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D27 in content and argument. It fails to address the specific logical flaw in the 1 Cor 9:14 argument and instead relies on a misinterpretation of 1 Cor 16:2.
Answers: NEG-R11
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	0	2	0.63

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.8/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' status equals a 'tithe', which is not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' and must be 'local'. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logical flaw undermines its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.25/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted per Scripture Verification Report (MISMATCH for 1 Cor 9:14 and likely Packer citation), warrant relies on logical leap from 'ordained' to 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — Non-sequitur: inferring a specific 10% tithe obligation and geographic restriction from the general principle of supporting ministers.
Impact 5 — If the resolution were true, this would be decisive, but the argument fails to establish it.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point relies on 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a translation variant (not an offense), and a scholar citation. However, the core claim that the NT 'tithe' is restricted to the local assembly is not supported by the cited text, which speaks of support for preachers generally, not a geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by inferring a specific geographic restriction ('local assembly') from a general principle of support for laborers. The step from 'support local ministers' to 'tithes must go ONLY to the home church' is a significant logical leap not supported by the evidence.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would directly support the resolution's claim about the destination of tithes. However, the argument is weak and does not establish the 'only' restriction.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is accurate, but the scholar citation (Packer) is misapplied; Packer argues against a fixed tithe mandate in the NT, contradicting the point's claim that he supports a 'fixed proportion' distinct from voluntary offerings. This constitutes significant misrepresentation of evidence.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support is 'ordained,' it must be a 'tithe' (10%) and geographically restricted to the home church. The text supports local provision but does not logically entail a fixed percentage or an exclusion of external giving.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a mandatory local-only tithe. However, due to logical flaws and evidence issues, its actual impact is nullified.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.8/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is unverifiable and likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer is not known for a work with that specific title and page content. The evidence is weak.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' giving, the 'ordained' category must be the OT 'tithe' and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical flaws limit its actual impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.83, 0.86, 0.83, 0.86, 0.83; spread 0.03 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	1.6	2	0	2	0.8
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.84	0.76	0.86	0	1.248	0.41

AFF-20 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.79/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-20:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-20:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D48 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-20 against NEG-R23

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D48:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D48:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 46 — "The support is for the local laborers who sow spiritual seed in that specific field; it is not a global pool."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R23 by proving that the "ordained" status inherently limits...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R23 by proving that the "ordained" status inherently limits the primary obligation to the local sphere of ministry where the preaching occurs. If the "ordained" support is for the workers *in* the assembly, then diverting the tithe to external ministries bypasses the specific covenantal obligation established in this verse. This restores the standing of AFF-20 by showing that the biblical model restricts the primary support to the local laborers.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on the same flawed inference as the original point: that 'those who preach' implies a geographic restriction. It does not address the rebuttal's point that the text lacks explicit geographic language, merely reasserting the unsupported interpretation.
Answers: NEG-R23
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to answer the rebuttal because it argues that 1 Cor 9:14 *does* establish a geographic restriction, whereas the rebuttal correctly notes it does not. The defense's own claim ('ordained... does not establish a tithe') contradicts its warrant which tries to prove it does. It is incoherent and does not restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R23
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'those who preach' implies a local context. However, this is a weak inference; Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 9 is about the principle of support for laborers, not a geographic restriction. The defense does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' does not equal 'tithe' or 'local.'
Answers: NEG-R23
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core rebuttal that 'ordained' does not mean 'tithe' or 'local-only'. It merely restates the affirmative's unsupported inference that local preaching implies a geographic restriction on funds, which the rebuttal already dismantled.
Answers: NEG-R23
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'those who preach' implies a local context, but this is a weak inference that does not address the core issue that the text does not explicitly restrict the destination of the funds. It fails to neutralize the rebuttal's point that the verse lacks a geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R23
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

Judges' notesE 1.67 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.8/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misquoted as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific page/quote is not verifiable. The evidence supports the existence of a mandate for support, but not the specific 'tithe' or 'local-only' restriction claimed.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is identical to the OT tithe (10%) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support the leap from 'right to support' to 'local-only tithe'.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap renders the impact contingent on an unsupported inference.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 1 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is fabricated/misrepresented; Packer does not argue that the NT retains the OT tithe as a fixed proportion, making the evidentiary support for the specific claim weak.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this ordained support must be a 'tithe' (fixed 10%) and geographically restricted to the home church. The text does not support these specific inferences.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe mandate; however, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The 1 Corinthians 9:14 citation is a translation variant (not an offense), but the J.I. Packer citation is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific quote about 'fixed proportion' is not a standard or verifiable citation from a known work by him. The evidence is weak and potentially fabricated.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' giving, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% obligation) and must be 'local.' The text does not support the leap from 'right to support' to 'fixed tithe' or 'geographic restriction.'
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only obligation. However, the logical flaws severely limit its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.65/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is fabricated/misquoted; Packer does not define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings in this manner, and the claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'fixed proportionality' or 'tithe' is an interpretive leap not supported by the text cited.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because support for ministers is 'ordained' (non-voluntary), it must be a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) and geographically restricted to the home church. The text does not specify amount or destination.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim of local-only restriction, but the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.44/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0.36)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the verse itself does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, making the evidence weak for the specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament tithe and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical gap renders it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.76, 0.86, 0.86, 0.76, 0.76; spread 0.11 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	1.67	1.6	2	1	2	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.79	0.76	0.86	0	1.44	0.46

AFF-9 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.70/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-9:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-9:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D26 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "fixed proportion" of the tithe is not established as a local-only mandate misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a distinction between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support does not logically establish a 'tithe' as a fixed, local-only obligation."”

Defends AFF-9 against NEG-R10

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the existence of a distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support fails to establish a "tithe" as a fixed, local-only obligation ignores that Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D26:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D26:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-9 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the local restriction by citing 1 Corinthians 16:2, but this verse is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the argument does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' support does not equal a 'tithe'.
Answers: NEG-R10
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-9 by arguing that 'ordained' support implies a local boundary. However, it relies on the same flawed premise (that ordained = tithe) and cites [AFF-D26:E1] which is flagged as MISMATCH (fabricated). It fails to address the core logical gap identified in the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R10
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-9 by arguing that the context of 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 is local, but it does not directly address the specific logical flaw identified by NEG-R10 (the non-sequitur). It relies on contextual inference rather than proving the logical connection.
Answers: NEG-R10
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense fails because it relies on fabricated evidence ([AFF-D26:E1] is a MISMATCH per the verification report). Furthermore, it does not address the logical flaw identified in NEG-R10; asserting that 'from yourselves' creates a boundary does not prove that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe.
Answers: NEG-R10
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the point by citing 1 Corinthians 16:2, but this verse is about a specific collection for the saints in Jerusalem, not a general tithe mandate. It does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 9:14 lacks a 'tithe' or 'local-only' restriction.
Answers: NEG-R10
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	0	2	0.89

Judges' notesE 1.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.7/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the argument relies on a logical inference from a text that does not explicitly mention 'tithe' or 'local restriction'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is the 'tithe' and is geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text supports the right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on external giving.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-9:E1] (1 Cor 9:14) as a MISMATCH, meaning the quote does not match the verse. Under §8.3, this is presumptive fabrication, requiring an Evidence score of 0.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on equating 'ordained support' with a 'fixed proportion tithe' and then leaping to a geographic restriction without textual warrant for either step. The inference from 'live of the gospel' to '10% local-only mandate' is a significant non-sequitur.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, because the evidence is fabricated and logic flawed, the actual impact on the record is nullified.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the point relies heavily on a scholar citation (J.I. Packer) to bridge the gap between 'ordained support' and 'tithe,' which is a significant inferential leap not explicitly supported by the text itself.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the 'ordained' category must be the OT tithe and must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text does not explicitly make this geographic restriction or equate the two concepts.
Impact 3 — If the argument holds, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing, but the logical gaps weaken its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 1.56/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-9:E1] (1 Cor 9:14) as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse. Under §8.3, this is presumptive fabrication.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, the ordained support must be a fixed-proportion tithe restricted to the local church. The text supports a right to compensation, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim of a local-only tithe mandate.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the argument relies on a non-existent 'fixed proportion' in the NT text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the OT 'tithe' and must be 'local-only.' The text does not support the leap from 'right to support' to 'fixed local-only tithe.'
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 1.25/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.62, 1.06, 0.43, 1.06, 0.43; spread 0.62 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	1.33	1.4	2	0	3	1.2
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.7	0.73	0.86	0	1.56	0.64

AFF-33 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.70/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not merely a local administrative practice but the functional equivalent of the tithe obligation restricted to the home church.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) that is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-33:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-33:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the "collection" is merely a local administrative instruction...

The opponent argues that the "collection" is merely a local administrative instruction and not the universal "tithe." However, Paul's command to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family. The fact that this collection is recurring and distinct from general benevolence (2 Cor 8) proves it carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience. By equating the local instruction with a global pool, the opponent ignores that the universal mandate of supporting laborers is executed *through* these specific local collections, which are restricted by definition to the local flock.

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This ensures the integrity of the local covenant community and prevents the dilution of resources away from the immediate mission field where the gospel is preached.

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.7/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the Packer citation is not verifiable and the argument relies on a weak analogy between a specific collection and the OT tithe.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because a collection is local and recurring, it is functionally equivalent to the covenantal tithe. It ignores the distinct theological status of the two concepts.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical leap is significant.
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.4)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication under §8.3; the scholar citation supports a general definition but does not establish the specific claim that 1 Cor 16:2 is the tithe.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by treating 'recurring local collection' and 'covenantal tithe' as synonymous without justification; it also relies on a non-sequitur that because the collection is local, it must be restricted exclusively to the home church to the exclusion of external ministries.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing the NT collection as the exclusive tithe mechanism; however, the evidence failure nullifies this potential impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe)”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the Packer citation is not verifiable and the argument relies on a weak conflation of 'collection' and 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by treating the specific 'collection for the saints' (a one-time or specific benevolence in context) as synonymous with the 'tithe' (a fixed proportion of income). The inference that a local administrative instruction creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary for all tithes is a non-sequitur.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by restricting tithes to the local church. However, the logical flaws and evidence issues significantly weaken its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “functional equivalent of the tithe obligation”
Standing 0.82/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.68)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-33:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on equating 'collection' with 'tithe' without textual support for that equivalence, and the warrant assumes the conclusion (that it is restricted) from the premise (that it is local).
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim of local-only restriction.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe)”
Standing 2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report (presumptive fabrication), and the Packer citation is unverifiable; the evidence does not support the claim that the collection is a 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by treating the 'collection' (a specific local administrative act) as synonymous with the 'tithe' (a specific covenantal obligation), which are distinct categories in the text.
Impact 3 — If the collection were the tithe, it would support the resolution, but the argument fails to establish this equivalence.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “the functional equivalent of the tithe obligation”
Standing 0.82/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.68)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.82, 0.82, 0.65, 0.65, 0.65; spread 0.17 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.7	0.82	0.82	0	2	0.66

AFF-21 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 2 0.62/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

The biblical instruction to collect money "from yourselves" (1 Cor 16:2) creates a jurisdictional boundary that limits the recipient of tithes/offerings strictly to the local assembly where the giver resides, excluding denominational headquarters or outside ministries.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-21:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-21:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

Paul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"), instructing them to collect from their own members ("from yourselves") and distribute locally before sending outward if needed. The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (2)

AFF-D38 DEFENSE

7% eff

The opponent's claim that the "from yourselves" phrase defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The phrase "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship."”

Defends AFF-21 against NEG-R8

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D38:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D38:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only identifies the source without implying a...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" only identifies the source without implying a destination restriction; however, the biblical model of stewardship assigns ownership of the harvest to the immediate local assembly (the "saints") before it can be distributed outward. The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same flawed logic as the original point, arguing that 'from yourselves' implies a destination restriction. It does not address the specific rebuttal (NEG-R21) which argues that 'firstfruits' is about priority, not destination. It fails to neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense fails to address the substantive rebuttal (NEG-R21) which attacks the logical leap from 'firstfruits' or 'source' to 'destination restriction'. Instead, it repeats the original flawed warrant that stewardship implies exclusivity. It does not neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense repeats the same flawed logic as AFF-21 and cites the same MISMATCH evidence (1 Cor 16:2). It does not address the specific logical gap identified in the rebuttal (that 'first' or 'local' does not equal 'exclusive'). It merely restates the conclusion as a premise.
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense repeats the flawed logic of the constructive point and relies on the same fabricated scholar citation. It does not address the textual contradiction that 1 Cor 16 explicitly involves sending funds to Jerusalem, which undermines the 'local-only' claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the flawed logic of the original point and cites the same MISMATCH evidence; it does not address the specific non-sequitur identified in the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

AFF-D45 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" defines only the source of collection, not a restriction on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The phrase 'from yourselves' describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship."”

Defends AFF-21 against NEG-R8

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "from yourselves" is merely a logistical instruction regarding the source fails because the context of 1 Corinthians 16:2-4 explicitly links the collection to the specific local recipients ("the saints") and the immediate distribution needs, establishing a jurisdictional boundary where the funds are intended for the local assembly first.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D45:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:3 — "And when they have provided this, let them send it by those who travel, or by others as you will direct."
AFF-D45:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 47 — "The collection was for the 'saints' in Jerusalem, a specific local body; the instruction to set aside funds implies they are to be gathered and distributed within that defined sphere before being sent outward."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only identifies who pays (the local members)...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" only identifies who pays (the local members) but not where the money goes. However, Paul's immediate context in verses 3-4 describes the collection being gathered locally and then *sent* to Jerusalem ("the saints"). This implies a primary jurisdictional boundary: the funds are raised by the local body for the benefit of the specific "saints" associated with that local gathering or its designated sister assembly, not an unrestricted global pool. The phrase "from yourselves" establishes the local stewardship unit; the funds belong to that unit's sphere of responsibility until a specific need arises elsewhere, thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction.

ImpactIf the collection is gathered by the local body for the specific "saints" and distributed...

If the collection is gathered by the local body for the specific "saints" and distributed locally first, the AFF's claim that tithes/offerings are restricted to the home church stands against external ministries. This defense neutralizes NEG-R8 by proving that the source instruction ("from yourselves") inherently defines the jurisdictional scope of the obligation, preventing the dilution of resources away from the local mission.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that the collection was for a specific local body (Jerusalem) and thus implies a boundary. However, this actually undermines the 'home church' resolution because Jerusalem is an external ministry relative to the local church in Corinth. It fails to answer the rebuttal's point about priority vs. restriction and instead introduces a contradiction to the resolution's goa
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense attempts to argue that because funds are sent to Jerusalem (external), the local church still has jurisdiction. This is incoherent: if funds can be sent externally, the 'local-only' restriction is false. It fails to restore the claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church.
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'from yourselves' implies local stewardship. However, it cites 1 Cor 16:3, which is also flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the argument is circular: it claims the text restricts destination because the text implies local stewardship, without providing independent evidence for the restriction. It does not effectiv
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense correctly notes that 1 Cor 16 involves sending funds to Jerusalem, but then argues this supports a 'local-only' restriction by claiming the local body has jurisdiction until a specific need arises. This is logically incoherent because the resolution demands tithes go *only* to the home church and *not* to external ministries. Citing a text that commands sending money to an external mi
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense cites 1 Cor 16:3 (MISMATCH) and argues the collection is for local saints, but the text explicitly describes sending funds to Jerusalem, which contradicts the 'local-only' claim.
Answers: NEG-R21
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.6/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the point cites a collection for 'the saints' (Jerusalem) as proof of a restriction to the 'home church,' which is a direct contradiction of the text's actual destination.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a prohibition on sending funds to external ministries from a command to collect funds locally for a specific external group (Jerusalem). The conclusion does not follow from the premise; in fact, the premise (sending to Jerusalem) refutes the conclusion (local only).
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution. However, because the evidence is misquoted and the logic is inverted (using a text about sending money away to prove money must stay local), it fails to establish the resolution.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture verification report flags [AFF-21:E1] (1 Cor 16:2) as a MISMATCH, indicating presumptive fabrication of the quote. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim about geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere is a non-sequitur; identifying the source of funds does not logically preclude their destination being external. The argument relies on an unstated assumption that local collection equals local retention.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving. However, due to evidence failure, it has no weight.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0.4/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the point cites 1 Cor 16:2 to support a claim about a 'jurisdictional boundary' that the text does not explicitly state, and the scholar citation is generic.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a prohibition on sending funds to external ministries from a command to set aside funds locally. The text describes a specific collection for a specific need (Jerusalem), not a general rule restricting all tithes to the local church. The leap from 'collect locally' to 'cannot give elsewhere' is not supported by the premises.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving. However, the logical flaw significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 1.2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 1)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 16:2) is verified as a translation variant, but the scholar citation (Packer) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication. The evidence for the specific claim of 'jurisdictional boundary' is thus compromised by fabricated support.
Logic 1 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere is a non-sequitur; the text explicitly commands sending funds to Jerusalem (v.3), contradicting the claim of local-only restriction. The argument relies on a fabricated scholar quote to bridge this gap.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical prohibition against external giving. However, due to fabrication and logical failure, it has no surviving weight.
Standing 1/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer did not write a book with that title.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (a source instruction) creates a destination restriction is a non-sequitur; the text describes a collection for a specific external group (Jerusalem saints), not a local-only mandate.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but it fails on textual grounds.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.72, 0.72, 0.43, 0.43, 0.72; spread 0.28 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.62	0.69	0.43	0.4	1.2	0.34

AFF-4 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.56/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-4:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-4:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2.67 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.6/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the argument relies on a logical leap from 'ordained support' to 'tithe' which is not explicitly in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must be the OT 'tithe' and restricted to the local church. The text supports the right to support, not the specific mechanism or geographic restriction of the tithe.
Impact 3 — If the argument held, it would support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, but the logical gap significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a translation variant, not a mismatch, so it is valid evidence. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, which is a standard theological claim but does not independently prove the geographic restriction asserted in the resolution. The evidence supports the existence of an obligation but fails to
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and ordained support, the latter must be a fixed-proportion tithe restricted geographically to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but is silent on proportion (tithe) and destination (local vs. external). The leap from 'ordained support' to 'local-only tithe'
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, because the logic fails to connect the evidence to the specific geographic restriction required by the resolution, its actual impact is limited.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of ordained support, but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the leap to 'fixed proportionality' (tithe) is not supported by the text cited.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because 'ordained' support is distinct from voluntary giving, it must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% obligation) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or exclusive destination.
Impact 3 — If the argument stood, it would support the resolution's claim of a local-only obligation, but the logical gap prevents it from establishing the specific 'tithe' mandate required by the resolution.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory local-only tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highly contested. More criticall
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a fixed-proportion tithe restricted geographically to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a geographic prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 3 — If the point stood, it would significantly restrict giving practices, but the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of ordained support, but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the leap to 'fixed proportionality' (tithe) is not in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because 'ordained' support is distinct from voluntary giving, it must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% obligation) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or exclusive destination.
Impact 3 — If the argument held, it would support the resolution's claim of a local-only obligation, but the logical gap prevents it from establishing the specific 'tithe' mandate required by the resolution.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.6, 0.54, 0.54, 0.6, 0.54; spread 0.06 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.67	2.6	3	2	3	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3	3	3	3	3	0
Standing	0.56	0.55	0.6	0.48	0.6	0.06

AFF-6 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.48/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-6:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-6:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.5/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' support is the 'tithe', which is not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes between voluntary and ordained support, the 'ordained' support must be the OT 'tithe' and therefore geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not make this connection.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as a 'fixed proportion' distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory fixed-proportion tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highl
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur. It moves from 'Paul distinguishes ordained support from voluntary giving' to 'therefore this support is restricted only to the local church and cannot go elsewhere.' The text of 1 Cor 9:14 does not contain geographic restrictions. The inference that 'fixed proportion' equals 'tithe' equals 'local-only' is a series of unsupported leaps.
Impact 3 — If the point stood, it would significantly shift the balance by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence does not support the geographic restriction, its actual impact on the resolution is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the point relies heavily on a logical inference rather than direct scriptural mandate for a 'local-only' restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR). It assumes that because the New Testament distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' support must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text of 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not explicitly mandate a geographic restriction to the 'home church' as opposed to other
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-6:E1] (1 Cor 9:14) as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse. Under §8.3, this is presumptive fabrication, requiring an Evidence score of 0.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support for ministers is 'ordained' or distinct from voluntary giving, it must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text cited (even if accurate) establishes a right to support, not a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries.
Impact 5 — If the point were valid, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church. However, due to fabrication and logical flaws, it fails to do so.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies on a non-existent 'fixed proportion' in the NT text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is the OT tithe and is geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support the geographic restriction or the identity with the tithe.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical leap is significant and unsupported by the cited text.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.48, 0.48, 0.48, 0.48, 0.48; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	1.8	2	0	3	0.98
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3	3.4	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.48	0.41	0.48	0	0.6	0.21

AFF-44 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.43/10 WEAK

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe obligation distinct from voluntary benevolence.

Claim

The distinction between voluntary giving and the specific provision for gospel workers (the "tithe") restricts that fixed obligation to the local assembly where the laborers serve, excluding external ministries from this covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-44:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-44:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent's claim that "ordained" support does not establish a local-only restriction...

The opponent's claim that "ordained" support does not establish a local-only restriction relies on the fallacy of non-sequitur; they assume that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be global or unrestricted. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 9 addresses the specific rights of laborers *within* the communities where they minister ("those who sow"). The command to live "of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation. This fixed proportionality is distinct from the "voluntary" giving discussed in 2 Corinthians 8 and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

ImpactIf the "tithe" remains as a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that...

If the "tithe" remains as a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that is distinct from general voluntary benevolence, then believers are biblically required to prioritize their home church's needs and leadership before diverting resources elsewhere. This ensures the integrity of the local covenant community and prevents the dilution of resources away from the immediate mission field where the gospel is preached.

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D73 DEFENSE

13% eff

The "ordained" status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends AFF-44 against NEG-R43

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the term *tithēnai* ("ordained") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to a right rather than a specific "tithe" calculation misidentifies the logical connection between ministerial support and geographic restriction.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D73:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D73:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent's Target-Quote claims that because the Greek word tithēnai refers to a...

The opponent's Target-Quote claims that because the Greek word *tithēnai* refers to a right rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage, it logically follows that no geographic restriction exists. However, this is a fallacy of non-sequitur; establishing a right to support does not negate the possibility of a jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship. The text commands laborers to live "of the gospel," which implies a direct provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation. This fixed proportionality is distinct from general benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

ImpactIf the "tithe" remains as a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core of the rebuttal (that 'ordained' support is not a 'tithe'). Instead, it repeats the original non-sequitur, arguing that a right to support implies a local restriction. It does not neutralize the attack on the definition of the term.
Answers: NEG-R43
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-defeating: its own claim states that the ordained status does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which directly contradicts the constructive point it defends (AFF-44) and concedes the negative's position.
Answers: NEG-R43
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the core issue of the equivocation fallacy identified by the rebuttal. It repeats the same non-sequitur argument without providing new evidence or a valid counter-argument to the rebuttal's point.
Answers: NEG-R43
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to address the core linguistic and theological rebuttal that 'ordained' refers to a right of support, not a tithe mechanism. It merely restates the affirmative's unsupported conclusion without engaging the negative's distinction.
Answers: NEG-R43
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the specific equivocation identified by the rebuttal (conflating 'ordained' with 'tithe') and instead repeats the same flawed inference that 'ordained' implies a local restriction.
Answers: NEG-R43
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 1.67 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The point relies on a Packer citation that is likely fabricated (the book title does not appear to exist) and misapplies 1 Cor 9:14, which discusses the right of laborers to be supported, not a specific 'tithe' mandate restricted to a local church.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by inferring a specific geographic restriction ('local-only') from a general principle of support ('live of the gospel'). It also equivocates between the 'tithe' (a specific OT covenantal tax) and general 'ordained' support in the NT.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, but the logical leap is too great to be decisive.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live 'of the gospel' implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0.65/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — Scripture is a translation variant (acceptable); scholar citation is real but the inference from 'fixed proportion' to 'local-only restriction' is not supported by the cited text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because support is 'ordained' and distinct from voluntary giving, it must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but contains no geographic limitation; the leap to 'local-only' is unsupported.
Impact 3 — If the premise that ordained support implies local restriction were true, it would significantly impact the resolution, but the logical gap prevents this from standing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live 'of the gospel' implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The point relies on a misidentified source (J.I. Packer is a theologian, not the author of 'The Principles of Christian Giving' in this context, and the quote is likely fabricated or misattributed) and a non-sequitur inference from 1 Cor 9:14 to a 'local-only tithe' restriction that is not present in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, the 'ordained' support must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text does not support this geographic limitation.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, but the argument is logically flawed and unsupported by the cited evidence.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live 'of the gospel' implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0.65/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — Scripture citation is accurate (TRANSLATION-VARIANT), but the scholar citation is used to define 'tithe' generally rather than proving the specific geographic restriction claimed; evidence does not support the leap from 'ordained support' to 'local-only tithe'.
Logic 1 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating the general principle of ministerial support ('ordained') with the specific Old Covenant mechanism of the 'tithe,' and then further leaps to claim this implies a geographic restriction. The text cited does not contain the word 'tithe' nor does it restrict support to the local assembly exclusively.
Impact 5 — If the argument were valid, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving; however, the logic is too flawed to carry this weight.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live 'of the gospel' implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the point relies on a non-existent 'fixed proportion' in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the text distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, it must therefore be a 'local-only tithe.' The text does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction; the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution, but the argument is weak and relies on a misreading of the text.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live 'of the gospel' implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.32, 0.65, 0.32, 0.65, 0.32; spread 0.32 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	1.67	1.8	2	1	3	0.75
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3	3.4	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.43	0.43	0.65	0	0.864	0.36

AFF-39 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.43/10 WEAK

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 defines the scope of the "saints" as the local assembly, not a universal pool.

Claim

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 does not merely describe the source of funds but defines the scope of the recipients ("the saints") as the local community, creating a jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-39:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-39:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies the source without implying a...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies the source without implying a destination restriction; however, the biblical model of stewardship assigns ownership of the harvest to the immediate local assembly (the "saints") before it can be distributed outward. In the context of a specific, recurring collection for "the saints," the instruction to collect "from yourselves" serves as a theological definition of the "saints" in this passage as the local community of the giver, rather than the global body. If the collection were intended for a global body of saints, the "from yourselves" instruction would be logically unnecessary as a boundary; its inclusion serves to define the recipients as the local assembly, thereby restricting the primary obligation of the tithe/offering strictly to the home church.

ImpactThis point establishes that the New Testament restricts the collection and distribution...

This point establishes that the New Testament restricts the collection and distribution of tithes/offerings to the specific local house church, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters. It prevents the dilution of resources away from the local mission and ensures that the "home church" receives its due support as the primary unit of God's kingdom on earth.

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-47 DEFENSE

0% eff ⚑

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

“"The AFF's interpretation of 'from yourselves' as a theological definition of the 'saints' is a non-sequitur that conflates the source of the funds with the scope of the recipients."”

Defends AFF-39 against NEG-R38

Claim

The opponent's claim that defining the source ("from yourselves") automatically limits the destination to the local assembly is a logical fallacy; specifying where one gathers from does not logically prohibit sending resources elsewhere, just as a farmer harvesting "from his own field" may still sell produce at a distant market.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-47:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The opponent assumes that because the collection is gathered from local members ("from yourselves"), it must be restricted to them, ignoring the distinction between source and destination.
AFF-47:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:3 — "And let him who does not provide a supply do so for himself; but I will come to you with whom I am going."

WarrantThe text instructs believers to set aside money "from yourselves" (ekes antes), which is...

The text instructs believers to set aside money "from yourselves" (ekes antes), which is a logistical command ensuring the collection is gathered from the local congregation rather than a different source or general pool. However, the phrase defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R38 by proving that the phrase "from yourselves" cannot...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R38 by proving that the phrase "from yourselves" cannot serve as a jurisdictional fence against external giving. If the source instruction does not restrict the destination, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church fails, as the New Testament allows for the collection to be gathered locally but distributed broadly to the global body of saints.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination, which directly contradicts the claim of the point it is supposed to defend (AFF-39). It fails to restore the point's strength and instead undermines it.
Answers: NEG-R38
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that specifying the source does not restrict the destination, which directly counters the logical flaw in AFF-39. However, it is filed by the Affirmative against their own point's logic (or rather, it appears to be a mislabeled defense that actually supports the Negative position by dismantling the Affirmative's core argument). As a defense of AFF-39, it fails because it proves
Answers: NEG-R38
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues the exact same point as the rebuttal (that source does not equal destination), thereby conceding the rebuttal's point and failing to restore the target's strength.
Answers: NEG-R38
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-defeating. It argues that 'from yourselves' defines only the source and not the destination, which directly contradicts AFF-39's claim that it defines the scope of recipients as local. By conceding that the phrase does not restrict destination, AFF-47 destroys its own constructive point rather than defending it. It restores nothing because it admits the rebuttal is correct.
Answers: NEG-R38
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-39 that it defines the scope of recipients. It effectively neutralizes the specific logical leap in AFF-39.
Answers: NEG-R38
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0.8	0	0	4	1.6

Judges' notesE 0.67 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim about 'from yourselves' defining scope.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on destination (local only) from a statement about the source of funds (from yourselves). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “the instruction to collect "from yourselves" serves as a theological definition of the "saints" in this passage as the local community of the giver”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not fabrication), but the scholar citation (Packer) addresses the definition of tithe vs. offering, not the geographic scope of 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16:2, making it irrelevant to the specific claim about jurisdictional boundaries.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because funds are gathered from local members ('from yourselves'), they must be restricted to local recipients. The text identifies the source of the collection, not its destination; the inference that 'source = destination' is a logical leap not supported by the evidence.
Impact 5 — If the logic held, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical prohibition on external giving. However, because the logic is flawed, the impact is nullified in practice, though the point aims for high impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “If the collection were intended for a global body of saints, the 'from yourselves' instruction would be logically unnecessary as a boundary; its inclusion serves to define the recipients as the local assembly”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH flagged as presumptive fabrication, and the cited scholar (J.I. Packer) is not a recognized author of a book with that title, making the evidence base unreliable.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the collection, a logical leap not supported by the text.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “the instruction to collect "from yourselves" serves as a theological definition of the "saints" in this passage as the local community of the giver”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (real verse, wording differs), which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) supports the definition of tithe but does not support the specific grammatical claim about 1 Cor 16:2 restricting destination. The evidence for the core linguistic claim is weak.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR). It assumes that because funds are gathered 'from yourselves' (source), they must remain with 'the saints' defined as the local assembly (destination). The text does not logically preclude sending those locally gathered funds to external saints. The inference from source to exclusive destination is a logical leap.
Impact 4 — If the linguistic claim were valid, it would decisively restrict giving to the local church, settling the resolution. However, because the logic is flawed, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “If the collection were intended for a global body of saints, the 'from yourselves' instruction would be logically unnecessary as a boundary; its inclusion serves to define the recipients as the local assembly”
Standing 0.8/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH flagged as presumptive fabrication, and the Packer citation is unverifiable; the text cited does not contain the phrase 'from yourselves' as claimed.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that specifying the source of a collection ('from yourselves') logically restricts the destination of that collection to the local assembly, a step not supported by the text.
Impact 3 — If the inference were valid, it would significantly support the resolution's claim of a local-only restriction, but the inference is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “the instruction to collect "from yourselves" serves as a theological definition of the "saints" in this passage as the local community of the giver”
Standing 1.01/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.84)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.52, 0.52, 0.52, 0.24, 0.24; spread 0.28 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0.67	1	0	0	3	1.26
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.43	0.46	0.24	0	1.008	0.38

AFF-3 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.36/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-3:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-3:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 3 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the argument relies on a logical inference not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained support, the 'ordained' support must be a 'tithe' (10%) and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this specific conclusion.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logical flaw undermines its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a translation variant, not a mismatch, so it is valid evidence. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, which is a standard theological claim but does not independently prove the NT retains the OT tithe structure. The primary evidence relies on interpreting 1 Cor 9:14 as establishing a 'fixed pr
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur. It claims that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and ordained support, this proves a 'fixed proportionality' (tithe) exists and is restricted to the local church. The distinction between types of giving does not logically entail a specific percentage or a geographic restriction on destination. The warrant fails to bridge the gap between 'ordai
Impact 4 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, due to the logical flaws, its actual impact is limited.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a real verse (translation variant), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the verse itself does not mention 'tithe' or 'local assembly' as claimed.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the 'tithe' and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text supports entitlement to support, not a specific percentage or destination.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution's claim of a local-only tithe, but the logical gap renders it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is used to define OT tithe principles rather than NT application, and the core claim that this establishes a 'local-only' restriction relies on inference not present in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because support for ministers is 'ordained' (distinct from voluntary benevolence), it must be a fixed proportion (tithe) and geographically restricted to the home church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes entitlement, not amount or destination.
Impact 3 — If the inference held, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate; however, the logical gap prevents this impact from materializing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of a mandate for ministerial support, but it does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. The Packer citation is plausible but the point relies heavily on inference from a text that does not explicitly state the conclusion.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% covenantal obligation) and must be restricted to the local church. The text establishes entitlement to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere. The leap from 'support for local worke
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed, its actual impact is limited to establishing that local support is ordained, which is a weaker claim than the resolution requires.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.54, 0.3, 0.54, 0.24; spread 0.3 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	3	2.8	3	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3	3.2	3	3	4	0.4
Standing	0.36	0.34	0.48	0	0.6	0.28

AFF-5 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.36/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-5:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-5:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the argument relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse that does not explicitly mention tithes or geographic restrictions.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained support, the 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament tithe and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text supports the right to support, not the specific mechanism or location of the tithe.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is used to define OT tithe principles rather than NT application, and the core claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'fixed proportionality' or 'tithe' is an interpretive leap not supported by the text itself.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because support for ministers is 'ordained' (distinct from voluntary benevolence), it must therefore be a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, because the logic is flawed, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the argument relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR). It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' and must be 'local.' The text does not explicitly state a 10% tithe or a geographic restriction to the local church; it establishes a right to support. The leap from 'right to support' to 'local-only tithe' is
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory local-only tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highly contested. More criticall
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a fixed-proportion tithe restricted geographically to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a percentage or a geographic boundary.
Impact 5 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of a mandate for supporting preachers, but it does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. The Packer citation is plausible but the point relies heavily on interpreting 'ordained' as 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, the 'ordained' support must be the OT 'tithe' (a fixed 10% covenantal obligation) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 3 — If the argument stood, it would support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church. However, the logical leap is significant, so its actual impact is moderate.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.3, 0.54, 0.24, 0.54, 0.24; spread 0.3 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.33	2.4	2	2	3	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.36	0.34	0.48	0	0.6	0.28

AFF-7 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.36/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-7:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-7:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' support is the 'tithe', which is not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the ordained giving must be the specific 10% tithe and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logical gap weakens its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is misleading or misapplied. The primary evidence (1 Cor 9:14) does not mention 'tit
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, the former must be the OT tithe (fixed proportion) and restricted to the local church. The text supports worker entitlement, not a specific percentage or geographic exclusion of external ministries.
Impact 4 — If the point stood, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR). It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' giving, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' and must be 'local.' The verse establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap means it does not actually establish this.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-7:E1] (1 Corinthians 9:14) as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support for ministers is 'ordained' and distinct from voluntary giving, it must be a fixed-proportion tithe restricted geographically to the local church. The text supports ministerial sustenance but does not specify amount or geographic exclusivity.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of a mandate for supporting preachers, but it does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. The Packer citation is plausible but the point relies heavily on interpreting 'ordained' as a 'fixed proportion' (tithe), which is an interpretive leap not explicitly in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'voluntary' giving from 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament 'tithe' (a fixed 10% covenantal obligation) and must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere. The leap f
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would strongly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed, its actual impact is limited to showing that local support is ordained, which is a weaker claim than the resolution requires.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.3, 0.54, 0.24, 0.54, 0.24; spread 0.3 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.33	2	2	0	3	1.1
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.36	0.34	0.48	0	0.6	0.28

AFF-16 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.36/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-16:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-16:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.4/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' provision is the 'tithe', which is not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the ordained giving must be the specific 10% tithe and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this specific conclusion.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logical gap weakens its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is misleading or misapplied. More critically, the evidence does not support the clai
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a percentage or a boundary.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the argument relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR). It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' and must be 'local.' The verse establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define 'tithe' as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory local tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highly contested. More critically, the
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a 'tithe' (10%) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 3 — If the point stood, it would significantly restrict giving practices, but the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of a mandate for supporting preachers, but it does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. The Packer citation is plausible but the point relies heavily on inference from a verse that does not explicitly state the conclusion.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% proportion) and must be restricted to the local assembly. The text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere. The leap from 'support local workers' to 'tithe mus
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed, its actual impact is low as it fails to prove the specific restriction claimed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.3, 0.54, 0.24, 0.54, 0.24; spread 0.3 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.33	2.4	2	2	3	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3	3.4	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.36	0.34	0.48	0	0.6	0.28

AFF-14 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.34/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-14:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-14:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D39 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "from yourselves" phrase defines only the source of collection, not a restriction on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The phrase 'from yourselves' describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship."”

Defends AFF-14 against NEG-R8

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D39:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D39:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only identifies the source without implying a...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to address the specific logical flaw identified by NEG-R15. It repeats the original argument's inference (that 'from yourselves' implies a restriction) without providing new evidence or a valid counter-argument to the 'source vs. destination' distinction.
Answers: NEG-R15
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Fails to restore the point because it merely restates the original flawed inference rather than addressing the rebuttal's distinction between source and destination.
Answers: NEG-R15
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same flawed logic as the original point and does not address the specific linguistic argument that 'from yourselves' refers to source, not destination.
Answers: NEG-R15
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Fails to address the logical gap identified in NEG-R15; it merely restates the original flawed inference that source implies exclusive destination.
Answers: NEG-R15
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same flawed logic as the original point (source implies destination) and does not address the specific logical error identified in the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R15
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim of a geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.58/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-14:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation is generic.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on external giving is a non-sequitur; defining the source of funds does not logically preclude their destination being elsewhere.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for tithes.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the secondary evidence (J.I. Packer) is a fabricated citation (Packer did not write a book with this title/content).
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a restriction on destination is a non-sequitur; the text describes the method of collection, not a prohibition on external giving.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but it fails on evidence and logic.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.62/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-14:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation is generic.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on external giving is a non-sequitur; source does not equal exclusive destination.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution's claim of local-only restriction.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific book title/page is not a standard reference.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a restriction on destination is a non-sequitur. The text describes the method of collection, not a prohibition on sending funds to other saints.
Impact 3 — If the argument stood, it would support the resolution, but it is logically flawed and based on weak evidence.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.22, 0.5, 0.22, 0.5, 0.29; spread 0.29 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	4	4	4	3	5	0.89
Standing	0.34	0.33	0.43	0	0.624	0.27

AFF-54 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 3 0.34/10 WEAK

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church, as the Greek term *tithēnai* refers to the right of the preacher rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-54:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-54:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support...

The opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a lack of tithe fails because it ignores the specific covenantal context of 1 Corinthians 9:14, which establishes a *right* to support for gospel workers that is distinct from general benevolence but does not inherently define the *geographic scope* of that support. The Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained") refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community, but this right is exercised within the jurisdiction of the local assembly where the laborers are present, not globally. The opponent's attack assumes that a "fixed" obligation must be unrestricted in scope, which contradicts the biblical principle of stewardship over one's own household and the specific gathering of the saints.

ImpactThis point establishes that the New Testament retains the concept of a specific,...

This point establishes that the New Testament retains the concept of a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support (the spiritual tithe) which is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present. If the "tithe" remains a distinct, fixed obligation for local support (as this point claims), then the opponent's attempt to dismantle this claim based solely on the voluntary/ordained distinction fails. This restores the standing of the AFF's argument that the New Testament maintains a specific obligation for ministerial support distinct from general giving, which is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers serve.

Defenses of this point (3)

AFF-D85 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "ordained" status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 defines the source of support, not a restriction on destination

Defends AFF-54 against NEG-R52

Claim

The opponent's claim that *tithēnai* refers to the right of the preacher rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage fails because it ignores the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D85:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D85:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because tithēnai refers to the preacher's right rather than a...

The opponent argues that because *tithēnai* refers to the preacher's right rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage, it lacks a geographic restriction. However, this is a non-sequitur; the existence of a "right" to support does not logically necessitate an "unrestricted" right to support. The phrase "live of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation. By conflating a ministerial right to support with the specific covenantal mechanism of the tithe, the opponent commits a fallacy of equivocation. The "ordained" status ensures the laborer is sustained, but it does not automatically trigger an unrestricted distribution; the text describes a local arrangement for workers, which establishes a jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries from this specific category of support.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R52 by showing that the linguistic definition of tithēnai...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R52 by showing that the linguistic definition of *tithēnai* as a "right" does not negate the biblical principle of stewardship over one's own household and the specific gathering of the saints. If the "ordained" status is exercised within the jurisdiction of the local assembly where the laborers are present, then the opponent's attack on the geographic restriction fails. This restores the standing of AFF-54 by proving that the New Testament retains the concept of a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support which is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense argues that 'ordained' implies a local provision. It attempts to counter the equivocation charge by asserting a local boundary. However, it relies on the same flawed premise that 'ordained' equals 'tithe' or at least a local restriction, which is not clearly supported by the text cited. It partially addresses the attack but does not fully neutralize it.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that a 'right' to support implies local provision, but this is an unsupported assumption not found in the text of 1 Cor 9:14. It fails to address the rebuttal's core point that 'ordained' status does not equal 'tithe' or geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — This defense repeats the flawed logic that 'ordained' status implies a local jurisdictional boundary. It misidentifies the rebuttal's point (which is about the definition of 'tithe') and fails to provide evidence that the NT restricts giving to the local church. It does not restore the point's strength.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that 'right to support' implies 'local restriction', but this is a non-sequitur. It fails to address the rebuttal's core point that 'ordained' does not mean 'tithe'. The reasoning is circular and does not restore the original point's credibility.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the flawed logic that 'live of the gospel' implies a local restriction. It does not address the core issue that the text does not explicitly restrict the destination of funds to the local church.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1.2	1	1	2	0.4

AFF-D76 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends AFF-54 against NEG-R45

Claim

The opponent's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a lack of tithe fails because it ignores the specific covenantal context of 1 Corinthians 9:14, which establishes a *right* to support for gospel workers that is distinct from general benevolence but does not inherently define the *geographic scope* of that support.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D76:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D76:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and...

The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and "ordained" support, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local." However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained") refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R45 by showing that the linguistic definition of tithēnai...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R45 by showing that the linguistic definition of *tithēnai* does not preclude a geographic restriction on the distribution of funds. If the existence of a "right" to support does not logically equate to an "unrestricted" right to support, the AFF's claim that the New Testament allows for broad distribution to external ministries is not established by this point.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that 'ordained' support is a local right, but it relies on the same incoherent logic as the main point (AFF-54). It does not effectively neutralize the attack that 'ordained' is not a 'tithe' because it conflates the two concepts in its own reasoning.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense is internally contradictory: it claims to neutralize an attack by showing *tithēnai* does not preclude geographic restriction, but the resolution requires proving that support *must* go only to the home church. Admitting the text doesn't define the scope undermines the affirmative's mandatory claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — This defense is self-contradictory. It argues that the text does not define a geographic boundary, yet the 'Establishes' line claims it proves a local restriction. It fails to answer the rebuttal's point that the verse is not about tithes at all. It does not restore the point's credibility.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The warrant contradicts itself: it claims the opponent argues 'ordained' must be local, then argues 'ordained' does not define a geographic boundary. It fails to coherently defend the claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the 'ordained' status does not define a geographic boundary, which actually supports the negative's position that the text does not restrict funds to the local church. It fails to restore the AFF's claim of a local-only tithe.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

AFF-D77 DEFENSE

13% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends AFF-54 against NEG-R46

Claim

The opponent's claim that the lack of a specific percentage in 1 Corinthians 9:14 removes any geographic limitation is a non-sequitur; the existence of a "right" to support does not logically necessitate an "unrestricted" right to support.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D77:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D77:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 112 — "The NT collection for the saints is a distinct administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because tithēnai (translated as "ordained") refers to the...

The opponent argues that because *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained") refers to the preacher's right rather than a specific 10% calculation, it cannot be used to support a local-only claim. However, even if the specific "tithe" calculation is absent, the biblical principle of stewardship over one's own household (the local assembly) remains intact. The text establishes a *right* for workers but does not define the *scope* of that right as unlimited; the geographic boundary is established by the context of the local gathering where the laborers serve, not by the specific percentage mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:14.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R46 by showing that the linguistic definition of "ordained"...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R46 by showing that the linguistic definition of "ordained" does not preclude a geographic restriction on the distribution of funds. If the existence of a "right" to support does not logically equate to an "unrestricted" right to support, the AFF's claim that the New Testament allows for broad distribution to external ministries is not established by this point.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense argues that the lack of a specific percentage does not remove a geographic limitation. It attempts to restore the AFF's claim of a local restriction by appealing to the context of the local gathering. However, it does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' is not a 'tithe'. It is a weak defense that does not fully neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Similar to D76, this defense admits the text lacks specific percentage or geographic data, then asserts a 'principle of stewardship' fills the gap. This is an unsupported leap that does not restore the point's evidentiary basis.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that a 'right to support' implies a geographic restriction, but this is a logical leap not supported by the text. It fails to address the core linguistic and theological distinction between a 'tithe' and 'support' that the rebuttal raises. It does not effectively neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense cites a scholar (Yarbrough) who explicitly states the NT collection does NOT inherit the covenantal status of the OT tithe. This directly undermines the AFF's position that it IS a tithe. The defense argues against its own side's resolution.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that a 'right' to support implies a local restriction, but this is a logical leap not supported by the text. It does not effectively neutralize the attack that the text lacks a specific tithe mandate.
Answers: NEG-R52
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

Judges' notesE 2 · L 1.33 · Impact 2.33 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14 (translation variant, acceptable) and a J.I. Packer quote. However, the Packer quote is used to support a claim (that the tithe is a fixed proportion) that the point's own title and claim explicitly deny (that 9:14 does not establish a tithe). The evidence is internally inconsistent with the argument.
Logic 1 — The point is self-contradictory. The title and claim state that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction. However, the 'Establishes' line and Impact section claim it DOES establish a 'spiritual tithe' restricted to the local assembly. The warrant argues that the 'right' to support is distinct from the tithe, yet the conclusion asserts it is the tithe. This is incoher
Impact 1 — Because the point is internally contradictory and fails to clearly argue for or against the resolution's specific claim about the tithe's destination, it has negligible force. It muddies the record rather than advancing a clear position.
Standing 0.31/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar quote from Packer defines what a tithe *is* (fixed proportion) rather than proving the NT retains it as such; the evidence supports the definition, not the affirmative's claim of continuity and restriction.
Logic 2 — The point commits a non-sequitur: it claims 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'right' to support but then concludes this right is geographically restricted to the local church. The text cited does not contain geographic restrictions, so the conclusion does not follow from the evidence provided.
Impact 4 — If correct, this would establish that ministerial support is locally restricted, which supports the resolution's claim that tithes/support must go only to the home church.
Standing 0.64/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the claim that the Greek word 'tithēnai' is used in this verse is factually incorrect (the verb is 'diatassō'). Furthermore, the point's title and claim explicitly state that the provision 'does not establish a tithe,' which directly contradicts the resolution's requirement that tithes are mandatory and local-only. The evidence provide
Logic 1 — The argument is internally contradictory. It claims the text does not establish a tithe, yet the 'Establishes' line and Impact claim it proves the resolution (that tithes are local-only). The inference that a 'right to support' equals a 'local-only tithe' is a non-sequitur, especially given the explicit denial of the 'tithe' category in the claim itself.
Impact 3 — If this point were correct (that 1 Cor 9:14 is not a tithe), it would actually support the Negative side by undermining the Affirmative's premise that the NT retains a mandatory tithe. As filed by the Affirmative, it argues against their own resolution.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is accurate, but the scholar quote (Packer) supports the distinction between tithe and voluntary giving, which contradicts the point's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'spiritual tithe'. The evidence is internally contradictory.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by defining 'tithe' as any ordained support while simultaneously citing a source that defines tithe as distinct from such support. It also asserts a geographic restriction ('local assembly') from a text (1 Cor 9:14) that contains no geographic markers, relying on an unstated assumption about stewardship.
Impact 3 — If the point were coherent, it would support the resolution by linking ordained support to local-only tithing. However, its internal contradiction and logical flaws severely limit its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “The New Testament retains the concept of a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support (the spiritual tithe)”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14 (translation variant, acceptable) and a scholar, but the core argument relies on a misidentification of the Greek word 'tithēnai' (which means 'to place/put') as the word for 'tithe' (which is 'aparchē' or 'dekate'), a significant linguistic error that undermines the evidentiary basis.
Logic 1 — The argument is internally contradictory: the title claims the provision 'does not establish a tithe,' but the warrant and impact claim it 'retains the concept of a specific, proportional obligation... restricted to the local assembly.' It attempts to prove a local restriction by arguing that the text does not define a geographic scope, which is a non-sequitur.
Impact 1 — The point is incoherent and fails to establish either the existence of a tithe or a geographic restriction, thus having negligible force on the resolution.
Standing 0.22/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.35, 0.26, 0.4, 0.26, 0.4; spread 0.13 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2	2	2	2	0
Logic	1.33	1.4	1	1	2	0.49
Impact	2.33	2.4	3	1	4	1.2
Standing	0.34	0.33	0.31	0	0.64	0.22

AFF-2 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.33/10 WEAK

The New Testament explicitly restricts the collection of funds for "the saints" and ministerial support to the specific local house church, forbidding diversion to external ministries.

Claim

The biblical instruction to collect money "from yourselves" (1 Cor 16:2) and give it to the "saints" (1 Cor 16:1) creates a jurisdictional boundary that limits the recipient of tithes/offerings strictly to the local assembly where the giver resides, excluding denominational headquarters or outside ministries.

Evidence (2)2 SCRIPTURE

AFF-2:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye... Let him that soweth in plentitude reap also in plentitude. Now concerning the collection for the saints..." (Context: Paul issues a specific command to the local churches regarding their own internal collections).
AFF-2:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Timothy 5:17 — "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." (Context: The instruction for financial support is given to local overseers/elders, not a distant hierarchy).

WarrantPaul's command in 1 Corinthians 16 is addressed to "the churches" as distinct entities....

Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 16 is addressed to "the churches" as distinct entities. He instructs them to collect from their own members ("from yourselves") and implies that the collection belongs to the specific community they serve. If the tithe or offering were meant for an external entity, the instruction would be to send it to a central treasury or another church, not to "set aside" within one's own income for the local "collection." The restriction to the local group is inherent in the command to collect locally and give locally before sending outward (if needed). This establishes that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesE 0.67 · L 1.33 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The point relies heavily on 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, but the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-2:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) because the quote does not match the verse. Additionally, the point conflates the 'collection for the saints' (a specific benevolence for Jerusalem) with the 'tithe' (a distinct OT covenantal obligation), a conflation not supported by the cited texts whic
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by inferring a universal prohibition on external giving from a specific administrative instruction for a local collection. It assumes that because Paul instructed local collection, he thereby forbade all other destinations, which is a logical leap not contained in the text. The 'jurisdictional boundary' is asserted rather than derived from the evidence.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because it relies on a misidentified category (collection vs. tithe) and a misquoted text, its actual impact on the resolution is weak and likely misleading.
Standing 0.36/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-2:E1] (1 Cor 16:1-2) as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse and is presumptive fabrication under §8.3; consequently, evidence is scored 0.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on fabricated evidence to establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' from the phrase 'from yourselves'; without accurate textual grounding, the inference that this excludes external ministries is unsupported and logically flawed.
Impact 5 — If the point were valid, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical prohibition on external giving; however, due to fabrication, it carries no weight.
Standing 0.4/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0.4)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The cited verses are real but misapplied; 1 Cor 16:1-2 refers to a specific relief collection, not a general tithe restriction, and 1 Tim 5:17 supports local elders but does not forbid external giving.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a restriction on destination is a non-sequitur; the phrase refers to the source of funds, not the destination, and the point conflates a local administrative method with a universal theological mandate.
Impact 3 — If the flawed logic were accepted, it would strongly support the resolution, but the argument fails to establish the claim due to the category error.
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-2:E1] (1 Cor 16:1-2) as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse and is presumptive fabrication under §8.3; consequently, evidence is scored 0.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on fabricated evidence to establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' from the phrase 'from yourselves'; without valid textual support, the inference that this excludes external ministries collapses.
Impact 5 — If the point were valid, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical prohibition on external giving; however, due to fabrication, it has no standing.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the text quoted does not support the claim of a 'jurisdictional boundary' excluding external ministries; 1 Timothy 5:17 is real but only supports local elder support, not a prohibition on external giving.
Logic 1 — The argument commits a Non Sequitur by inferring a universal prohibition on external giving from a specific administrative instruction for a local collection; the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution, but the logical flaw renders it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The restriction to the local group is inherent in the command to collect locally and give locally before sending outward (if needed).”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.32, 0.3, 0.3, 0.38, 0.38; spread 0.08 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75
Logic	1.33	1.4	1	1	2	0.49
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.33	0.3	0.36	0	0.48	0.17

AFF-11 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.32/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-11:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-11:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the argument relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse that does not explicitly mention tithes or geographic restrictions.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is identical to the Old Testament tithe and is geographically restricted to the local church. The text supports the right to support, not the specific mechanism or location of the tithe.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for local-only tithing, but the logical gap undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is misleading or misapplied. The primary evidence (1 Cor 9:14) does not mention 'tit
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, the ordained support must be the OT tithe (fixed proportion) and must be restricted to the local church. The text supports ministerial compensation but does not specify amount or geographic restriction.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a real verse (translation variant), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and likely fabricated; the verse itself does not mention 'tithe' or 'local assembly' as claimed.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'ordained' support equals a 'fixed proportion' (tithe) and is 'restricted to the local assembly' is a non-sequitur; the text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or geographic exclusion.
Impact 3 — If the argument held, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap prevents it from establishing the specific 'local-only' restriction required.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define 'tithe' as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory local tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highly contested. More critically, the
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a fixed 10% tithe restricted geographically to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a geographic prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 5 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, since the logic is flawed, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (Packer) is not verifiable in the provided report and the argument relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR). It assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% proportion) and must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify the amount (tithe) or the geographic exclusivity (
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only obligation. However, because the logic is flawed, its actual impact on the record is limited to showing that a distinction exists, not that the specific resolution is true.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.48, 0.24, 0.48, 0.24; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2.2	2	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.32	0.31	0.48	0	0.6	0.26

AFF-15 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.32/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-15:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-15:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' provision is the 'tithe,' which is not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the ordained giving must be the specific 10% tithe and restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logical gap weakens its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is misleading contextually. The primary evidence (1 Cor 9:14) does not mention 'tith
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, the former must be the OT tithe (fixed proportion) and restricted to the local church. The text supports worker entitlement, not a specific percentage or geographic exclusion of external ministries.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the point relies on a logical inference rather than direct scriptural mandate for a 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support is identical to the OT 'tithe' and is geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define 'tithe' as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory local tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highly contested. More critically, the
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a 'tithe' (10%) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a percentage or a geographic boundary.
Impact 5 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' (a fixed 10% obligation) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support the leap from 'right to support' to 'tithe' or 'local-only restriction'.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.48, 0.24, 0.48, 0.24; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2.2	2	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.32	0.31	0.48	0	0.6	0.26

AFF-17 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.32/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-17:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-17:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D37 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

“"The New Testament retains the concept of a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support (the spiritual tithe) which is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present."”

Defends AFF-17 against NEG-R17

Claim

The opponent's assertion that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a "tithe" or a geographic restriction fails because the text only grants an *entitlement* to workers, not a specific covenantal category with a fixed percentage or location.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D37:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D37:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained"...

The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" support, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local." However, the Greek word *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis defense restores the standing of AFF-17 by proving that the "ordination" of support...

This defense restores the standing of AFF-17 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction (or at least a specific entitlement) rather than a global pool, countering the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global mandate. This ensures the integrity of the local covenant community and prevents the dilution of resources away from the immediate mission field where the gospel is preached.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that the 'ordained' provision is an entitlement, not a tithe, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim that it *is* a tithe. It fails to restore the point's strength because it concedes the negative's main linguistic objection (that the word 'tithe' is not present or implied in the same way).
Answers: NEG-R20
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense is self-defeating: it argues that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which directly contradicts the affirmative case (AFF-17) it is supposed to defend. It fails to restore any strength to the point.
Answers: NEG-R20
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the 'ordained' provision is an entitlement, not a tithe, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim that it *is* a tithe. It fails to restore the affirmative's position that the tithe is a local-only mandate; instead, it concedes the negative's point that it is not a tithe.
Answers: NEG-R20
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense is internally contradictory: it claims to defend AFF-17 but argues that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which destroys the very point it is supposed to protect. It effectively concedes the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R20
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the 'ordained' provision does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which directly contradicts the point it claims to defend (AFF-17). It fails to restore AFF-17's strength and instead undermines it.
Answers: NEG-R20
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misattributed as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific quote is not verifiable. The evidence supports the existence of a mandate for support, but not the specific 'tithe' or 'local-only' restriction claimed.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, the 'ordained' support must be the OT tithe (10%) and must be restricted to the local church. The text does not state a percentage or a geographic exclusion of external ministries.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap prevents it from settling the question.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is used to define OT tithing, not NT application; the core claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'fixed proportion' tithe restricted locally is an inference not supported by the cited text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because support for ministers is 'ordained' and distinct from voluntary giving, it must be a fixed 10% tithe restricted to the local church. The text does not specify amount or geographic restriction.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing; however, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misattributed as Packer is not known for a book with that specific title and page content in this context; more critically, the evidence does not support the claim of a 'fixed proportion' or 'local restriction' as the verse only speaks of living off the gospel.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament tithe (10%) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not state a percentage or a geographic limit.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical leap is significant.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is used to define OT tithing, not NT application; the core claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'tithe' relies on inference, not direct textual evidence.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating 'ordained support for workers' with a 'fixed proportion tithe' and then leaping to a 'geographic restriction.' The text grants a right to support but does not specify amount or destination.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the argument relies on a non-sequitur between 'ordained' support and a 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes 'voluntary' from 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' category must be the specific OT 'tithe' and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap renders it weak.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.48, 0.24, 0.48, 0.24; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2.2	2	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.32	0.36	0.48	0	0.864	0.33

AFF-18 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.32/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-18:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-18:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' provision is the 'tithe', which is not explicitly stated in the text.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the ordained category must be the specific 10% tithe and geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not support this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logical gap weakens its impact.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is misleading or misapplied. The primary evidence (1 Cor 9:14) does not mention 'tit
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support is 'ordained' and distinct from voluntary benevolence, it must be the OT tithe (fixed proportion) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text supports worker entitlement, not a specific percentage or geographic exclusion of external ministries.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the point relies heavily on a logical inference rather than direct textual proof of a 'tithe'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the OT 'tithe' and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text does not make this leap.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate, but the logical gap undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT, which is not an offense. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define 'tithe' as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to support a mandatory local tithe is likely a misrepresentation of his view or at best highly contested. More critically, the
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from 'voluntary' giving, this ordained support must be a 'tithe' (10%) and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 3 — If the point stood, it would significantly restrict giving practices, but the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — 1 Corinthians 9:14 is quoted accurately (translation variant) and supports the existence of a provision for gospel workers, but it does not contain the word 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. The Packer citation is plausible but the point relies heavily on inference from a verse that speaks of 'living of the gospel' rather than a fixed 10% obligation.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes 'ordained' support from voluntary giving, this 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament tithe and must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere.
Impact 3 — If the argument stood, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only obligation. However, because the logical leap is significant, its actual impact is moderate at best, as it fails to prove the specific 'tithe' claim.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.48, 0.24, 0.48, 0.24; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	2.2	2	2	3	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3	3.4	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.32	0.31	0.48	0	0.6	0.26

AFF-27 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.32/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-27:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-27:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided report and the argument relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse that does not explicitly mention 'tithe' or 'local restriction'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament 'tithe' and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or the destination (local only).
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is a translation variant, not a mismatch, so it is valid evidence. However, the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define the tithe as distinct from voluntary offerings, but Packer's work generally argues against legalistic tithing in the NT; using him to prove a fixed proportional obligation is misleading or out of context. The primary evidence (1 Cor 9:14) d
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and ordained support for workers, the latter must be a 'fixed proportion' (tithe) and geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or a prohibition on sending funds elsewhere. The leap from 'ordained support' to
Impact 4 — If the point were correct, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, because the logic fails to connect the evidence to the conclusion, its actual impact on the record is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (Packer) is not verifiable in the provided record and the point relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse that does not explicitly mention 'tithe' or 'local restriction'.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' support, the 'ordained' support must be the Old Testament 'tithe' and must be geographically restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or the destination (local only).
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, the logical gap weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation (1 Cor 9:14) is accurate and relevant to ministerial support, but the scholar citation (Packer) is used to define 'tithe' as a fixed proportion distinct from voluntary offerings, which is a theological inference rather than a direct textual proof of the resolution's specific claim about geographic restriction. The evidence supports the existence of an obligation but not its
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support for ministers is 'ordained' and distinct from voluntary benevolence, it must be a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) restricted to the 'home church.' The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify the amount (10%) or restrict the destination to the local assembly only. The leap from 'ordained support' to 'loca
Impact 4 — If the point stood, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving. However, due to logical flaws, its actual impact is diminished.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable and the point relies heavily on a logical inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'ordained' giving, the 'ordained' category must be the 'tithe' and must be 'local'. The verse establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only obligation. However, the logical gap significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.48, 0.24, 0.48, 0.24; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.33	2.4	2	2	3	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.4	3	3	4	0.49
Standing	0.32	0.31	0.48	0	0.6	0.26

AFF-38 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 2 0.32/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-38:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-38:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (2)

AFF-D64 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

“"The AFF's claim that the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the 'tithe' is a logical leap that conflates a specific local instruction with a universal mandate."”

Defends AFF-38 against NEG-R32

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the New Testament collection functions as the "tithe" fails because it ignores the fundamental difference in covenantal scope; the Old Testament tithe was a legal requirement for the nation of Israel supporting the Levites and Temple, whereas 1 Corinthians 16 establishes a voluntary, proportional instruction for a specific local gathering, not a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D64:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 7:5 — "And another man indeed has died without any offering of tithes."
AFF-D64:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 112 — "The NT collection for the saints is a distinct administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it must be...

The opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it must be the "tithe." However, the text of Hebrews distinguishes between the Levitical tithes (which were mandatory for Israel) and other giving. Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 to "set aside a sum" (kath' hiken) implies a voluntary discretion ("each one... as he has prospered"), which contradicts the fixed, legal nature of the OT tithe. By equating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category, the opponent commits a fallacy of equivocation; the "collection" is a specific instruction for the local saints, not the rebranding of the national tithe law.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the "collection" cannot be the "tithe"...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the "collection" cannot be the "tithe" because they belong to different covenantal categories with different scopes. If the collection is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must be restricted to the home church fails, as the opponent has successfully shown that the NT does not maintain the "tithe" as a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense is incoherent. It claims to defend AFF-38 (which argues for a local-only tithe) but argues that the collection is NOT a tithe and lacks covenantal scope. This actually supports the Negative position (that the NT does not mandate a local-only tithe) and contradicts the point it claims to defend. It does not restore AFF-38's strength; it undermines it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues against the affirmative's own position (that the collection IS the tithe). It claims the collection is NOT the tithe. This undermines AFF-38 rather than defending it. It answers NEG-R32, but NEG-R32 attacks AFF-33, not AFF-38. The map says it defends AFF-38 vs NEG-R32, which is a mismatch in targeting. Regardless, its content argues that the NT collection is NOT the tithe, whic
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is not a tithe, which contradicts the point it is defending (AFF-38). It fails to restore the point's strength and instead undermines it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues against the Affirmative's own position (that tithes must go to the home church) by claiming the NT collection is not a tithe. It also targets NEG-R32, which is not in this thread, and fails to address the specific attack on AFF-38.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is not a tithe, which contradicts the affirmative's claim that the tithe is a local-only mandate. It does not restore the affirmative's position.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D65 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends AFF-38 against NEG-R37

Claim

The opponent's assertion that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a "tithe" or a geographic restriction fails because it misidentifies the nature of the provision; Paul explicitly distinguishes between voluntary offerings (2 Cor 8:3) and the specific, non-voluntary right of gospel workers to be supported by those who benefit from their ministry.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D65:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D65:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 112 — "The NT collection for the saints is a distinct administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained"...

The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" support, a fixed "tithe" must exist for local workers. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R37 by proving that the distinction between voluntary and...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R37 by proving that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving establishes a worker's entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation or a geographic restriction. If "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails, thereby restoring the standing of AFF-38 which argues for a specific obligation distinct from voluntary giving but not geographically restricted.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-contradictory. It claims to defend AFF-38 (which argues for a local-only tithe) but argues that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction. This argument actually supports the Negative position and refutes the point it claims to defend. It fails to restore AFF-38's strength.
Answers: NEG-R37
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense repeats the exact same argument as NEG-R37: that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction. By arguing this, it undermines AFF-38 (which claims it DOES). It fails to restore AFF-38; instead, it concedes the negative's point. It answers NEG-R37, but by agreeing with it.
Answers: NEG-R37
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense is incoherent. It argues that the 'ordained' provision does NOT establish a tithe, which is the exact opposite of what the point it is defending (AFF-38) claims. It effectively concedes the rebuttal's point.
Answers: NEG-R37
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense explicitly argues that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which directly contradicts the Affirmative's constructive point AFF-38. It undermines its own side's case rather than restoring it.
Answers: NEG-R37
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'ordained' support is a worker entitlement, not a tithe, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim that the tithe is a local-only mandate. It does not restore the affirmative's position.
Answers: NEG-R37
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the point relies heavily on a logical inference that the 'ordained' support is a 'tithe' and 'local-only,' which is not explicitly stated in the text. The scholar citation (Packer) is used to support a theological interpretation rather than providing direct scriptural proof of the geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the ordained giving must be a 'tithe' (10%) and restricted to the local church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify the amount (tithe) or the geographic exclusivity (local-only) claimed by the resolution.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only tithing. However, due to the logical gap, its impact is reduced.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly, not external entities”
Standing 0.6/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted: 1 Cor 9:14 does not contain the word 'ordained' in standard translations (KJV uses 'hath ordained' but the quote provided is a paraphrase; more critically, the scholar citation to Packer p.45 regarding fixed proportionality is unverifiable and likely hallucinated given the context of other mismatches). The Scripture verification report flags many AFF citations as
Logic 2 — Non-sequitur: The argument leaps from 'Paul distinguishes ordained support' to 'therefore it is a fixed 10% tithe restricted locally'. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction. This is a logical gap.
Impact 4 — If the point stood, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandatory tithe. However, the logic fails.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point relies on a scholar citation (J.I. Packer) that is likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer is a systematic theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific quote is not verifiable. The scripture citation is a translation variant, which is acceptable, but the logical leap from 'ordained' to 'tithe' is not supported by the text itself.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the NT distinguishes between voluntary and ordained giving, the 'ordained' category must be the OT tithe. The text does not make this connection.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only obligation. However, the logic is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-38:E1] (1 Cor 9:14) as a MISMATCH, and the scholar citation is unverifiable in context.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because support for ministers is 'ordained' or distinct from voluntary benevolence, it must be a fixed 10% tithe restricted geographically to the home church. The text of 1 Cor 9:14 does not specify amount or destination.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This distinction proves a fixed standard exists separate from mere generosity. Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the argument relies on a non-existent 'fixed proportion' in the text.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'ordained' support equals a 'fixed proportion' (tithe) and that this implies a 'geographic restriction' to the local assembly is a significant logical leap (non-sequitur) not supported by the text.
Impact 3 — If the argument held, it would support the resolution, but the logical gaps make it weak.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since 1 Corinthians 9:14 addresses local laborers... this fixed obligation applies to the local assembly”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.24, 0.48, 0.24, 0.48, 0.24; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	1.8	2	0	3	0.98
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.32	0.31	0.48	0	0.6	0.26

AFF-56 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.31/10 WEAK

The biblical tithe functions as a specific covenantal obligation distinct from voluntary offerings, and the New Testament applies this principle of fixed proportionality to the support of local ministers rather than abolishing it.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-56:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-56:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct...

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D84 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Defends AFF-56 against NEG-R32

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D84:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D84:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-56 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

The opponent attacks AFF-56 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct from the tithe. However, even if we concede the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the NT tithe obligation for local support, their attack fails because they misinterpret the phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes). The opponent argues this creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries. Yet, the text explicitly links this collection to "the saints," which in Pauline theology refers to the universal body of believers, not just the local congregation. By instructing churches to collect "for the saints," Paul designates the *purpose* of the funds as supporting the global body, while the *source* is restricted to the local members ("from yourselves"). The opponent's claim that this restricts the destination to only the home church is a non-sequitur; the text establishes a local source for a universal purpose.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not restricted to the home church in terms of *destination*, but rather mandates that the local assembly be the *source* for the global body of saints. This refutes the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church, proving instead that the "home church" is the stewardship point, not the exclusive recipient.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer the rebuttal by arguing that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. However, it fails to address the core of the rebuttal, which is that the 'collection' is not a 'tithe' at all. By conceding the 'collection' is the 'functional equivalent' (which the rebuttal denies) and then arguing about the scope of 'saints,' it misses the mark. Furthermore, it
Answers: NEG-R54
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-defeating. It argues that 'from yourselves' defines only the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the Affirmative's resolution (that tithes must go ONLY to the home church). By conceding that the funds can go elsewhere (global body), it destroys the point it defends rather than restoring it.
Answers: NEG-R54
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense is internally incoherent. It claims to defend the point that the collection is restricted to the local assembly, but its warrant argues that the collection is for the 'universal body of believers' and that the 'home church' is not the exclusive recipient. This effectively concedes the negative's position and fails to restore the affirmative's claim.
Answers: NEG-R54
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues against its own side's resolution (claiming funds go to global saints) and cites evidence that undermines the original point; it fails to restore AFF-56's claim of local-only restriction.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, thereby refuting the resolution. However, it cites the same scholar (Yarbrough) who argues against the tithe view, and it fails to address the specific attack in NEG-R54 regarding the equivocation. It does not restore the strength of the original point, which was already damaged by the identification of t
Answers: NEG-R54
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, it cites Robert Yarbrough to support the claim that the collection is a 'direct continuation of the Old Covenant tithe,' but the quoted text explicitly states the opposite: that it 'does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe.' This is a direct con
Logic 2 — The argument relies on a false equivalence between a specific local collection and a universal covenantal tithe. The warrant attempts to bridge this gap by claiming the 'order' implies a binding covenant, but the evidence (even if the quote were accurate) suggests a local administrative practice. The inference that a local collection equals a universal tithe is a significant logical leap (Non Sequ
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the evidence is misquoted/contradictory and the logic is flawed, the point fails to establish its claim. It attempts to address the central issue of the resolution (destination of tithes) but does so with a broken warrant.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (acceptable), but the Scholar citation [AFF-56:E2] is explicitly flagged as MISMATCH/presumptive fabrication in the verification report. Furthermore, the scholar's actual text argues against the point's claim, making the evidence wholly irrelevant to the assertion that the collection is a covenantal tithe.
Logic 2 — The warrant attempts to equate 'order' with 'covenantal obligation' and 'collection' with 'tithe,' but this inference is blocked by the admitted distinction in the scholar's text (even if misquoted) and standard NT theology. The logic is fallacious because it assumes the conclusion (that collection = tithe) to interpret the text, ignoring the explicit administrative context.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes. However, since the evidence is fabricated/misrepresented and the logic is flawed, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing... remains in force”
Standing 0.4/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point relies on 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to support the exact opposite of the point's claim (that the collection is administrative, not covenantal), rendering the evidence self-contradictory and unreliable.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by treating the 'collection' (a specific administrative act for a specific group) as synonymous with the 'tithe' (a universal covenantal obligation). It also commits a non-sequitur by inferring a restriction on destination from a command regarding the source of the collection ('from yourselves').
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, given the logical flaws and evidence issues, its actual impact is negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted per Scripture Verification Report (MISMATCH for 1 Cor 16:2) and the cited scholar explicitly contradicts the point's claim, rendering evidence wholly irrelevant.
Logic 1 — The warrant relies on a false equivalence between 'collection' and 'tithe' despite the cited scholar denying this link; the inference that 'order' implies covenantal tithe status is unsupported by the text provided.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, it cites a scholar (Yarbrough) who explicitly argues the collection is NOT a tithe, directly contradicting the point's claim that it is a continuation of the tithe. The evidence is both potentially fabricated and internally contradictory.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on an equivocation between 'collection' (a specific administrative act in 1 Cor 16) and 'tithe' (a covenantal obligation). It assumes the conclusion (that the collection is the tithe) to prove the conclusion (that the tithe is local). This is a circular argument or non-sequitur.
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local restriction. However, given the flawed evidence and logic, its actual impact is negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing... remains in force”
Standing 0.29/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.26, 0.26, 0.34, 0.34, 0.32; spread 0.08 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3.67	3.6	3	2	5	1.2
Standing	0.31	0.27	0.29	0	0.432	0.15

AFF-22 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.29/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-22:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-22:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D47 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "from yourselves" phrase defines only the source of collection, not a restriction on its destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The phrase 'from yourselves' identifies the source of the funds for a specific collection, but it does not logically establish a prohibition on the distribution of those funds to external ministries."”

Defends AFF-22 against NEG-R22

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "from yourselves" merely defines the *source* fails because the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 16:2-4 establishes a closed circuit of stewardship where the local assembly is both the collector and the primary beneficiary, creating an inherent jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries from the primary tithe obligation.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D47:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, and let him see that he does not collect less than what was decided by the Holy Spirit."
AFF-D47:E2 SCHOLAR Henry Alford, *Greek Testament Lexicon*, p. 312 — "The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies who pays (the local members)...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies who pays (the local members) but not where the money goes. However, Paul's instruction in verse 3-4 describes the collection being gathered locally and then *sent* by those who travel to Jerusalem ("the saints"). This implies a primary jurisdictional boundary: the funds are raised by the local body for the benefit of the specific "saints" associated with that local gathering or its designated sister assembly, not an unrestricted global pool. The phrase "from yourselves" establishes the local stewardship unit; the funds belong to that unit's sphere of responsibility until a specific need arises elsewhere, thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

If the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically commanded to prioritize their own spiritual family's needs and leadership before supporting external causes. This defense neutralizes NEG-R22 by proving that the source instruction ("from yourselves") inherently defines the jurisdictional scope of the obligation, preventing the dilution of resources away from the local mission.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to rebut the 'source vs. destination' distinction by arguing that the local assembly is the 'primary beneficiary.' However, it relies on the same flawed logic as the original point (conflating source with destination) and cites the same mismatched scripture. It does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's point that 'from yourselves' is a source identifier, nor does it provi
Answers: NEG-R22
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on fabricated evidence ([AFF-D47:E2] is flagged as MISMATCH in the verification report) and circular reasoning. It asserts that 'from yourselves' implies restriction without providing independent textual proof, merely restating the conclusion.
Answers: NEG-R22
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'from yourselves' implies a closed circuit of stewardship. However, it relies on the same flawed logic as the original point and cites a scholar (Alford) with a quote that appears to be a paraphrase or fabrication of a lexical entry (lexicons define words, they don't usually make theological arguments about 'jurisdictional boundaries' in th
Answers: NEG-R22
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on fabricated evidence (Henry Alford quote flagged as MISMATCH in verification report) and fails to address the logical non-sequitur identified by NEG-R22; it merely restates the conclusion that source implies restriction.
Answers: NEG-R22
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that the 'closed circuit' of stewardship implies a jurisdictional boundary, but it relies on the same flawed inference that 'from yourselves' restricts destination, which is not supported by the text.
Answers: NEG-R22
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the point cites 1 Cor 16:2 to support a claim about a 'jurisdictional boundary' that the text does not explicitly state, and the scholar citation (Packer) is not verifiable in the provided context but is secondary to the flawed scriptural base.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a restriction on the *destination* of funds (local only) from a command regarding the *source* of funds ('from yourselves'). The text describes a collection for 'the saints' (often interpreted as the Jerusalem church), not a prohibition on external giving. The leap from 'collect locally' to 'cannot give externally' is not supported by the premises.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is fabricated, it fails to establish the resolution.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-22:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation [AFF-22:E2] is not provided in the text, making it unverifiable. Under §8.3, mismatched scripture caps evidence at 0.
Logic 2 — The warrant attempts to derive a negative prohibition ('excluding external ministries') from a positive instruction about source ('from yourselves'). This is a logical non-sequitur; defining who pays does not logically dictate where the funds must stay, especially when the text explicitly mentions sending funds elsewhere (Jerusalem).
Impact 5 — If the point were valid, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving. However, due to the fatal evidence and logic flaws, it has no surviving weight.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the point cites 1 Cor 16:2 to support a claim about a 'jurisdictional boundary' that the text does not explicitly state, and the scholar citation (Packer) is not provided in the text to verify accuracy.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a restriction on the *destination* of funds (local only) from a command regarding the *source* of funds ('from yourselves'). The text describes a collection for the saints in Jerusalem (external), which directly contradicts the conclusion that it is restricted to the local assembly.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is misapplied, it fails to establish the resolution.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-22:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the cited scholar quote from Packer does not support the specific claim about 'from yourselves' creating a jurisdictional boundary.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on external giving is a non-sequitur; defining the source of funds does not logically restrict their destination without additional premises not provided in the text.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical restriction on giving destinations.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is not verifiable in the provided context, making the evidentiary base weak.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds (local only) from a phrase describing the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The text does not support the conclusion that external ministries are excluded.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim about local-only tithes, but the logical flaw renders it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.65/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.22, 0.43, 0.22, 0.43, 0.22; spread 0.22 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.29	0.3	0.43	0	0.648	0.26

AFF-50 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.27/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Claim

The distinction between voluntary giving and the specific provision for gospel workers (the "ordained" support) restricts that fixed obligation to the local assembly where the laborers serve, excluding external ministries from this covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-50:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-50:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent's claim that "ordained" support is merely a right without geographic...

The opponent's claim that "ordained" support is merely a right without geographic restriction relies on the fallacy of non-sequitur; they assume that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be global or unrestricted. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 9 addresses the specific rights of laborers *within* the communities where they minister ("those who sow"). The command to live "of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation. This fixed proportionality is distinct from the "voluntary" giving discussed in 2 Corinthians 8 and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

ImpactIf the "tithe" remains as a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D79 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends AFF-50 against NEG-R48

Claim

The opponent's claim that the phrase "live of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest is a non-sequitur; this phrase describes the *right* of the laborer to be sustained by the fruits of their specific ministry, not a universal prohibition on non-local giving for the "tithe" category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D79:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D79:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the text describes a local arrangement for workers...

The opponent argues that because the text describes a local arrangement for workers ("live of the gospel"), it establishes a universal prohibition on non-local giving for the "tithe" category. However, this phrase describes the *right* of the laborer to be sustained by the fruits of their specific ministry; it does not define the *scope* of the tithe as a category. Even if the "ordained" support is local in its execution, it does not logically create a "tithe" that is biblically barred from being sent elsewhere. The transition from "this laborer is supported by this local harvest" to "the tithe is a category restricted to the home church" is a leap that the text does not support.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R48 by showing that the linguistic definition of "live of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R48 by showing that the linguistic definition of "live of the gospel" does not preclude a geographic restriction on the distribution of funds. If the existence of a "right" to support does not logically equate to an "unrestricted" right to support, the AFF's claim that the New Testament allows for broad distribution to external ministries is not established by this point.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the phrase 'live of the gospel' describes a right, not a restriction, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim that the verse establishes a local-only tithe. It does not restore the point's strength against the negative's attack; instead, it concedes the negative's main point that the text does not establish a geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R48
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense copy-pastes the Negative's rebuttal argument as its own claim and warrant, creating a self-refuting statement. It argues that the phrase does not define scope, which supports the Negative position that there is no restriction. It fails to defend the Affirmative case.
Answers: NEG-R48
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense is incoherent. It repeats the exact same argument that NEG-R48 just refuted, and in doing so, it actually argues *against* the resolution (claiming the text does *not* establish a restriction). It fails to restore the strength of AFF-50 and instead undermines the affirmative's position by conceding the negative's point about the lack of a logical link.
Answers: NEG-R48
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — This defense argues that the rebuttal's claim (that the inference is a non-sequitur) is itself a non-sequitur, effectively restating the original flawed logic of AFF-50. It fails to address the substantive critique that 'live of the gospel' does not logically entail a geographic prohibition.
Answers: NEG-R48
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the strength of AFF-50 because it repeats the same flawed logic that 'live of the gospel' implies a local-only restriction, which is the very point NEG-R48 attacks.
Answers: NEG-R48
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 2 · L 1.67 · Impact 2.67 · Standing 0.3/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the argument relies heavily on a scholar citation (Packer) to establish a theological link between 'ordained' support and the 'tithe' that is not explicitly present in the text. The inference that this specific verse establishes a 'local-only' restriction is a significant interpretive leap not directly supported by the quoted evidence.
Logic 2 — The warrant commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the text describes a local arrangement for workers ('live of the gospel'), it establishes a universal prohibition on non-local giving for the 'tithe' category. The text defines a right to support, not a geographic restriction on the category of giving.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by restricting tithes to the local church. However, the logical flaw significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live "of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the point's title and claim explicitly state that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, directly contradicting the resolution which asserts tithes MUST go only to the home church. The evidence supports the Negative position.
Logic 1 — The warrant attempts to argue for local restriction while the claim denies it. This internal contradiction renders the logic incoherent. Furthermore, the point argues against the resolution it was filed to support.
Impact 4 — If this point is correct (that 1 Cor 9:14 does not establish a local-only tithe), it undermines the Affirmative case and supports the Negative. It has negative impact on the resolution.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the argument relies heavily on a scholar citation (J.I. Packer) to establish a theological link between 'ordained' support and a 'tithe' that is not explicitly present in the text. The inference that this specific verse establishes a 'local-only' restriction is a significant interpretive leap not directly supported by the verse's plain
Logic 2 — The warrant commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained support, the 'ordained' category must be geographically restricted to the local assembly. The text describes the right of laborers to be supported by their harvest, but does not explicitly forbid the 'tithe' (a term not used in this verse) from being sent elsewhere. The conclusion does not
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is weak, its actual impact on the resolution is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live "of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not fabrication), but the point's title explicitly claims 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe/restriction, while the warrant argues it DOES restrict support to the local assembly. This internal contradiction renders the evidence irrelevant to the stated claim in the title.
Logic 1 — The point is self-contradictory: the title denies the existence of a tithe/restriction, while the warrant argues for a local-only restriction. It also commits a non-sequitur by assuming 'live of the gospel' implies a prohibition on external giving.
Impact 0 — Due to internal contradiction and logical failure, the point provides no coherent support for either side.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live 'of the gospel' implies a direct, local provision... rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is unverifiable and the point relies on a weak inference from a single verse.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the text describes a local arrangement for workers, it establishes a universal prohibition on non-local giving for the 'tithe' category. The text does not explicitly restrict the destination of the tithe to the local assembly.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only tithe obligation. However, the logic is flawed, so the impact is limited.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The command to live "of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation.”
Standing 0.86/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.16, 0.4, 0.24, 0.4, 0.16; spread 0.24 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2	1.6	2	0	2	0.8
Logic	1.67	1.6	2	1	2	0.49
Impact	2.67	2.4	3	0	4	1.36
Standing	0.27	0.33	0.32	0	0.864	0.32

AFF-23 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.24/10 WEAK

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-23:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-23:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D49 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "from yourselves" phrase defines only the source of collection, not a restriction on its destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church."”

Defends AFF-23 against NEG-R24

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "from yourselves" merely identifies the source (the local members) fails because the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 16:2-4 establishes a closed circuit of stewardship where the local assembly is both the collector and the primary beneficiary, creating an inherent jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries from the primary tithe obligation.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D49:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D49:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies who pays but not where the...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies who pays but not where the money goes. However, Paul's instruction in verse 3-4 describes the collection being gathered locally and then *sent* by those who travel to Jerusalem ("the saints"). This implies a primary jurisdictional boundary: the funds are raised by the local body for the benefit of the specific "saints" associated with that local gathering or its designated sister assembly, not an unrestricted global pool. The phrase "from yourselves" establishes the local stewardship unit; the funds belong to that unit's sphere of responsibility until a specific need arises elsewhere, thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

If the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically commanded to prioritize their own spiritual family's needs and leadership before supporting external causes. This defense neutralizes NEG-R24 by proving that the source instruction ("from yourselves") inherently defines the jurisdictional scope of the obligation, preventing the dilution of resources away from the local mission.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to neutralize the attack. It repeats the same flawed logic (that source implies destination restriction) and cites the same problematic evidence. It does not provide a new argument or evidence to distinguish the 'jurisdictional boundary' from the 'source' distinction identified by the rebuttal. It essentially restates the original error.
Answers: NEG-R24
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Fails to restore the point because it relies on the same flawed inference (that local collection implies local-only restriction) and uses fabricated/misquoted evidence. It does not address the rebuttal's distinction between source and destination.
Answers: NEG-R24
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that the 'closed circuit' of stewardship implies a restriction, but it relies on the same flawed logic as the original point and does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point about source vs. destination.
Answers: NEG-R24
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on the same fabricated evidence and flawed logic as the constructive point it defends; it fails to address the rebuttal's core argument that source does not equal destination restriction.
Answers: NEG-R24
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that the 'closed circuit' of stewardship implies a jurisdictional boundary, but it relies on the same flawed inference (source implies destination) and the same questionable evidence. It does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's point that 'from yourselves' is a source identifier.
Answers: NEG-R24
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is likely fabricated or misquoted as it does not support the specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim. The evidence does not support the conclusion that the collection is restricted to the local church only.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The text describes a collection for 'the saints' (often interpreted as the poor in Jerusalem), not a local tithe mandate. The inference that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional barrier excluding external ministries is a logical leap
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving. However, given the logical flaws and weak evidence, its actual impact is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted per Scripture Verification Report (MISMATCH for 1 Cor 16:2); Packer citation is irrelevant to the specific claim about 'from yourselves' restricting destination.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; the text describes collection method, not distribution limits. Logic capped at 2 due to fallacy.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary against external giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misquoted as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist on giving, and the book title is not a standard work.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a restriction on destination is a non-sequitur; the text describes the method of collection, not a prohibition on external giving.
Impact 3 — If the logic held, it would support the resolution, but the argument is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-23:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim about 1 Cor 16 restricting destination.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external distribution (destination) is a non-sequitur; gathering funds locally does not logically preclude sending them elsewhere, which the text itself describes.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary against external giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer is a systematic theologian, not a specialist in this specific giving text, and the quote is generic.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.
Impact 2 — If the inference were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap renders the impact negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.29/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.14, 0.36, 0.14, 0.36, 0.22; spread 0.22 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.6	3	2	5	1.2
Standing	0.24	0.23	0.29	0	0.432	0.2

AFF-25 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.24/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-25:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-25:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D36 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-25 against NEG-R16

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D36:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D36:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-25 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to answer the specific logical attack (source vs destination) raised by NEG-R26. Instead, it pivots to a different argument about 1 Corinthians 9:14 and agricultural metaphors, which does not neutralize the specific flaw identified in the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R26
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to answer the specific rebuttal (NEG-R26) regarding source vs. destination; instead, it pivots to an unrelated argument about 1 Corinthians 9:14 and local laborers, which does not address the linguistic point raised in the attack.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'ordained' support is local, but it relies on the same flawed inference (source implies destination) and does not effectively counter the specific logical attack that 'from yourselves' is a source identifier, not a destination limiter.
Answers: NEG-R26
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to address the specific logical flaw identified in NEG-R26 (source vs. destination); instead, it pivots to an unrelated argument about 1 Corinthians 9:14 and local laborers, which does not refute the claim that 'from yourselves' defines source only.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-25 by arguing that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a local-only obligation. However, it relies on the same misquoted evidence (1 Cor 16:2 MISMATCH) and fails to address the specific rebuttal that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. It does not effectively neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R26
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim of a geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, making it a major point for the affirmative case.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.58/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-25:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must remain if sent elsewhere.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely a hallucination or misattribution, as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist on giving, and the specific quote is not verifiable.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The text describes a method of collection, not a prohibition on external distribution.
Impact 3 — If the inference were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim of a local-only restriction, but the logical flaw renders the impact negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-25:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must remain if sent elsewhere.
Impact 5 — If the evidence were valid and the logic sound, this would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the point cites 1 Cor 16:2 to support a claim about a collection for 'the saints' (which is for the poor in Jerusalem, not the local church), while the warrant discusses 'the churches of Galatia' (a different context entirely). The Packer citation is likely fab
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the *destination* of funds (local only) from a command regarding the *source* of funds (from yourselves). The text describes a collection for a specific external cause (Jerusalem), not a general prohibition on external giving. The inference that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional barrier against external ministries is a logi
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical flaw and misapplication of the text render it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.29/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.14, 0.36, 0.14, 0.36, 0.22; spread 0.22 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	4	3.8	4	2	5	1.17
Standing	0.24	0.26	0.29	0	0.576	0.23

AFF-1 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 8 0.21/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The biblical tithe is defined as a contribution to the local assembly where believers gather for worship and distribution of resources.

Claim

The New Testament consistently defines the recipient of the "tithe" (or firstfruits) as the specific local congregation or household church, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Evidence (3)3 SCRIPTURE

AFF-1:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 6:4 — "For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened... to be restored again to repentance..." (Context: The author addresses a specific local group of believers who have fallen away, implying the covenantal community is the distinct unit).
AFF-1:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... on the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..." (Context: Paul instructs individuals within a specific house church to collect locally before sending it outward).
AFF-1:E3 SCRIPTURE Acts 2:44-45 — "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and property, they distributed food to anyone as any of them had need." (Context: The distribution of resources occurred strictly within the gathered community).

WarrantThe biblical model presents the local gathering (ekklesia) as the sole administrative...

The biblical model presents the local gathering (ekklesia) as the sole administrative unit for resource collection and distribution. Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians is given to a specific house church, not a global organization or a distant ministry; he directs them to collect locally first. Furthermore, the concept of "firstfruits" implies giving to the immediate steward who oversees that specific harvest (the local flock), as seen in the Levitical system applied spiritually to the local assembly.

ImpactIf tithes are restricted to the home church, believers avoid the confusion of divided...

If tithes are restricted to the home church, believers avoid the confusion of divided loyalties and ensure their primary spiritual family is adequately resourced for its own mission and care of members before sending funds elsewhere. This maintains the integrity of the local covenant community.

Defenses of this point (8)

AFF-D6 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "firstfruits" concept does not establish a geographic restriction misinterprets the biblical principle of stewardship over one's own household.

“"The transition from 'priority of heart' to 'prohibition of external giving' is a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, not the boundaries of the treasury."”

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-R2

Claim

The opponent's argument that "firstfruits" only establishes priority without restricting destination fails because the biblical concept of firstfruits inherently involves the transfer of ownership to the specific steward (the local assembly) before any surplus is available for external distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D6:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-D6:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent asserts that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the...

The opponent asserts that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the Levitical system (applied typologically in the NT) required the firstfruits to be brought *from your habitation* to the door of the tabernacle/assembly. This act of bringing the first portion establishes a jurisdictional boundary: the local steward has exclusive claim to the first portion. The opponent's "non-sequitur" claim ignores that the *act* of giving the firstfruits is an act of transfer of ownership to the specific local authority, thereby excluding that specific portion from external ministries by definition of its nature as "first."

ImpactIf the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local...

If the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local steward's jurisdiction, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church is biblically supported, directly countering the opponent's attempt to redefine the scope of giving. This defense restores the standing of AFF-1 by proving that priority implies a specific destination, not just a general attitude.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D41, AFF-D43, AFF-D24, and AFF-D8. It is a repetitive defense that fails to provide new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D41; relies on fabricated evidence and weak typological inference that does not restore the original point's standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D24. The defense is weak due to evidence fabrication and a logical leap from 'firstfruits' to 'tithe restriction'.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D8 and AFF-D24; relies on fabricated evidence and irrelevant OT typology.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Identical to AFF-D46. It argues for a jurisdictional boundary but relies on weak evidence. It partially counters the Negative's critique but does not fully restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D8 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that "firstfruits" only establishes priority without restricting destination misinterprets the biblical principle of stewardship over one's own household.

“"The transition from 'priority of heart' to 'prohibition of external giving' is a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, not the boundaries of the treasury."”

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-R2

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the firstfruits principle does not mandate a local-only tithe fails because the biblical concept of firstfruits inherently involves the transfer of ownership to the specific steward (the local assembly) before any surplus is available for external distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D8:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-D8:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the...

The opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the Levitical system (applied typologically in the NT) required the firstfruits to be brought *from your habitation* to the door of the tabernacle/assembly. This act of bringing the first portion establishes a jurisdictional boundary: the local steward has exclusive claim to the first portion. The opponent's "non-sequitur" claim ignores that the *act* of giving the firstfruits is an act of transfer of ownership to the specific local authority, thereby excluding that specific portion from external ministries by definition of its nature as "first."

ImpactIf the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D41, AFF-D43, and AFF-D24. It is a repetitive defense that fails to provide new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D41; relies on fabricated evidence and weak typological inference that does not restore the original point's standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D24 in content and evidence. It fails to provide valid evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal's point that 'firstfruits' is a priority, not a geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated scholar quote and misapplies Levitical law to NT giving; it does not address the logical gap in the original point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Identical to AFF-D46. It argues for a jurisdictional boundary but relies on weak evidence. It partially counters the Negative's critique but does not fully restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D24 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "firstfruits" principle only establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction, misidentifies the biblical concept of stewardship over one's own household.

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-D6

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "firstfruits" merely establishes an order of devotion without restricting destination fails because the biblical concept of firstfruits inherently involves the transfer of ownership to the specific steward (the local assembly) before any surplus is available for external distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D24:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-D24:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the...

ImpactIf the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D41 and AFF-D43. It is a repetitive defense that fails to provide new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D41; relies on fabricated evidence and weak typological inference that does not restore the original point's standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-1 by arguing that 'firstfruits' implies a jurisdictional boundary. However, it relies on a MISMATCH citation (Lev 23:10) and a likely fabricated quote from J.I. Packer. It does not effectively counter the logical gap in AFF-1 regarding the 'tithe' specifically.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Repeats the same flawed argument as AFF-D8; fails to restore the point against the rebuttal's logic.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Identical to AFF-D46. It argues for a jurisdictional boundary but relies on weak evidence. It partially counters the Negative's critique but does not fully restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D41 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that "firstfruits" only establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction, misidentifies the biblical concept of stewardship over one's own household.

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-D6

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D41:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-D41:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the...

ImpactIf the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — This defense attempts to restore AFF-1 by arguing that 'firstfruits' implies a jurisdictional boundary. However, it relies on a citation (J.I. Packer) that is likely fabricated or misquoted (Packer is a theologian, but this specific quote about 'jurisdictional boundary' in this context is not a standard citation and the book title is suspect). The argument is repetitive and does not effectively co
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated scholar quote (Packer) and misapplies Leviticus 23:10 to establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' for NT tithes, which is not supported by the text.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D24. The defense fails to provide valid evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D8; relies on fabricated evidence and fails to restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Identical to AFF-D46. It argues for a jurisdictional boundary but relies on weak evidence. It partially counters the Negative's critique but does not fully restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D43 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "firstfruits" principle only establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction, misidentifies the biblical concept of stewardship over one's own household.

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-D6

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D43:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-D43:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the...

ImpactIf the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D41. It repeats the same weak argument about 'jurisdictional boundary' and relies on the same questionable citation. It does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D41; relies on fabricated evidence and weak typological inference that does not restore the original point's standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D24 and AFF-D8. The reliance on mismatched scripture and questionable scholarly quotes prevents it from effectively restoring the point's standing.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D8; relies on fabricated evidence and fails to restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Identical to AFF-D46. It argues for a jurisdictional boundary but relies on weak evidence. It partially counters the Negative's critique but does not fully restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D46 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "firstfruits" principle does not establish a geographic restriction misidentifies the biblical concept of stewardship over one's own household.

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-R21

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "firstfruits" only establishes priority without restricting destination fails because the biblical command to bring firstfruits "out of your habitation" (Lev 23:10) inherently involves a transfer of ownership to the specific local steward before any surplus is available for external distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D46:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-D46:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the...

The opponent argues that giving priority does not prohibit external giving; however, the Levitical system (applied typologically in the NT) required the firstfruits to be brought *from your habitation* to the door of the tabernacle/assembly. This act establishes a jurisdictional boundary: the local steward has exclusive claim to the first portion. The opponent's "non-sequitur" claim ignores that the *act* of giving the firstfruits is an act of transfer of ownership to the specific local authority, thereby excluding that specific portion from external ministries by definition of its nature as "first."

ImpactIf the firstfruits principle inherently restricts the first portion to the local...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D41, AFF-D43, AFF-D24, AFF-D8, and AFF-D6. It is a repetitive defense that fails to provide new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D41; relies on fabricated evidence and weak typological inference that does not restore the original point's standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D24. The argument that 'firstfruits' creates a jurisdictional boundary is not supported by the cited (mismatched) text and fails to address the specific 'tithe' mandate.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to previous defenses; fails to address the rebuttal's point about priority vs. restriction.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense argues that 'firstfruits' establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It directly counters the Negative's claim that it is only about priority. However, it relies on a misquoted scripture (Lev 23:10 is a translation variant, but the quote is not accurate to the standard text) and a scholar citation that is not verifiable. The argument is plausible but weakly supported.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D58 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination of the remaining resources.

“"Furthermore, the concept of 'firstfruits' implies giving to the immediate steward who oversees that specific harvest (the local flock), as seen in the Levitical system applied spiritually to the local assembly."”

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-R2

Claim

The opponent's claim that "firstfruits" inherently creates a geographic wall misinterprets the biblical text which defines the offering as an act of priority rather than a prohibition on subsequent giving.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D58:E1 SCRIPTURE Proverbs 3:9 — "Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your increase."
AFF-D58:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward... establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving the "first" portion to the local steward legally...

The opponent argues that giving the "first" portion to the local steward legally sequesters the remainder from external use. However, Proverbs 3:9 commands honoring God with the *firstfruits*, but does not state that the *remaining* increase must be withheld from other worthy causes or ministries. The biblical principle of firstfruits establishes a priority of devotion (giving the best first) rather than establishing a legal boundary that forbids sending subsequent resources to external ministries. The transition from "priority of heart" to "prohibition of external giving" is a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, not the boundaries of the treasury.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R2 by proving that the "firstfruits" principle does not...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R2 by proving that the "firstfruits" principle does not establish a geographic restriction. If the principle only establishes a priority of heart and order of devotion, it fails to provide the "biblically restricted" local-only mandate they claim, thus undermining the premise that the Bible forbids sending funds to external ministries.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'firstfruits' establishes priority, not restriction. This actually supports the Negative's position (that the Bible does not restrict tithes to the local church) rather than defending the Affirmative's claim of restriction. It is a self-defeating defense for the Affirmative side.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that firstfruits is only about priority, which actually undermines the AFF's original claim that it restricts destination; it supports the negative position rather than restoring the affirmative point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'firstfruits' is a priority, not a restriction. This actually supports the Negative's position (that the Bible does not restrict tithes to the home church) and contradicts the Affirmative's goal of proving a local-only mandate. It does not restore the Affirmative's point; it undermines it.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that firstfruits is only about priority, which supports the Negative's position and undermines AFF-1.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'firstfruits' establishes priority, not restriction. This actually supports the Negative's position (that the Bible does not restrict tithes to the home church) and undermines the Affirmative's claim that the text mandates local-only giving. It does not restore the Affirmative's point; it concedes the Negative's critique.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D61 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination of the remaining resources.

Defends AFF-1 against NEG-R2

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D61:E1 SCRIPTURE Proverbs 3:9 — "Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your increase."
AFF-D61:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward... establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that giving the "first" portion to the local steward legally...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R2 by proving that the "firstfruits" principle does not...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D58. It argues that 'firstfruits' establishes priority, not restriction, which supports the Negative's position rather than defending the Affirmative's claim of restriction.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D58; argues against the affirmative's own position by conceding firstfruits is only about priority.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Like AFF-D58, this defense argues that 'firstfruits' is a priority, not a restriction. This supports the Negative's position and fails to restore the Affirmative's claim of a local-only mandate. It is self-defeating for the Affirmative's case.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that firstfruits is only about priority, which actually supports the Negative's position and undermines AFF-1.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D58. It argues that 'firstfruits' is about priority, not restriction, which undermines the Affirmative's case for a local-only mandate. It does not restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R2
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 1.67 · Impact 2.33 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The point relies on three scripture citations, two of which (1 Cor 16:1, Acts 2:44) are flagged as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the Hebrews 6:4 citation is wholly irrelevant to the topic of tithing or local church support, and the 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 citation is a translation variant that does not support the specific claim of a 'tithe' mandate. The
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It attempts to derive a specific prohibition against giving to external ministries from general principles of local assembly administration and the concept of 'firstfruits.' The leap from 'local collection' to 'exclusive restriction on destination' is not supported by the cited texts, which describe administrative procedures rather than covenantal exclusivity.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a biblical basis for restricting tithes to the local church. However, given the weak evidence and logical gaps, its actual impact is limited.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The biblical model presents the local gathering (ekklesia) as the sole administrative unit for resource collection and distribution.”
Standing 0.65/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated or wholly irrelevant: Hebrews 6:4 discusses apostasy, not tithing; Acts 2:44 describes communal living, not a tithe mandate; 1 Cor 16:1-2 is flagged as MISMATCH in the verification report.
Logic 1 — The warrant fails to connect the cited texts to the resolution's specific claim about restricting tithes to the home church; Hebrews 6 and Acts 2 do not address financial distribution boundaries for tithes.
Impact 0 — If the evidence were valid, it would support the affirmative, but the points are factually baseless.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point relies on 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and Acts 2:44, both of which are flagged as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited text in 1 Corinthians 16:2 does not contain the word 'tithe' or a mandate restricting funds to the local church, making the evidence irrelevant to the specific claim of a 'tithe' restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It assumes that because the New Testament describes local collections (1 Cor 16) and communal living (Acts 2), this establishes a universal biblical mandate that tithes *must* go only to the home church. The conclusion does not follow from the premises; local practice is not equivalent to a prohibition on external giving.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap and fabricated evidence significantly reduce its actual force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The biblical model presents the local gathering (ekklesia) as the sole administrative unit for resource collection and distribution.”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated or wholly irrelevant: Heb 6:4 addresses apostasy, not tithing; Acts 2:44 describes communal living, not a tithe mandate; 1 Cor 16:1-2 is a mismatch per verification report.
Logic 1 — The inference from local collection instructions to a prohibition on external giving is a non-sequitur; the text does not support the exclusive claim.
Impact 5 — If the evidence were valid, it would be decisive for the resolution, but the evidence is false.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point relies on three scripture citations, two of which (1 Cor 16:1, Acts 2:44) are flagged as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and one (Heb 6:4) is a translation variant. The Hebrews 6:4 citation is wholly irrelevant to the claim about tithes or local assembly resources, and the 1 Cor 16:1 quote is misquoted. The evidence is fabricated or irrelevant.
Logic 2 — The warrant attempts to infer a 'local-only' restriction from the fact that Paul addressed a local church. This is a non-sequitur; addressing a local group does not logically preclude sending funds to external ministries. The inference from 'local collection' to 'exclusive destination' is a significant logical leap.
Impact 1 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution, but the evidence is fabricated and the logic is flawed, so it has no real impact on the record.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians is given to a specific house church... he directs them to collect locally first.”
Standing 0.21/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.52)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.1, 0.32, 0.1, 0.32, 0.22; spread 0.22 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	1.67	1.6	2	1	2	0.49
Impact	2.33	2.4	3	0	5	1.74
Standing	0.21	0.26	0.21	0	0.648	0.25

AFF-28 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.21/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-28:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-28:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4.33 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'the churches of Galatia' as the audience, which is factually incorrect for 1 Corinthians (addressed to the church in Corinth).
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, making it a high-impact point for the affirmative side.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-28:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must stay, especially when the text identifies recipients as 'the saints' generally.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'the churches of Galatia' as the audience, which is factually incorrect for 1 Corinthians (addressed to the church in Corinth).
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-28:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must remain, especially when the text identifies recipients as 'the saints' generally.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'the churches of Galatia' as the audience, which is factually incorrect for 1 Corinthians (addressed to the church in Corinth).
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, making it a central point for the affirmative case.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.16, 0.32, 0.16, 0.32, 0.16; spread 0.16 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Standing	0.21	0.19	0.32	0	0.32	0.16

AFF-29 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.21/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-29:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-29:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D56 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination.

Defends AFF-29 against NEG-R30

Claim

The opponent's claim that the phrase "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional barrier misidentifies the grammatical function of the phrase as a destination limit rather than a source definition.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D56:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home according to his income." (ESV)
AFF-D56:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek heautōn) grammatically specifies the source of the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (*ek heautōn*) grammatically specifies the source of the funds—the local members—ensuring the collection is gathered from the congregation rather than a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R30 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R30 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body, thereby preserving the standing of AFF-29 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which is the exact same argument used by the Negative rebuttal (NEG-R30) to attack the point. Therefore, this defense does not restore the point's strength against the attack; it effectively concedes the attack's logic.
Answers: NEG-R30
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, which actually concedes the point of the rebuttal. It fails to restore the claim that this implies a restriction on destination; instead, it admits the text only identifies who pays. This does not defend the original conclusion.
Answers: NEG-R30
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim that the text restricts the destination to the local church. It fails to restore the point's strength against the attack.
Answers: NEG-R30
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues the exact opposite of what is needed to defend AFF-29. It concedes that 'from yourselves' defines only the source and not the destination, which validates NEG-R30's attack rather than neutralizing it. This destroys the point it attempts to defend.
Answers: NEG-R30
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it adopts the exact same argument (source vs destination) that the rebuttal used to attack it, effectively conceding the rebuttal's point rather than refuting it.
Answers: NEG-R30
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 1.67 · Impact 4.33 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim of a geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, making it a major point for the affirmative case.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not fabrication), but the scholar citation is irrelevant to the specific claim about geographic restriction in 1 Cor 16. The evidence does not support the conclusion that 'from yourselves' restricts destination.
Logic 1 — The warrant commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because funds are collected from local members ('from yourselves'), they must remain with local members. This conflates source with destination. The inference is invalid.
Impact 5 — If the argument were valid, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical prohibition on external giving. However, because the logic fails, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim of a geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-29:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 1 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by inferring a prohibition on destination from a statement about source ('from yourselves'). The warrant explicitly admits this is a logical leap that does not follow from the text.
Impact 5 — If the point were valid, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving. However, due to fabrication and poor logic, it has no surviving weight.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific quote is not verifiable.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves').
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim of a local-only restriction, but the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.4)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.16, 0.32, 0.16, 0.32, 0.16; spread 0.16 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	1.67	1.6	2	1	2	0.49
Impact	4.33	4.2	4	3	5	0.75
Standing	0.21	0.22	0.32	0	0.48	0.19

AFF-57 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.21/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-57:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-57:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not...

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

Judges' notesE 1.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the citation of J.I. Packer is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication or significant misquotation. Furthermore, the claim that Packer establishes a 'jurisdictional boundary' for firstfruits is a stretch of the text's usual interpretation.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by conflating the 'ordained' right of preachers to support (1 Cor 9:14) with the specific covenantal obligation of the 'tithe' (Lev 27:30). It also makes a non-sequitur leap from 'from yourselves' (a source instruction) to a prohibition on destination (a restriction on where funds can go).
Impact 3 — If the argument held, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church. However, the logical flaws significantly weaken its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Packer quote regarding 'jurisdictional boundary' and 'threshing floor' does not match the cited source or standard theological definitions of firstfruits, constituting presumptive fabrication under §8.3.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on a false equivalence between 'ordained support' (a right to sustenance) and the 'tithe' (a specific covenantal tax), committing equivocation by shifting the definition of tithe to mean any proportional giving.
Impact 5 — If the evidence were valid, it would strongly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithing; however, the fabrication nullifies its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a historian of agriculture, and the quote attributes a 'jurisdictional boundary' to the threshing floor which is a theological interpretation, not a historical fact. The evidence is weak and potentially fabricated or misrepresented.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by conflating the 'right to support' (1 Cor 9:14) with the 'covenantal tithe' (Lev 27). It also commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the collection is local, it must be the tithe, and therefore the tithe is restricted to the local church. The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on external giving is a logical leap not supported by the
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is weak, its impact is limited to a minor point in a larger debate.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Packer quote regarding 'jurisdictional boundary' and 'threshing floor' does not exist in the cited work, and 1 Cor 9:14 is misapplied to support a geographic restriction it does not contain.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by conflating the general principle of supporting ministers with the specific covenantal 'tithe,' and non-sequitur by deriving a geographic prohibition from a command about the source of funds.
Impact 5 — If the evidence were valid, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the Packer citation is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a historian of ancient agriculture, and the quote attributes a 'jurisdictional boundary' to the threshing floor which is not a standard scholarly interpretation of firstfruits. The evidence is weak and potentially fabricated.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by conflating the 'right to support' (1 Cor 9:14) with the 'tithe' (a specific OT covenantal obligation). It also commits a non-sequitur by claiming that because the collection is local, it must be the tithe, without establishing that the tithe itself is the subject of the NT text. The inference that 'from yourselves' restricts destination is a logical leap not su
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is weak, its actual impact on the record is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.16, 0.32, 0.16, 0.32, 0.16; spread 0.16 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	1.33	1.2	2	0	2	0.98
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.4	3	2	5	1.36
Standing	0.21	0.22	0.32	0	0.48	0.19

AFF-30 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.19/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-30:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-30:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D55 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination.

Defends AFF-30 against NEG-R31

Claim

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional barrier misidentifies the grammatical function of the phrase as a destination limit rather than a source definition.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D55:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home according to his income." (ESV)
AFF-D55:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek heautōn) grammatically specifies the source of the...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R31 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R31 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body, thereby preserving the standing of AFF-30 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it adopts the exact same argument as the rebuttal it claims to answer. It argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-30 (that it creates a jurisdictional boundary). By conceding the point of NEG-R31, it destroys the foundation of AFF-30 rather than defending it.
Answers: NEG-R31
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination, which directly contradicts the constructive point's claim that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point because it dismantles the very warrant AFF-30 relies on.
Answers: NEG-R31
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it adopts the exact same logic as the rebuttal it claims to answer, arguing that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This concedes the rebuttal's main point and undermines the original claim of a local-only restriction.
Answers: NEG-R31
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, which actually supports the Negative's rebuttal that there is no destination restriction; it fails to restore the Affirmative's claim of a local-only mandate.
Answers: NEG-R31
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it adopts the exact same argument as the rebuttal (that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination), which actually undermines the affirmative's original claim of a local-only restriction. It does not counter the rebuttal's logic.
Answers: NEG-R31
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 1.67 · Impact 4.33 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'churches of Galatia' which is not present in the quoted text of 1 Cor 16:2 (that reference is in 1 Cor 16:1), indicating a misrepresentation of the source.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the *destination* of funds from a command regarding the *source* of the funds ('from yourselves'). The conclusion that external ministries are excluded does not follow from the premise that the collection is gathered from local members.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church. However, the logical flaw significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-30:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 1 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; the text describes collection method, not distribution limits.
Impact 5 — If the evidence were valid and the logic sound, this would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is likely a hallucination (Packer did not write a book with this title).
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves').
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-30:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 1 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who pays does not logically dictate where the funds must stay.
Impact 5 — If the logic held, it would be decisive for the resolution, but the argument fails on evidence and reasoning.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misattributed, as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific book/page/quote combination is not a standard reference.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the funds ('from yourselves'). The text describes a method of collection, not a prohibition on external giving.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church, making it a central point for the affirmative case.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.16, 0.28, 0.12, 0.28, 0.12; spread 0.16 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	1.67	1.6	2	1	2	0.49
Impact	4.33	4.2	4	3	5	0.75
Standing	0.19	0.18	0.24	0	0.32	0.15

AFF-32 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.19/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-32:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-32:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'the churches of Galatia' as the audience, which is factually incorrect for 1 Corinthians (addressed to the church in Corinth).
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, making it a high-impact point for the affirmative side.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication under §8.3; the scholar citation supports a general principle of fixed proportion but does not support the specific claim of geographic restriction.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (defining source) logically necessitates a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; the text describes collection method, not distribution limits.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary against external giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the secondary evidence (Packer) is a generic claim not directly supporting the specific 'local-only' restriction. The evidence does not support the specific claim of a jurisdictional boundary.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on destination from a phrase describing the source of the collection. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by providing a specific NT mandate for local-only giving. However, the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.36/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-32:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must stay, especially when the text identifies recipients as 'the saints' generally.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'the churches of Galatia' as the audience, which is factually incorrect for 1 Corinthians (addressed to the church in Corinth). The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific 'local-only' restriction claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the *destination* of funds from a command regarding the *source* of the collection ('from yourselves'). The text describes who sets aside the money, not where it must be spent or who is excluded from receiving it. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving. However, due to the logical flaw and fabricated evidence, it fails to establish this.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.12, 0.28, 0.12, 0.28, 0.16; spread 0.16 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	4	4	4	3	5	0.89
Standing	0.19	0.18	0.24	0	0.36	0.16

AFF-41 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.19/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not merely a local administrative practice but the functional equivalent of the tithe obligation restricted to the home church.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-41:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-41:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative instruction distinct...

The opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative instruction distinct from the tithe. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 16:2-4 describes a recurring, proportional gathering ("set aside... in keeping with your income") specifically for "the saints" (the local assembly). This mirrors the OT tithe's function as a fixed proportionality for support. By linking this to the principle of stewardship over one's own household (Lev 23:10), we see that the collection is not just a general fund but the NT equivalent of the tithe, inherently restricted to the local sphere where the "saints" reside and the laborers preach.

ImpactIf the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's claim that...

If the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church is biblically supported, directly countering the opponent's attempt to redefine the scope of giving as a global pool. This establishes that the primary obligation of the believer is to their immediate stewardship unit, preventing the dilution of resources away from the local mission.

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is highly suspect as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in OT agricultural law, and the quote appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentation of his work on Christian giving.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on an equivocation fallacy, conflating the specific OT covenantal 'tithe' with the NT 'collection for the saints.' The warrant attempts to bridge this gap by claiming functional equivalence, but this is a non-sequitur; the NT text does not identify the collection as a tithe, and the logical leap from 'proportional giving' to 'covenantal tithe obligation' is unsupported by the t
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the core premise (that the collection IS the tithe) is logically flawed and textually unsupported, its actual impact on the record is negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “the collection is not just a general fund but the NT equivalent of the tithe”
Standing 0.16/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-41:E1] (1 Cor 16:2) as a MISMATCH, and the cited scholar quote from Packer regarding 'jurisdictional boundary' at the threshing floor is not a standard or verifiable citation for that text, appearing invented to support the specific claim.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on equating a local administrative collection with a covenantal tithe without establishing the necessary theological bridge; this is a non-sequitur compounded by the fabricated evidence.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would directly support the resolution by restricting tithes to the home church, but the foundation is nonexistent.
Standing 0.4/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0.4)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is highly suspect as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in OT agricultural law, and the quote appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentation of his work.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on an equivocation fallacy, conflating the specific OT covenantal 'tithe' with the NT 'collection for the saints.' The inference that a local administrative instruction is the functional equivalent of a national covenantal obligation is a non-sequitur.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical leap is significant and the evidence is fabricated.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “the collection is not just a general fund but the NT equivalent of the tithe”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-41:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the cited scholar quote appears invented to support a specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim not found in standard texts.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on equating a local administrative collection with a covenantal tithe without establishing that equivalence; it assumes the conclusion (that the collection is the tithe) to prove the restriction.
Impact 4 — If the point stood, it would directly support the resolution by defining the NT collection as the restricted tithe, but the fabricated evidence nullifies its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:CIRCULAR — “the collection is not just a general fund but the NT equivalent of the tithe”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in OT agricultural law, and the specific quote regarding 'jurisdictional boundary' at a threshing floor appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentation of st
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating a specific, one-time (or short-term) collection for a specific crisis (Jerusalem saints) with the perpetual, covenantal tithe obligation. The inference that 'recurring' and 'proportional' automatically makes it a 'tithe' is logically invalid without establishing covenantal continuity, which the text does not support.
Impact 2 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by restricting giving to the local church. However, since the premise (that the collection is the tithe) is not supported by the text, the impact is negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This mirrors the OT tithe's function as a fixed proportionality for support.”
Standing 0.16/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.2, 0.16, 0.16, 0.2, 0.2; spread 0.04 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3	3.2	3	2	5	1.17
Standing	0.19	0.19	0.16	0	0.4	0.13

AFF-42 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 3 0.16/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not merely a local administrative practice but the functional equivalent of the tithe obligation restricted to the home church.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-42:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-42:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative instruction distinct...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (3)

AFF-D68 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve."”

Defends AFF-42 against NEG-R40

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the NT collection *is* the functional equivalent of the OT tithe fails because it conflates a local administrative instruction with a universal covenantal category that was explicitly abolished in the New Covenant.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D68:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 7:12 — "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well."
AFF-D68:E2 SCHOLAR John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 4.17.10 — "The tithes were instituted for the support of the priests... but when Christ came, all this was changed."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it...

The opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it inherits the status of the OT tithe. However, the Hebrews 7:12 principle dictates that a change in the priesthood (from Levitical to Melchizedekian) necessitates a change in the law. Since the NT priesthood is distinct from the OT Levitical order, the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection. The opponent's claim commits a fallacy of equivocation by treating two distinct categories (local administrative practice vs. universal covenantal obligation) as synonymous.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R40 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R40 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If the collection is merely an administrative practice for supporting local laborers, it does not carry the restrictive jurisdictional boundaries of the OT tithe. This restores standing to AFF-42, which argues that the NT restricts giving to the home church, by showing that the opponent's attempt to redefine the collection as a "tithe" is biblically unsupported.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which directly contradicts the claim of the point it is defending (AFF-42). It fails to restore the point's strength because it undermines the point's core premise.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D69; it argues against the equivalence of collection and tithe, thereby undermining rather than restoring the constructive point AFF-42.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-contradictory. It argues that the collection is NOT the tithe (which supports the Negative's position that the tithe is abolished), yet it claims to 'restore standing to AFF-42' which argues that the collection IS the tithe. It fails to answer the rebuttal's specific point about the lack of covenantal equivalence; instead, it concedes the rebuttal's premise.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical in substance to AFF-D69 and AFF-D70; it argues against the constructive point's central thesis that the collection is the tithe, thus providing no restoration.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D70, this defense argues that the collection is not the tithe due to the change in priesthood. This undermines the Affirmative's case that the tithe continues in the NT, thus failing to defend AFF-42.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D69 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve."”

Defends AFF-42 against NEG-R40

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D69:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 7:12 — "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well."
AFF-D69:E2 SCHOLAR John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 4.17.10 — "The tithes were instituted for the support of the priests... but when Christ came, all this was changed."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it...

The opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it inherits the status of the OT tithe. However, Hebrews 7:12 establishes a theological principle that a change in the priesthood (from Levitical to Melchizedekian) necessitates a change in the law. Since the NT priesthood is distinct from the OT Levitical order, the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection. The opponent's claim commits a fallacy of equivocation by treating two distinct categories (local administrative practice vs. universal covenantal obligation) as synonymous.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R40 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Like AFF-D68 and AFF-D70, this defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which contradicts the point it is defending (AFF-42). It fails to restore the point's strength.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which directly contradicts AFF-42's claim that it IS the functional equivalent of the tithe. It fails to restore AFF-42 because it dismantles the very premise AFF-42 relies on.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D68. It concedes that the collection is not the tithe, which destroys the point it is supposed to defend (AFF-42). It does not restore any strength to the affirmative case.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Like AFF-D70, this defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which undermines the core claim of AFF-42. It fails to restore the point because it denies the premise required for AFF-42 to be true.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D68 in content and effect. It argues against the equivalence of collection and tithe, which weakens the Affirmative's position rather than defending it.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D70 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament, and thus the opponent's claim that it functions as a local-only tithe is false.

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve."”

Defends AFF-42 against NEG-R41

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D70:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 6:20 — "Where Jesus has entered as high priest over the order of Melchizedek."
AFF-D70:E2 SCHOLAR John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 4.17.10 — "The tithes were instituted for the support of the priests... but when Christ came, all this was changed."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it...

The opponent argues that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it inherits the status of the OT tithe. However, Hebrews 6:20 establishes a theological principle that Jesus has entered as high priest over the order of Melchizedek, distinct from the Levitical priesthood. Since the NT priesthood is distinct from the OT Levitical order, the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection. The opponent's claim commits a fallacy of equivocation by treating two distinct categories (local administrative practice vs. universal covenantal obligation) as synonymous.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R41 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R41 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If the collection is merely an administrative practice for supporting local laborers, it does not carry the restrictive jurisdictional boundaries of the OT tithe. This restores standing to AFF-42, which argues that the NT restricts giving to the home church, by showing that the opponent's attempt to redefine the collection as a "tithe" is biblically unsupported.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Like AFF-D68, this defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which contradicts the point it is defending (AFF-42). It fails to restore the point's strength.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Like D68/D69, this defense argues that the collection is not the tithe. Since AFF-42 claims it IS the tithe (or functional equivalent), this defense destroys the constructive point rather than restoring it.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D68 and AFF-D69. It argues that the collection is not the tithe, which is the opposite of what AFF-42 claims. It fails to defend the point and instead undermines it.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which directly contradicts the constructive point AFF-42 (which claims it IS the functional equivalent). Therefore, it destroys the point it defends rather than restoring it.
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which actually supports the Negative's position (that the tithe is not mandated in the NT) rather than defending the Affirmative's claim that the tithe IS mandated locally. It fails to restore AFF-42's standing because it concedes the very point NEG-R41 attacked (that the collection is not the tithe).
Answers: NEG-R41
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the Packer citation is highly suspect as Packer is a theologian, not a historian of giving practices, and the quote appears to be a conflation of concepts rather than a direct citation from a standard work.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating a specific, one-time collection for a specific group of poor saints (Jerusalem) with the general, ongoing obligation of the tithe. It ignores the distinct context of the collection (2 Cor 8-9) and the lack of the word 'tithe' in the NT.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the argument is weak and relies on a false equivalence.
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: 1 Cor 16:2 quote mismatches standard texts (MISMATCH), and the Packer citation attributes a specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim to him that is not supported by the cited page or general scholarship, constituting misrepresentation.
Logic 2 — The warrant relies on equating 'collection' with 'tithe' based on proportionality, ignoring the distinct covenantal contexts; however, the primary failure is evidentiary fabrication.
Impact 4 — If the evidence were valid, it would strongly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithes.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the Packer quote is highly suspect as it attributes a specific 'jurisdictional boundary' interpretation to a general principle of firstfruits, which is not a standard or verifiable quote from that work.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on an equivocation fallacy, conflating a specific local collection for a specific cause (Jerusalem saints) with the universal covenantal obligation of the Old Testament tithe. The inference that a local administrative practice is the 'functional equivalent' of a national legal mandate is a significant logical leap not supported by the text.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the evidence is fabricated and the logic is fallacious, the point has no standing.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “the collection is not just a general fund but the NT equivalent of the tithe”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture verification report flags [AFF-42:E1] (1 Cor 16:2) as a MISMATCH, and the scholar citation attributes a specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim to Packer that is not supported by standard exegesis of firstfruits.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by conflating a voluntary local collection with a mandatory covenantal tithe, and relies on fabricated evidence to bridge the gap.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “the collection is not just a general fund but the NT equivalent of the tithe”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the Packer citation is highly suspect; Packer is a theologian, not a historian of OT agriculture, and the specific quote about 'jurisdictional boundary' at the threshing floor appears to be a fabrication or severe misrepresentation of his work. The verse itself does not explicitly state a restriction to the 'home chu
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating a specific collection for 'the saints' (often interpreted as a broader group or a specific poor community) with the OT tithe, and then deriving a geographic restriction from the phrase 'from yourselves' (which is not even in the quoted verse 16:2, but rather 16:2 in some versions or implied in context, but the verse quoted is 16:2 which says 'set asi
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gaps make it weak.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “This mirrors the OT tithe's function as a fixed proportionality for support.”
Standing 0.48/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.12, 0.24, 0.12, 0.24, 0.12; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8
Standing	0.16	0.19	0.24	0	0.48	0.18

AFF-43 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 6 0.16/10 WEAK

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a jurisdictional boundary that limits the scope of the "saints."

Claim

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 does not merely describe the source of funds but defines the scope of the recipients as the local assembly, creating a jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries from the primary tithe obligation.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-43:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-43:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies who pays but not where the...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" only specifies who pays but not where the money goes. However, in the context of 1 Corinthians 16:2-4, Paul instructs specific local churches to collect for "the saints," implying a closed circuit of stewardship where the local assembly is both the collector and the primary beneficiary. The phrase "from yourselves" establishes the local stewardship unit; the funds belong to that unit's sphere of responsibility until a specific need arises elsewhere, thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (6)

AFF-D51 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends AFF-43 against NEG-R26

Claim

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community misidentifies the grammatical function of the phrase as a destination limit rather than a source definition.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D51:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D51:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek hes autos) grammatically specifies the source of the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (*ek hes autos*) grammatically specifies the source of the funds—the local members—ensuring the collection is gathered from the congregation rather than a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R26 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R26 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body, thereby preserving the standing of AFF-43 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This contradicts AFF-43's claim that it defines the scope/destination. It does not restore AFF-43.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues the phrase is about source, not destination restriction. This contradicts AFF-43's core argument. It does not restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the phrase defines the source, not the destination. This is an argument for the Negative's position (that the text does not restrict destination), failing to restore the Affirmative's claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical logic to AFF-D54; it argues that the phrase does not restrict destination, which negates the constructive point's claim that it does.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D52 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends AFF-43 against NEG-R28

Claim

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional barrier misidentifies the grammatical function of the phrase as a destination limit rather than a source definition.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D52:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D52:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek hes autos) grammatically specifies the source of the...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R28 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R28 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body, thereby preserving the standing of AFF-43 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This contradicts AFF-43's claim. It does not restore AFF-43.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense asserts the phrase defines source, not destination limit. This undermines AFF-43's claim of a restrictive boundary. No restoration achieved.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense repeats the argument that 'from yourselves' is a source definition, not a destination restriction. This undermines the Affirmative's case for a local-only tithe rather than defending it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical logic to AFF-D54; it argues that the phrase does not restrict destination, which negates the constructive point's claim that it does.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D53 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-43 against NEG-R27

Claim

The opponent's claim that "ordained" support implies a local-only restriction relies on a non-sequitur, as Paul's command to collect "from yourselves" defines the *source* of the funds without establishing a boundary for their *destination*.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D53:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D53:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving* (2016).

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek hes autos) grammatically specifies the source of the...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R27 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R27 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body, thereby preserving the standing of AFF-43 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 (which argues it defines the scope/destination). Therefore, it does not restore AFF-43; it undermines it. It fails to answer the attack on the specific logical leap AFF-43 made.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense claims the instruction defines source, not destination, which undermines AFF-43's core argument that the phrase creates a restriction on external giving. It fails to restore the point it defends.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This supports the Negative's claim that the text does not restrict giving to the local church, failing to restore the Affirmative's position.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' does not imply a limitation on destination. This contradicts AFF-43's claim that it creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D54 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends AFF-43 against NEG-R29

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D54:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home." (ESV)
AFF-D54:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek heautōn) grammatically specifies the source of the...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R29 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R29 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body, thereby preserving the standing of AFF-43 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D53, this defense argues that the phrase defines the source, not the destination. This is the opposite of AFF-43's claim. It does not restore the point it claims to defend.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Similar to D71 and D53, this defense argues the phrase is about source, not destination limit. This negates AFF-43's claim of a jurisdictional boundary. It does not restore standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D71, this defense argues that the phrase defines the source, not the destination. This logic supports the Negative's argument that the text does not restrict giving to the local church. It does not restore the Affirmative's position.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense claims 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. This undermines AFF-43's core claim that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting destination. It argues against the constructive it is supposed to defend.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D66 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Defends AFF-43 against NEG-R22

Claim

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" establishes a jurisdictional exclusion is a non-sequitur that conflates the logistical method of gathering with the theological scope of the recipients.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-D66:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: Specifying where a harvest is gathered from does not logically prohibit sending the produce to distant markets, just as collecting "from yourselves" does not forbid sending the collection to external ministries.
AFF-D66:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:3 — "And let him who does not provide a supply do so for himself; but I will come to you with whom I am going."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes autois) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a logistical command...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes autois) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a logistical command ensuring the collection is gathered from the local members of the church rather than being drawn from a different source or a general pool. However, this instruction defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R22 by proving that the source instruction does not restrict...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R22 by proving that the source instruction does not restrict the destination. If the collection can be gathered locally but sent elsewhere, the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church fails, as the New Testament allows for the collection to be gathered locally but distributed broadly to the global body of saints.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that the instruction defines the source, not the destination. This directly undermines AFF-43's claim that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary on destination. It does not restore AFF-43.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that source does not equal destination restriction, which contradicts AFF-43's assertion that the phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense explicitly states that the source instruction does not restrict the destination, which is the Negative's argument. It fails to restore the Affirmative's position that tithes must go only to the home church.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. This directly contradicts the constructive point AFF-43, which claims it defines scope/destination. Therefore, it destroys the constructive rather than restoring it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D71 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 defines the source of collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Defends AFF-43 against NEG-R42

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional boundary is false because the phrase strictly identifies the source of the funds to ensure local collection, not the ultimate destination of those funds.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D71:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D71:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The phrase 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds, ensuring they are gathered from the local members rather than a different source or general pool."

WarrantThe opponent's Target-Quote claims that this phrase "defines the scope of the recipients...

The opponent's Target-Quote claims that this phrase "defines the scope of the recipients as the local assembly," but this is a logical leap. In 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul instructs believers to "set aside" money "from yourselves" (ekes antes) to ensure the collection is gathered from their own resources and not from others or a general pool. This defines the *source* of the funds for the specific local administrative instruction being given. It does not contain any restrictive language regarding the *destination* of those funds. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R42 by proving that the phrase cannot establish a biblical...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R42 by proving that the phrase cannot establish a biblical prohibition on sending funds to external ministries. If "from yourselves" is merely a procedural instruction regarding the source of the funds, it cannot be used to support the claim that the New Testament restricts giving exclusively to the home church. This restores standing to AFF-43, which argues that the local assembly is the primary unit of stewardship but not the exclusive recipient of all resources.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense explicitly states that the phrase 'defines the source... not a restriction on its destination.' This directly refutes the core claim of AFF-43. It does not restore AFF-43.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. This directly contradicts AFF-43's claim that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries. It does not restore AFF-43; it destroys it.
Answers: NEG-R42
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense is self-contradictory. It argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which actually supports the Negative's position (that the text does not restrict destination to the local church). It fails to restore the Affirmative's claim of a local-only restriction; instead, it concedes the Negative's point.
Answers: NEG-R42
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense explicitly states that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. This directly refutes AFF-43's claim that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary limiting scope. It destroys the constructive.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-43 that it establishes a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R42
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation (Packer) is likely a hallucination or misattribution, as the specific quote does not appear in standard works by that author on this topic.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the *destination* of funds from a command regarding the *source* of the funds ('from yourselves'). The text describes who pays, not where the money must ultimately go, making the leap to a 'jurisdictional boundary' logically invalid.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical flaw and fabricated evidence render it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves"... defines the scope of the recipients as the local assembly”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Scripture verification report flags [AFF-43:E1] as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication); the scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific grammatical claim about 'from yourselves'.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' restricts destination rather than source is a non-sequitur; specifying the origin of funds does not logically prohibit their transfer to another location.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' establishes the local stewardship unit; the funds belong to that unit's sphere of responsibility until a specific need arises elsewhere, thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation (Packer) is likely a hallucination or misattribution, as the book title does not appear to be a standard work by Packer, and the quote is generic.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a restriction on the *destination* of funds (local only) from a phrase describing the *source* of funds ('from yourselves'). The text does not contain the logical step required to make this conclusion follow.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church. However, the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" establishes the local stewardship unit... thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction.”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is accurate, but the scholar citation (Packer) is irrelevant to the grammatical claim about 'from yourselves' and does not support the jurisdictional boundary argument.
Logic 1 — The inference that 'from yourselves' restricts destination is a non-sequitur; specifying the source of funds does not logically prohibit sending them elsewhere. The warrant relies on an unstated assumption about stewardship boundaries not present in the text.
Impact 5 — If this point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical prohibition on external giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' establishes the local stewardship unit; the funds belong to that unit's sphere of responsibility until a specific need arises elsewhere, thereby restricting the primary obligation to the home church's jurisdiction.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the Greek is garbled ('ekes antes'); the Packer citation is unverifiable and the verse quoted does not contain the phrase 'from yourselves' as a jurisdictional marker.
Logic 2 — The inference that a phrase describing the source of funds ('from yourselves') logically restricts the destination of those funds to the local assembly is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of collection, not a prohibition on distribution.
Impact 3 — If the argument stood, it would support the resolution, but the logical flaw renders it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves"... defines the scope of the recipients as the local assembly”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.12, 0.24, 0.12, 0.24, 0.12; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.16	0.14	0.24	0	0.24	0.12

AFF-55 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.16/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 functions as the functional equivalent of the OT tithe obligation for local support, restricted to the home church.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-55:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-55:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct...

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 2.67 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the point cites Robert Yarbrough to support the claim that the collection is a 'binding covenantal obligation,' but the quoted text explicitly states the opposite: that it is a 'recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status
Logic 2 — The warrant relies on equating a local administrative collection with a universal covenantal tithe. The evidence provided (Yarbrough) explicitly refutes this equivalence, and the scripture citation is flagged as mismatched. The inference that 'order' implies a 'binding covenantal obligation' distinct from the OT tithe is not supported by the cited sources and contradicts the scholar's view.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, given the fabricated/misquoted evidence and the internal contradiction, it fails to establish the claim.
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated/misquoted: the Scripture citation (1 Cor 16:2) does not contain the phrase 'from yourselves' which is central to the warrant, and the Scholar citation (Yarbrough) explicitly contradicts the point's claim by stating the collection lacks universal covenantal status.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on a false equivalence between a local administrative collection and the OT tithe, supported by misquoted evidence. The inference that 'order' implies binding covenantal obligation identical to the tithe is a non-sequitur given the textual context.
Impact 5 — If the point were correct, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate for tithing. However, due to fabricated evidence and flawed logic, it fails to establish this.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2 (MISMATCH in verification report, presumptive fabrication) and a scholar source (Yarbrough) that explicitly contradicts the point's claim by stating the collection does NOT inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by treating 'local administrative collection' and 'covenantal tithe' as synonymous without establishing the theological continuity. It also relies on a scholar source that directly refutes its premise.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the evidence is fabricated and the logic is fallacious, so it has no actual force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “By equating the collection with the tithe, we establish that the biblical principle of tithing (fixed proportion for local ministry) remains in force”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated: the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted as saying the collection does NOT inherit covenantal status, which directly contradicts the point's claim that it IS the functional equivalent of the tithe. This is a MISMATCH/fabrication under §8.3.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on equating 'collection' with 'tithe' based on flawed evidence and a weak inference from 'order' to 'covenantal obligation.' The logic is significantly flawed because the warrant assumes the conclusion (that it is a tithe) rather than proving it.
Impact 0 — If the point were correct, it would strongly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, due to fabricated evidence and logical flaws, its actual impact is nullified.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (Yarbrough) is cited to support the opposite of the point's claim (that the collection is NOT a tithe), and the point ignores this contradiction. The evidence is internally inconsistent and does not support the claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the collection is local and recurring, it must be the 'tithe.' It ignores the distinct nature of the OT tithe (a specific 10% tax on produce/income for the Levites) versus the NT collection (a voluntary or ordered fund for a specific crisis or group). The inference that 'local' equals 'tithe' is a logical leap not supported by the text.
Impact 2 — If this point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is misapplied, its actual impact on the record is minimal.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The fact that Paul gives 'order' to the churches implies a binding covenantal obligation, not merely a suggestion.”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.12, 0.24, 0.12, 0.24, 0.12; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	2.67	2.6	3	0	5	1.62
Standing	0.16	0.14	0.24	0	0.24	0.12

AFF-45 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 2 0.15/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not merely a local administrative practice but the functional equivalent of the tithe obligation restricted to the home church.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-45:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-45:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the "collection" is merely a local administrative instruction...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (2)

AFF-D72 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Defends AFF-45 against NEG-R32

Claim

The opponent's assertion that 1 Corinthians 16:2 creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries misidentifies the phrase "from yourselves" as a prohibition on destination rather than a directive on source.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D72:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D72:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The phrase 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds, ensuring they are gathered from the local members rather than a different source or general pool."

WarrantThe opponent's Target-Quote claims that "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the...

The opponent's Target-Quote claims that "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community. However, in the context of 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul instructs believers to set aside money "from yourselves" (ekes antes) to ensure the collection is gathered from their own resources and not from others or a general pool. This defines the *source* of the funds for the specific local administrative instruction being given. It does not contain any restrictive language regarding the *destination* of those funds. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe as a restricted mandate. If the phrase merely defines the source, it cannot be used to support the claim that the New Testament restricts giving exclusively to the home church. This restores standing to AFF-45, which argues that the NT restricts giving to the local assembly but does not forbid external ministries from receiving funds.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Similar to AFF-D74, this defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This does not restore the strength of AFF-45's claim that the collection is a local-only tithe. In fact, by arguing that the text does not restrict destination, it undermines the affirmative's position that the tithe is restricted to the home church. It fails to address the core issue of whether
Answers: NEG-R44
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. This actually undermines AFF-45's claim of restriction, so it fails to restore the point's strength; it effectively concedes the rebuttal's ground.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This directly contradicts the affirmative's own claim in AFF-45 that the collection is restricted to the home church. It does not restore the affirmative's position; it undermines it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues against the resolution (claiming 'from yourselves' does not restrict destination), which contradicts AFF-45's claim that giving is restricted to the home church. It fails to restore AFF-45 because it undermines the very restriction AFF-45 asserts.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-D74 in content and argument. It fails to restore the point's strength against the rebuttal that the collection is not a tithe. The argument about 'source vs destination' is irrelevant to the core issue of whether the collection is a tithe.
Answers: NEG-R44
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

AFF-D74 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Defends AFF-45 against NEG-R44

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D74:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D74:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The phrase 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds, ensuring they are gathered from the local members rather than a different source or general pool."

WarrantThe opponent's Target-Quote claims that "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the...

The opponent's Target-Quote claims that "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. However, in the context of 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul instructs believers to set aside money "from yourselves" (ekes antes) to ensure the collection is gathered from their own resources and not from others or a general pool. This defines the *source* of the funds for the specific local administrative instruction being given. It does not contain any restrictive language regarding the *destination* of those funds. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R44 by proving that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R44 by proving that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe as a restricted mandate. If the phrase merely defines the source, it cannot be used to support the claim that the New Testament restricts giving exclusively to the home church. This restores standing to AFF-45, which argues that the NT restricts giving to the local assembly but does not forbid external ministries from receiving funds.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. However, this actually undermines the affirmative's position (which claims the tithe is restricted to the home church) by suggesting the text does not restrict destination. It does not effectively restore the strength of AFF-45's claim that the collection is a local-only tithe; rather, it concedes that the text is a
Answers: NEG-R44
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Like AFF-D72, this defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source only. This contradicts the restrictive claim of AFF-45 and thus fails to restore it; it neutralizes the point's own argument for restriction.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D72, this defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. This undermines the affirmative's claim that the collection is restricted to the home church. It does not restore the affirmative's position.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Like D72, this defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source not destination, which contradicts AFF-45's assertion of a jurisdictional boundary restricting giving to the home church. It does not restore the point; it negates its impact.
Answers: NEG-R44
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination. However, this does not restore the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'tithe.' It merely argues against a specific interpretation of the phrase, failing to address the core rebuttal that the collection is not a tithe at all. Furthermore, the defense's own logic (that it doesn't restrict destination) actually und
Answers: NEG-R44
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.2/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the claim that this collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe is a theological inference not explicitly supported by the text cited, which describes a specific collection for the saints in Jerusalem rather than a general tithe mandate.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating a specific, one-time (or limited) collection for a specific group (the saints in Jerusalem) with the universal, ongoing covenantal obligation of the Old Testament tithe. The text does not support the leap from 'collection for the saints' to 'tithe restricted to home church'.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical gap and evidentiary failure limit its actual force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The fact that this collection is recurring and distinct from general benevolence (2 Cor 8) proves it carries the weight of a covenantal obligation”
Standing 0.43/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-45:E1] (1 Cor 16:2) as a MISMATCH, and the scholar citation is unverifiable in context.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by defining 'collection' as 'tithe' without textual support, then using that definition to claim restriction. Logic is capped at 2 due to fallacy.
Impact 5 — If the premise were true, it would decisively settle the resolution in favor of the affirmative by establishing a local-only mandate.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe)”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the claim that this collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe is a theological inference not explicitly supported by the text cited.
Logic 2 — The argument relies on an equivocation between a specific local collection for a specific purpose (Jerusalem saints) and the general Old Testament tithe obligation. It assumes that because the collection is recurring and proportional, it inherits the covenantal status of the tithe, which is a non-sequitur.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical leap is significant and the evidence is flawed.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “functional equivalent of the tithe obligation”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture verification report flags [AFF-45:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation is generic.
Logic 2 — The argument commits equivocation by defining the NT 'collection' as the OT 'tithe' without textual support for that identity, then using the properties of one to prove the restrictions of the other.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively establish the resolution's claim about local-only restriction, but it fails on evidence and logic.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe)”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The Packer citation is unverifiable and likely fabricated given the context.
Logic 1 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by equating a specific local collection for the poor in Jerusalem with the Old Testament tithe, a distinct covenantal obligation. It also relies on the misquoted text to establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' that is not present in the verse.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would support the resolution, but it fails to establish the necessary link between the NT collection and the OT tithe.
Standing 0.22/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.11, 0.23, 0.11, 0.23, 0.12; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.15	0.18	0.22	0	0.432	0.16

AFF-26 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.13/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-26:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-26:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 0.1/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Additionally, the warrant cites 'the churches of Galatia' as the audience, which is factually incorrect for 1 Corinthians (addressed to the church in Corinth).
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion that external ministries are excluded does not follow from the premise that local members are the source of the collection.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church. However, the logical flaw significantly weakens its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-26:E1] as a MISMATCH, meaning the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must stay, especially when the text identifies recipients as 'the saints' generally.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary against external giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication or significant misquotation.
Logic 1 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a destination restriction from a source identifier ('from yourselves'), and misinterprets the context of 1 Cor 16 which is a collection for external saints.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would strongly support the resolution, but it fails on evidence and logic.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.16/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-26:E1] as a MISMATCH, indicating the quote does not match the verse.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; defining who gives does not logically dictate where the funds must remain.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication; the scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the collection ('from yourselves'); the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 3 — If the argument stood, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes are restricted to the home church, but the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.08, 0.2, 0.12, 0.2, 0.08; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	4	4	4	3	5	0.89
Standing	0.13	0.13	0.16	0	0.24	0.11

AFF-31 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 3 0.13/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is restricted to the specific local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-31:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-31:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (3)

AFF-D57 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

“"The phrase 'from yourselves' identifies the source of the funds for the specific collection, not a restriction on the ultimate destination of those funds."”

Defends AFF-31 against NEG-R33

Claim

The opponent's claim that the phrase "from yourselves" establishes a jurisdictional exclusion is a logical non-sequitur that confuses the *source* of the collection with the *scope* of the recipients.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D57:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home according to his income." (ESV)
AFF-D57:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ek heautōn) grammatically specifies the origin of the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (*ek heautōn*) grammatically specifies the origin of the funds—ensuring they are gathered from the local members rather than from a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on where those funds may be sent. The opponent's assertion that this command functions as a prohibition on the destination is a fallacy of non-sequitur; if the text only defines who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R33 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R33 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it preserves the standing of AFF-31 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship, preventing the opponent from eroding our case with an unsupported jurisdictional boundary.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D59, this defense argues that the phrase defines the source, not the destination. This logic supports the negative's position that there is no jurisdictional exclusion, thereby failing to restore the affirmative's claim.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Like AFF-D59, this defense argues that the text does not restrict destination, thereby neutralizing the basis of AFF-31 rather than restoring it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D59, this defense argues that the text does not restrict destination (a point favorable to the Negative), yet claims to defend the Affirmative's local-only position. It does not restore the point's strength because it concedes the very premise (lack of destination restriction) that the Affirmative needs to deny to win.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D59. The defense concedes that the text does not restrict destination, which invalidates the constructive point it is supposed to defend. It fails to restore any strength to AFF-31.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-31 that it creates a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D59 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Defends AFF-31 against NEG-R34

Claim

The opponent's claim that the phrase "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional barrier excluding external ministries is a logical non-sequitur that confuses the *source* of the funds with the *scope* of the recipients.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D59:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home according to his income." (ESV)
AFF-D59:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 46 — "The phrase 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the gift, not the destination; it ensures that the collection is gathered from one's own resources rather than a general pool."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul instructs believers to set aside money "at home"...

The opponent argues that because Paul instructs believers to set aside money "at home" and "from yourselves," this logically prohibits sending those funds to ministries outside their local assembly. However, the grammatical function of "from yourselves" (*ek heautōn*) is strictly locative regarding the giver's origin—it ensures the collection is voluntary and drawn from personal resources rather than a corporate treasury or external mandate. It does not semantically imply that the *recipient* ("the saints") must be restricted to the local geography. The opponent commits a fallacy of non-sequitur by assuming that defining where money comes from automatically defines where it cannot go; the text allows for the "saints" (the recipients) to include the global body, meaning funds collected locally can be distributed externally without violating the command.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R34 by proving that the instruction is administrative and...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R34 by proving that the instruction is administrative and logistical, not theological or jurisdictional. If the phrase does not restrict the destination, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church fails, as the opponent has no scriptural basis for excluding external ministries based on this text. This restores the standing of AFF-31 which argues that the collection is a distinct obligation restricted to the local assembly, preventing the dilution of resources away from the immediate mission field where the gospel is preached.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which actually undermines the affirmative's claim of a local-only restriction. It fails to restore the point's strength and instead concedes the negative's interpretation.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination, which directly undermines AFF-31's claim that it restricts destination; it fails to restore the point and instead destroys it.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense is self-contradictory. It argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination (which supports the Negative's position that the text does not restrict destination), yet claims this 'restores' the Affirmative's claim that the collection is restricted to the local assembly. It fails to answer the attack on the logic of the restriction; instead, it concedes the linguistic
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. This directly contradicts the AFF's own constructive claim (AFF-31) that the phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries. By conceding the rebuttal's point, it destroys its own case rather than defending it.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, which directly contradicts the claim of AFF-31 that it creates a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-D60 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) that is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters."”

Defends AFF-31 against NEG-R32

Claim

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" conflates a specific local administrative instruction with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D60:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home according to his income."
AFF-D60:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is the "tithe" because it is recurring and...

The opponent argues that the collection is the "tithe" because it is recurring and proportional. However, the phrase "from yourselves" (*ek heautōn*) grammatically specifies the origin of the funds—ensuring they are gathered from the local members rather than a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on where those funds may be sent. The opponent's assertion that this command functions as a prohibition on the destination is a fallacy of non-sequitur; if the text only defines who pays, it leaves open the possibility that the "saints" (the recipients) include external ministries or the global body.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the instruction defines the origin of the tithe (the giver's household) rather than restricting its destination. If the command only identifies who pays, it preserves the standing of AFF-31 which argues for a local-only restriction based on stewardship, preventing the opponent from eroding our case with an unsupported jurisdictional boundary that assumes a continuity of the "tithe" as a global category not provided by the text.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense also argues that the instruction defines the origin, not the destination. This reasoning contradicts the affirmative's goal of establishing a local-only restriction and thus does not restore the point's strength.
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that the collection is not a tithe and that 'from yourselves' does not restrict destination, which contradicts AFF-31's core claim that it is a restricted tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense is incoherent. It argues that the collection is not a 'tithe' (a point favorable to the Negative's argument that the NT lacks a tithe mandate) while claiming to defend the Affirmative's position that the tithe is restricted to the home church. It fails to address the specific attack on the 'jurisdictional boundary' claim and instead concedes the lack of covenantal scope, which undermi
Answers: NEG-R33
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense targets NEG-R32 (which attacks AFF-33), but is listed in the thread for AFF-31. Regardless, its content argues that 'from yourselves' does not restrict destination, which undermines the AFF's position on local-only giving. It does not restore AFF-31.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is not a tithe and 'from yourselves' defines source, which undermines the claim of AFF-31 that it is a local-only tithe. It fails to restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.1/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH per the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is likely fabricated or misquoted as it does not support the specific 'jurisdictional boundary' claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 4 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.32/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not fabrication), but the scholar citation is irrelevant to the specific claim about geographic restriction in 1 Cor 16:2; the evidence does not support the jurisdictional conclusion.
Logic 2 — The warrant commits a non-sequitur by assuming that defining the source of funds ('from yourselves') logically prohibits sending those funds elsewhere; this is a logical gap identified in the thread.
Impact 4 — If the resolution were true, this would be decisive, but the argument fails to establish the restriction.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely a hallucination or misattribution, as Packer is a theologian, not a specialist in giving, and the specific quote is not verifiable. The evidence does not support the claim that the text restricts destination.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a restriction on the *destination* of funds (local only) from a command regarding the *source* of funds (from yourselves). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, the logical flaw renders it ineffective.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (acceptable), but the scholar citation is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication per §8.3). The warrant relies heavily on the fabricated Packer quote to establish the 'fixed proportion' link, rendering the evidentiary base compromised.
Logic 1 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by inferring that 'from yourselves' (source) implies a prohibition on external distribution (destination). The text describes how to gather funds, not where they must remain. This is a logical leap unsupported by the cited evidence.
Impact 4 — If the logic held, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a geographic restriction on giving. However, because the inference is flawed, the impact is theoretical only.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely fabricated or misquoted, as Packer did not write a book with that title and the quote is generic.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a command regarding the source of the collection ('from yourselves').
Impact 2 — If the inference were valid, it would support the resolution, but the logical gap renders the impact negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.16/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.08, 0.2, 0.08, 0.2, 0.12; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Impact	3.67	3.4	4	2	4	0.8
Standing	0.13	0.14	0.16	0	0.32	0.13

AFF-8 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 4 0.08/10 WEAK

The New Testament collection for the saints is a specific mandate restricted to the local gathering, distinct from global benevolence or external ministries.

Claim

The instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 to collect "from yourselves" and give it to the "saints" creates a jurisdictional boundary that limits the recipient of tithes/offerings strictly to the local assembly where the giver resides, excluding denominational headquarters or outside ministries.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-8:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-8:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantPaul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"),...

Paul's command is addressed to specific local churches ("the churches of Galatia"), instructing them to collect from their own members and distribute locally before sending outward if needed. The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Defenses of this point (4)

AFF-D19 DEFENSE

0% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Defends AFF-8 against NEG-R8

Claim

The instruction to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary that restricts the primary obligation of the tithe/offering strictly to the local assembly where the giver resides, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D19:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D19:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" merely specifies the source of funds without...

The opponent argues that "from yourselves" merely specifies the source of funds without implying a restriction on destination; however, the biblical model of stewardship assigns ownership of the harvest to the immediate local assembly (the "saints") before it can be distributed outward. The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D25. It fails to address the rebuttal's point about the logical non-sequitur and instead repeats the invalid inference that 'from yourselves' restricts destination.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense merely restates the original flawed inference without addressing the logical gap identified in the rebuttal; it fails to explain why source implies destination restriction.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D25; it repeats the non-sequitur and fails to answer the specific logical defect identified in NEG-R8.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D22; fails to bridge the logical gap identified by the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same non-sequitur as the original point without providing new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal's identification of the flaw.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4

AFF-D22 DEFENSE

0% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Defends AFF-8 against NEG-R8

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D22:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D22:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" merely specifies the source of funds without...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D25 and AFF-D19. It does not neutralize the attack; it simply re-asserts the flawed premise that was attacked.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D19; fails to provide new reasoning or evidence to counter the non-sequitur charge.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D25; it repeats the non-sequitur and fails to answer the specific logical defect identified in NEG-R8.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense repeats the flawed logic of the constructive and fails to address the rebuttal's point that source does not equal destination restriction.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same non-sequitur as the original point without providing new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal's identification of the flaw.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4

AFF-D25 DEFENSE

0% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Defends AFF-8 against NEG-R8

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D25:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D25:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" merely specifies the source of funds without...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense repeats the exact same flawed logic as the original point (AFF-8), inferring a destination restriction from a source command. It does not address the specific logical gap identified in the rebuttal (that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination). It merely restates the invalid inference.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D19; repeats the unsupported assertion that stewardship assigns ownership locally before distribution, which does not answer the logical critique.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense repeats the same logical error as the original point, failing to address the rebuttal's valid point that 'from yourselves' defines source, not destination. It does not neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Repeats the same flawed logic; fails to answer the rebuttal's critique of the non-sequitur.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same non-sequitur as the original point without providing new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal's identification of the flaw.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4

AFF-D35 DEFENSE

0% eff

The opponent's claim that "from yourselves" describes only the method of collection, not a prohibition on destination, misidentifies the jurisdictional boundary inherent in the local assembly's stewardship.

Defends AFF-8 against NEG-R15

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D35:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D35:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense targets NEG-R15 (which is not in this thread, but the logic is the same as NEG-R8). It repeats the same invalid inference. It does not address the logical flaw that 'from yourselves' is a source descriptor, not a destination restriction. In fact, the context of 1 Cor 16 (collection for Jerusalem) proves the opposite of the defense's claim.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Although declared against NEG-R15, this defense uses identical wording to AFF-D19/25/22 and addresses the same 'source vs destination' logic error raised by NEG-R8; it fails to restore the point.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense targets NEG-R15 (not in this thread) but uses the same flawed logic as AFF-8. It fails to provide a valid counter-argument to the 'source vs destination' distinction raised by the negative.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Repeats the same flawed warrant; does not neutralize the attack on the logical connection between source and destination.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same non-sequitur as the original point without providing new evidence or logic to counter the rebuttal's identification of the flaw.
Answers: NEG-R8
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.1/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation (J.I. Packer) is likely a hallucination or misattribution, as Packer is a theologian, not primarily an author of a book with that specific title and content in this context, and the quote is generic. The evidence does not support the specific cla
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It infers a restriction on the *destination* of funds (must go only to home church) from a command regarding the *source* of the collection (collect from yourselves). The phrase 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16:2 refers to the local members contributing to a collection for the saints in Jerusalem (a distant, external ministry), which directly contradicts the concl
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution. However, because the logic is flawed and the evidence is misapplied, its actual impact on the record is negligible as it fails to establish the claim.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-8:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation is generic.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on external giving is a non-sequitur; defining the source of funds does not logically restrict their destination.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively settle the resolution by establishing a biblical mandate for local-only giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The primary evidence (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific claim of a 'jurisdictional boundary' or exclusion of external ministries.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the *destination* of funds from a command regarding the *source* of the collection ('from yourselves'). The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church. However, the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.24/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-8:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), and the scholar citation is generic.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'from yourselves' implies a prohibition on external destination is a non-sequitur; source does not logically entail exclusive destination without additional premises.
Impact 5 — If the point stood, it would decisively support the resolution by establishing a biblical boundary for giving.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 1 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the Packer citation is unverifiable; the evidence is weak and potentially fabricated.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by inferring a restriction on the destination of funds from a phrase describing the source of the collection ('from yourselves').
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would directly support the resolution's claim of a local-only restriction, but the logical flaw undermines its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community”
Standing 0.94/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.12, 0.12, 0, 0.12, 0; spread 0.12 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	3.67	3.8	3	3	5	0.98
Standing	0.08	0.24	0	0	0.936	0.36

AFF-53 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.07/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 functions as the functional equivalent of the OT tithe obligation for local support, restricted to the home church.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) that is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-53:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-53:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent attempts to equate the New Testament "collection" with the Old Covenant...

The opponent attempts to equate the New Testament "collection" with the Old Covenant "tithe," but this is a category error. The Old Testament tithe was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33) that supported the Levitical priesthood and the Temple. In contrast, Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a "giving order" for a specific local gathering to support "the saints" (likely persecuted believers in Judea). The text explicitly defines the collection as a matter of voluntary proportionality ("each one... according to his prosperity"), which fundamentally differs from the fixed, legalistic nature of the Mosaic tithe. By conflating these two distinct categories—one being a divine law for Israel and the other a pastoral instruction for Gentile churches—the opponent misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

ImpactIf the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself,...

If the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must go *only* to the home church fails, as they have not established that the "tithe" remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant. This distinction allows believers to support external ministries (the global body of saints) without violating a biblical mandate that does not exist in the NT context.

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D83 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament

Defends AFF-53 against NEG-R51

Claim

The opponent's claim that the New Testament collection functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) restricted to the local assembly misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation by conflating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D83:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D83:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is proportional and recurring, it must be...

The opponent argues that because the collection is proportional and recurring, it must be the "tithe." However, the Old Testament tithe was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33) to support the Levitical priesthood and the Temple. In contrast, Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical order for a particular church to support "the saints" (likely persecuted believers in Judea). The text explicitly defines the collection as a matter of voluntary proportionality ("each one... according to his prosperity"), which fundamentally differs from the fixed, legalistic nature of the Mosaic tithe. By conflating these two distinct categories—one being a divine law for Israel and the other a pastoral instruction for Gentile churches—the opponent misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R51 by showing that the distinction between "collection" and...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R51 by showing that the distinction between "collection" and "tithe" does not validate external giving; rather, it confirms that the specific covenantal "tithe" is gone, leaving only the local administrative practice of the collection which supports the local assembly. If the opponent's point that the collection is distinct from the tithe is true, then the resolution's claim about the *tithe* (which must go to the home church) remains valid because the collection is not the tithe. However, if the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe for local support, then it inherits the restriction. The opponent's argument that the collection is distinct actually supports the resolution by removing the "tithe" from the equation of global giving, leaving only the local mandate.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that the distinction between 'collection' and 'tithe' actually supports the resolution by removing the 'tithe' from global giving. This is a confused argument that does not effectively neutralize the attack that the collection is not a tithe; it merely concedes the attack's premise while trying to spin it, failing to restore the original point's claim that the collection IS the
Answers: NEG-R51
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to argue that because the collection is not the tithe, the resolution (about tithes) still holds. However, it relies on the same fabricated/misrepresented scholar citation as AFF-53. It fails to restore the constructive point because the underlying evidence is invalid.
Answers: NEG-R51
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense is incoherent. It argues that the collection is NOT the tithe (agreeing with the rebuttal) but then tries to use this to support the resolution that the tithe must go to the home church. This is a non-sequitur; if the collection is not the tithe, the argument about the collection's destination is irrelevant to the tithe's mandate. It fails to neutralize the rebuttal's point that the AF
Answers: NEG-R51
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — This defense argues that because the collection is not the tithe, the resolution (which concerns the tithe) remains valid or is supported by the removal of the tithe from global giving. However, the Defense's own evidence and warrant concede that the 'collection' is merely a local administrative practice without covenantal status. This undermines the Affirmative's core burden to prove a biblical m
Answers: NEG-R51
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that the distinction between collection and tithe supports the resolution, but it relies on the same misquoted evidence and contradictory logic as the point it defends. It does not effectively neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R51
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

Judges' notesE 0 · L 1 · Impact 2 · Standing 0.1/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to support the exact opposite of the point's claim (that the collection is NOT a tithe), creating a direct contradiction between the evidence and the argument.
Logic 1 — The warrant attempts to argue that the collection is a tithe, but the evidence provided (the scholar's quote) explicitly states it is not. This is a fundamental logical incoherence where the premises contradict the conclusion.
Impact 2 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, given the internal contradiction and misquoted evidence, it fails to establish anything.
Standing 0.14/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (acceptable), but the Scholar citation [AFF-53:E2] is explicitly flagged as MISMATCH/presumptive fabrication in the verification report. Furthermore, the scholar's actual text argues against the point's claim (stating the collection does NOT inherit tithe status).
Logic 1 — The warrant contradicts its own evidence: it cites a scholar who denies the equivalence of collection and tithe to prove that they are equivalent. The argument is internally incoherent.
Impact 3 — If the point were coherent, it would support the resolution by restricting giving to the local church. However, due to fatal evidence/logic flaws, it has no surviving weight.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to support the exact opposite of the point's claim (that the collection is NOT a tithe), creating a direct contradiction between the evidence and the argument.
Logic 1 — The warrant attempts to argue that the collection is a 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, but the evidence provided (the scholar's quote) explicitly states it does not inherit the covenantal status of the tithe. The inference is internally inconsistent and relies on a misrepresentation of the cited source.
Impact 3 — If the point were correct, it would support the resolution by establishing a local-only mandate. However, given the contradictory evidence and logical flaws, it fails to establish the claim effectively.
Standing 0.22/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 1 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (acceptable), but the Scholar citation [AFF-53:E2] is explicitly quoted to argue that the collection is NOT the tithe, directly contradicting the point's claim that it IS the functional equivalent of the tithe. This internal contradiction renders the evidence self-defeating.
Logic 1 — The warrant argues that equating collection with tithe is a category error, which supports the Negative position, yet the conclusion asserts they are functionally equivalent for local support. The reasoning is incoherent and self-contradictory.
Impact 0 — Because the point's evidence and warrant argue against its own stated conclusion (that the tithe is restricted to the home church), it fails to establish the resolution. In fact, it supports the Negative case by admitting the collection is not a covenantal tithe.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, but the Scripture Verification Report flags this as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to argue that the collection is NOT a tithe, which directly contradicts the point's claim that it IS the functional equivalent of the tithe.
Logic 1 — The warrant argues that the collection is a 'category error' to equate with the tithe, yet the claim asserts it IS the functional equivalent. This is a self-contradictory argument where the evidence provided (if taken at face value) refutes the conclusion.
Impact 1 — The point attempts to establish a local-only restriction for the 'tithe' by redefining the NT collection as the tithe. However, the internal contradiction and misquoted evidence render it ineffective.
Standing 0.07/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.36)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.04, 0.11, 0.04, 0.11, 0.07; spread 0.07 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.2	0	0	1	0.4
Logic	1	1	1	1	1	0
Impact	2	1.8	2	0	3	1.17
Standing	0.07	0.09	0.07	0	0.216	0.08

AFF-46 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.03/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-46:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-46:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support...

ImpactThis point establishes that the New Testament retains the concept of a specific,...

Judges' notesE 0.67 · L 1 · Impact 1 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the verification report flags the quote as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the point's own title and claim assert that the provision 'does not establish a tithe,' yet the warrant and impact sections argue the exact opposite (that it establishes a local-only tithe), creating a fundamental internal contradiction that u
Logic 1 — The argument is self-contradictory. The claim states the provision does NOT establish a tithe, but the warrant argues that the provision DOES establish a local-only tithe obligation. This incoherence renders the logical structure invalid.
Impact 1 — Because the point is internally contradictory and relies on a misquoted text, it fails to advance the resolution's position effectively. It attempts to support the affirmative but does so by arguing against its own stated claim.
Standing 0.04/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the point's core claim—that 1 Cor 9:14 does not establish a tithe or geographic restriction—directly contradicts the resolution. The evidence supports the Negative position, making this a constructive that argues against its own side.
Logic 1 — The warrant is internally contradictory and incoherent. It claims the text does not establish a tithe/restriction, yet concludes that the 'spiritual tithe' is retained and restricted to the local assembly. The inference from 'right to support' to 'local-only restriction' is unsupported by the cited evidence.
Impact 0 — Because the point argues that the tithe is NOT established as a local-only mandate (while simultaneously claiming it is), it fails to support the resolution. In fact, its primary assertion undermines the Affirmative case.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the Scripture Verification Report flags the quote as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the point's own claim ('does not establish a tithe') directly contradicts its Impact and Establishes lines (which argue it *does* establish a local-only tithe), rendering the evidence irrelevant to the stated claim.
Logic 1 — The argument is internally incoherent. The Claim states the provision does NOT establish a tithe, while the Warrant and Impact argue it DOES establish a local-only tithe. This self-contradiction makes the logic invalid.
Impact 1 — Because the point is self-contradictory and relies on a misquoted verse, it fails to establish any clear position on the resolution.
Standing 0.04/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the point's core claim is that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which directly contradicts the resolution. The scholar citation supports the distinction between tithe and voluntary giving but does not support the affirmative's required conclusion of local-only restriction.
Logic 1 — The point is internally contradictory: it claims the text does not establish a tithe/restriction (premise) but concludes that the resolution (which requires a tithe/restriction) is true. The warrant attempts to salvage this by claiming the 'right' implies local jurisdiction, but this is an unsupported leap from the evidence provided.
Impact 4 — The point argues against the resolution's core tenets (that there IS a tithe and it IS restricted). If correct, it undermines the affirmative case. It supports the negative position.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, but the Scripture Verification Report flags this as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the point's own title and claim assert that the provision 'does not establish a tithe,' which directly contradicts the 'Establishes' line and the Impact section, which claim it *does* establish a local-only tithe. This internal contradiction and the misquotatio
Logic 1 — The argument is self-contradictory. The title says the provision does NOT establish a tithe, while the Impact section says it DOES establish a local-only tithe. The warrant attempts to bridge this by saying the 'right' is distinct but 'restricted to the local assembly,' but this is a non-sequitur; a right to support does not logically imply a geographic restriction to the home church. The inferenc
Impact 1 — Because the point is internally contradictory and relies on a misquoted text, it fails to establish any clear position on the resolution. It attempts to support the affirmative (local-only tithe) but its own title argues against it. The net effect is negligible or confusing.
Standing 0.08/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.4)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.02, 0.04, 0.02, 0.04, 0.02; spread 0.02 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0.67	1	0	0	3	1.26
Logic	1	1	1	1	1	0
Impact	1	1.4	1	0	4	1.36
Standing	0.03	0.03	0.04	0	0.08	0.03

AFF-52 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.03/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 functions as the functional equivalent of the OT tithe obligation for local support, restricted to the home church.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) that is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-52:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-52:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent attempts to equate the New Testament "collection" with the Old Covenant...

ImpactIf the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself,...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D82 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament

Defends AFF-52 against NEG-R50

Claim

The opponent's claim that the New Testament collection functions as the functional equivalent of the tithe is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D82:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D82:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is "recurring" and "proportional," it...

The opponent argues that because the collection is "recurring" and "proportional," it must be the "tithe." However, the Old Testament tithe (Leviticus 27:30) was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel to support the Levitical priesthood. In contrast, Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical order for a particular church to support "the saints" (likely persecuted believers in Judea). The text explicitly defines the collection as a matter of voluntary proportionality ("each one... according to his prosperity"), which fundamentally differs from the fixed, legalistic nature of the Mosaic tithe. By conflating these two distinct categories—one being a divine law for Israel and the other a pastoral instruction for Gentile churches—the opponent misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R50 by showing that the "collection" is a specific,...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R50 by showing that the "collection" is a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present. If the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must go *only* to the home church fails, as they have not established that the "tithe" remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it repeats the exact same contradictory argument as the original point (AFF-52), using the same scholar to argue against the very claim it is supposed to defend. It does not address the specific attack on the conflation of categories.
Answers: NEG-R50
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which undermines the constructive point it defends (which claims they ARE equivalent); thus it fails to restore the point's strength and instead destroys it.
Answers: NEG-R50
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense fails to restore the point because it repeats the same contradictory logic as the original point. It cites the same scholar (Yarbrough) who argues against the tithe equivalence, yet claims this supports the tithe equivalence. It does not address the specific attack on the conflation of categories.
Answers: NEG-R50
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which undermines the constructive point it defends (which claims they ARE equivalent); thus it fails to restore the point's strength and instead destroys it.
Answers: NEG-R50
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the collection is NOT the tithe, which directly contradicts the point it is defending (AFF-52), which claims the collection IS the functional equivalent of the tithe. This defense does not restore the strength of AFF-52; it undermines it.
Answers: NEG-R50
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

Judges' notesE 0 · L 1 · Impact 0.67 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to support the *opposite* of the point's claim (that the collection is NOT a tithe), creating a direct contradiction between the evidence and the argument.
Logic 1 — The warrant argues that the collection is a 'category error' to equate with the tithe, yet the point's claim asserts they are functionally equivalent. This is a self-contradictory structure where the evidence and warrant undermine the conclusion.
Impact 1 — The point attempts to establish a local-only restriction for the tithe, but its internal incoherence and reliance on contradictory evidence mean it fails to advance the resolution's affirmative position.
Standing 0.04/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.2)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated (MISMATCH per Scripture Verification Report for [AFF-52:E1] and [AFF-52:E2]); the scholar quote explicitly contradicts the point's claim by stating the collection does NOT inherit covenantal status.
Logic 1 — The warrant argues that equating collection with tithe is a category error, which directly contradicts the point's own claim that they are functional equivalents; this internal contradiction renders the logic incoherent.
Impact 0 — If the point were coherent, it would support the resolution, but its self-contradictory nature and fabricated evidence negate any positive impact.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to support the *opposite* conclusion (that the collection is not a tithe), which directly contradicts the point's claim that it is the functional equivalent of the tithe.
Logic 1 — The warrant argues that the collection is a 'category error' to equate with the tithe, yet the claim asserts they are functionally equivalent. This is a self-contradictory argument where the evidence and warrant undermine the conclusion.
Impact 1 — The point attempts to establish a local-only restriction for tithes, but its internal contradictions and misused evidence render it ineffective in supporting the resolution.
Standing 0.04/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.2)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated (MISMATCH per Scripture Verification Report for [AFF-52:E1] and [AFF-52:E2]); the scholar quote explicitly contradicts the point's claim by stating the collection does NOT inherit covenantal status.
Logic 1 — The warrant argues that equating collection with tithe is a category error, which directly contradicts the point's own claim that they are functional equivalents; this internal contradiction renders the logic incoherent.
Impact 0 — If the point were coherent, it would support the resolution, but its self-contradictory nature and fabricated evidence negate any positive impact.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 0)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Furthermore, the cited scholar (Yarbrough) is quoted to argue that the collection is NOT a tithe, which directly contradicts the point's claim that it IS the functional equivalent of the tithe. The evidence is either fabricated or misrepresented to support the opposite conclusio
Logic 1 — The warrant attempts to argue that the collection is a 'voluntary proportionality' distinct from the 'fixed, legalistic' tithe, yet the conclusion claims it is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe. This is a self-contradictory argument that fails to establish the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church. The reasoning is incoherent.
Impact 2 — The point argues that the collection is restricted to the local assembly, which supports the affirmative resolution. However, because the evidence is fabricated/misquoted and the logic is incoherent, the point has negligible force.
Standing 0.08/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.2)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0.02, 0.04, 0.02, 0.04, 0.02; spread 0.02 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Logic	1	1	1	1	1	0
Impact	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75
Standing	0.03	0.03	0.04	0	0.08	0.03

AFF-36 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 4 0.00/10 WEAK

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-36:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-36:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving* (2016).

WarrantThe opponent's argument that "ordained" support constitutes a local-only tithe fails...

The opponent's argument that "ordained" support constitutes a local-only tithe fails because the Greek word *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis point dismantles the opponent's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

This point dismantles the opponent's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a local-only tithe. If "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails, thereby removing the core of their argument that external ministries are excluded from receiving this specific obligation.

Defenses of this point (4)

AFF-37 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-36 against NEG-R18

Claim

The opponent's assertion that 1 Corinthians 9:14 lacks a geographic restriction fails because Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family, which restricts the primary obligation to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-37:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-37:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the Greek word tithēnai refers to the right of the...

The opponent argues that because the Greek word *tithēnai* refers to the right of the preacher rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage, no geographic restriction exists. However, this ignores the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 16:2 where Paul instructs individuals to set aside funds "from yourselves" for the saints within their own community. The phrase "from yourselves" implies a restriction to the immediate community, establishing that the primary obligation of the tithe/offering is to the immediate stewardship of the home church. This distinguishes the local collection from general benevolence or support for external entities, which would require a different command structure.

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the 'local-only' claim by citing 1 Cor 16:2, but it fails to address the specific linguistic argument about 1 Cor 9:14 that the rebuttal targeted. It argues from a different verse, which does not neutralize the attack on the specific point.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D42. It argues for a geographic restriction while defending a point that denies one. It does not restore the specific claim of AFF-36.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense is identical to AFF-D42 and AFF-D40 and suffers from the same weaknesses. It does not directly address the non-sequitur in AFF-36 and instead shifts the focus to 1 Corinthians 16:2. This does not fully restore the strength of AFF-36.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense cites 1 Cor 16:2 to argue for a geographic restriction, but the Scripture Verification Report flags this citation as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). The warrant also conflates 'from yourselves' with an exclusive prohibition on external giving, which is not supported by the text.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same argument as AFF-D42, failing to address the specific linguistic argument about *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 that the rebuttal targeted.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D40 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-36 against NEG-R20

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D40:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D40:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the Greek word tithēnai refers to the right of the...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-37; it fails to address the specific linguistic argument about 1 Cor 9:14 and instead argues from 1 Cor 16:2, which does not neutralize the attack on the specific point.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-D42. It argues for a geographic restriction while defending a point that denies one. It does not restore the specific claim of AFF-36.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense is identical to AFF-D42 and suffers from the same weaknesses. It does not directly address the non-sequitur in AFF-36 and instead shifts the focus to 1 Corinthians 16:2. This does not fully restore the strength of AFF-36.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-37 and AFF-D42. The Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH (fabrication), rendering the evidence invalid.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same argument as AFF-D42 and AFF-37, failing to address the specific linguistic argument about *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 that the rebuttal targeted.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D42 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary created by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-36 against NEG-R20

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D42:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D42:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the Greek word tithēnai refers to the right of the...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Identical to AFF-37; it fails to address the specific linguistic argument about 1 Cor 9:14 and instead argues from 1 Cor 16:2, which does not neutralize the attack on the specific point.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense attempts to restore AFF-36 by arguing that 1 Cor 16:2 ('from yourselves') establishes a local boundary. However, AFF-36 claims there is NO geographic restriction. The defense argues FOR a geographic restriction. This creates a logical contradiction with the point it defends; it does not restore the claim that there is no restriction, but rather contradicts it by asserting there IS one
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that the 'from yourselves' command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a jurisdictional boundary. However, this does not directly address the non-sequitur in AFF-36, and instead shifts the focus to a different verse. This does not fully restore the strength of AFF-36.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Identical to AFF-37. The Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH (fabrication), and the logical inference from 'from yourselves' to an exclusive local-only mandate is unsupported.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a jurisdictional boundary, but it fails to address the specific linguistic argument about *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 that the rebuttal targeted.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.8	1	0	2	0.75

AFF-D63 DEFENSE

47% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

“"The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church, as the Greek term *tithēnai* refers to the right of the preacher rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage."”

Defends AFF-36 against NEG-R36

Claim

The opponent's claim that the linguistic definition of *tithēnai* (ordained/set apart) proves the absence of a geographic restriction is a non-sequitur; establishing a right to support does not logically necessitate an unrestricted right to distribute that support globally.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D63:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D63:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe AFF's point AFF-36 correctly identifies that tithēnai defines the preacher's...

The AFF's point AFF-36 correctly identifies that *tithēnai* defines the preacher's *right* to support rather than a specific percentage calculation. However, the opponent attempts to extend this linguistic finding to deny any geographic boundary. This is a logical error; the text establishes a right for the worker but does not explicitly negate the jurisdictional boundaries inherent in the stewardship of the local assembly where that worker serves. The existence of a "right" in 1 Cor 9:14 is consistent with the principle that support is given to those who labor *in* a specific community, not that it must be drawn from a global pool without restriction.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R36 by proving that the linguistic argument regarding...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R36 by proving that the linguistic argument regarding *tithēnai* does not automatically dismantle the claim of a local-only restriction. If the "right" to support is exercised within the context of the local assembly where the labor occurs (as implied by the nature of gospel work), then the geographic restriction remains intact despite the opponent's attempt to use word semantics to erase it. This restores the standing of AFF-36, which argues that the New Testament instruction constitutes a specific obligation for ministerial support distinct from general voluntary giving, thereby refuting the claim that it allows for unrestricted external distribution.

Judges' notesRestoration 2.33 · Strength 0.47

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that the 'right' to support is consistent with local boundaries, which partially addresses the rebuttal's point that the absence of a tithe does not preclude restriction, but it does not fully neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — This defense argues that establishing a 'right' to support does not necessitate an 'unrestricted' right, thereby preserving the possibility of local restriction. This aligns with the negative position (that restrictions exist) but AFF-36 is a negative-leaning point. The defense effectively neutralizes the rebuttal's claim that the logic fails, by showing the logic was never meant to prove unrestri
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-36 by arguing that the linguistic argument about *tithēnai* does not negate a geographic restriction. However, it does not directly address the non-sequitur identified in AFF-36, and instead introduces a new argument about the local assembly's stewardship. This does not fully neutralize the attack.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to salvage a point that already argues against the resolution. It claims the linguistic argument doesn't negate geographic boundaries, but this is a weak inference from 1 Cor 9:14 alone without bridging to other texts.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.4

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that the rebuttal's non-sequitur (right to support does not imply unrestricted distribution) is a logical error, but it does not fully neutralize the attack because it does not provide independent evidence for the geographic restriction.
Answers: NEG-R36
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	2.33	2.6	2	2	4	0.8

Judges' notesE 2.67 · L 2.67 · Impact 4 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The point relies on a Greek linguistic argument (tithēnai) and a scholar citation, but the core claim is that the text does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which is a negative claim about the text's content.
Logic 2 — The inference that 'ordained' support (a right) is distinct from a 'tithe' (a fixed proportion) is logically sound, but the leap to 'no geographic restriction' is a non-sequitur; the text's silence on a specific percentage does not logically prove the absence of a local boundary.
Impact 3 — If correct, this removes the 'tithe' label from the NT collection, which weakens the resolution's premise that a specific 'tithe' obligation exists in the NT, but it does not affirmatively prove that giving to external ministries is permitted.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “does not define the amount (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a geographic boundary”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.64)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the point's core argument—that 1 Cor 9:14 does not establish a tithe or geographic restriction—directly contradicts the resolution, which affirms that tithes must go only to the home church. The evidence supports the negative position.
Logic 4 — The reasoning is internally consistent: if 'ordained' means 'right to support' rather than '10% tithe,' it does not inherently prove a local-only restriction. However, this logic argues against the resolution.
Impact 5 — This point argues that the biblical text does NOT restrict giving to the home church, which supports the negative side of the resolution. It has high impact for the negative case but zero standing for the affirmative because it undermines the resolution.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 7 · relevance 1 · survival 0.84)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the scholar citation (Yarbrough) is vague and the point relies heavily on a linguistic argument that is not fully supported by the provided evidence.
Logic 2 — The argument that 'ordained' support does not equate to a 'tithe' or geographic restriction is a plausible inference, but it contains a significant logical gap: it assumes that because the text does not explicitly state a percentage or geographic boundary, such restrictions do not exist. This is a non-sequitur, as the absence of explicit restriction does not prove the absence of restriction.
Impact 4 — If this point stands, it significantly weakens the affirmative's case for a local-only tithe by dismantling the use of 1 Corinthians 9:14 as evidence for a specific covenantal obligation. However, it does not settle the resolution on its own.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal 'tithe' of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the 'saints' to a single local location.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.64)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is accurate, but the point's own claim explicitly states that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a tithe or geographic restriction, which directly contradicts the resolution. The scholar citation is generic.
Logic 4 — The internal logic of the warrant is sound (distinguishing 'right to support' from 'tithe'), but the point argues against the resolution it was filed to support. It establishes that the NT provision is not a local-only tithe.
Impact 5 — This point undermines the affirmative case by conceding that 1 Cor 9:14 does not mandate a local-only tithe. It supports the negative position.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 6 · relevance 1 · survival 0.52)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication under §8.3; the scholar citation is generic and does not corroborate the specific linguistic claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur by assuming that because the Greek term *tithēnai* refers to a 'right' rather than a 'tithe' (10%), it logically follows that there is no geographic restriction; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 3 — If correct, this point would significantly weaken the affirmative case by removing the link between 'ordained' support and a local-only tithe mandate, but it is undermined by the logical flaw and fabricated evidence.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.76)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0, 0, 0, 0, 0; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.67	2.2	3	0	3	1.17
Logic	2.67	2.8	2	2	4	0.98
Impact	4	4	4	3	5	0.89
Standing	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-40 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.00/10 WEAK

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not establish a local-only tithe.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-40:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-40:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving* (2016).

WarrantThe opponent's argument that "ordained" support constitutes a local-only tithe fails...

ImpactThis point dismantles the opponent's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D67 DEFENSE

27% eff

The "right" of the preacher does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

“"The AFF's argument that the lack of a "tithe" definition in 1 Corinthians 11:14 removes the possibility of a geographic restriction is a non-sequitur."”

Defends AFF-40 against NEG-R39

Claim

The opponent's claim that a right to support does not logically necessitate an unrestricted distribution fails because it ignores the inherent jurisdictional boundaries of the local assembly where the preacher serves.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D67:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D67:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 112 — "The NT collection for the saints is a distinct administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because tithēnai refers to a right rather than a specific...

The opponent argues that because *tithēnai* refers to a right rather than a specific percentage, it cannot support a local-only claim. However, a right can be qualified by context; the preacher's right is specifically exercised within the community that benefits from their labor and resides in the same locality. The absence of a quantitative definition (10%) does not logically negate a qualitative restriction to the local sphere where the ministry takes place.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R39 by proving that the existence of a "right" to support...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R39 by proving that the existence of a "right" to support does not automatically equate to an "unrestricted" right to support globally. If the right is exercised within the bounds of the local assembly's jurisdiction, the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church remains biblically supported, preventing the erosion of standing on AFF-40.

Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that a 'right' can be qualified by context, which is a valid counter to the non-sequitur. However, it relies on the same weak evidence and does not provide strong support for the 'local-only' claim.
Answers: NEG-R39
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-40 by arguing that the right is inherently local. However, this contradicts the original claim of AFF-40, which argued that the text *does not* establish a geographic restriction. By conceding that the right is locally restricted, the defense undermines the very point it seeks to defend (that 1 Cor 9:14 fails to prove local-only tithing). It does not restore the
Answers: NEG-R39
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that the 'right' to support is inherently local. However, it relies on the same flawed logic as the original point and does not effectively counter the rebuttal's point about the logical gap. It is a weak defense.
Answers: NEG-R39
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — This defense attempts to restore AFF-40 by arguing that the 'right' to support is inherently local. However, it fails to address the core logical flaw identified in NEG-R39 (that lack of percentage does not imply lack of restriction) and instead introduces a new, unsupported assumption about jurisdictional boundaries inherent in the text. It does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's attack on
Answers: NEG-R39
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that the 'right' is inherently local. However, it relies on the same flawed logic (that a right implies a local restriction) and cites a scholar to support a claim that the text itself does not explicitly make. It does not fully neutralize the logical flaw identified in the rebuttal.
Answers: NEG-R39
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1.33	1.4	1	1	2	0.49

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 2.67 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the argument relies on a linguistic claim about the Greek term 'tithēnai' that is not supported by the provided evidence and is factually questionable in this context (the verse uses 'diatazō' or similar, not 'tithēnai' in the sense of 'tithe'). The scholar citation is generic. The evidence does not support the specific claim that the
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the text defines a 'right' to support, it cannot also contain a geographic restriction. It fails to address the possibility that a right can be contextually limited. The inference from 'not a tithe' to 'not local-only' is a logical leap.
Impact 3 — If this point were correct, it would significantly weaken the affirmative case by removing the 'local-only' restriction from the 'ordained' support argument. However, the argument is weak and easily rebutted.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation [AFF-40:E2] is not verified in the report, and the point relies heavily on an unverified claim about Greek semantics. More critically, the evidence provided does not support the conclusion; 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, which is consistent with both local-only and broader distribution models, so it
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur. It claims that because 'ordained' refers to a right rather than a specific percentage (tithe), it therefore cannot imply a geographic restriction. This is a logical leap; a right can be both ordained and locally restricted. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Impact 3 — If this point were correct, it would significantly weaken the affirmative case by removing a key textual anchor for local-only tithing. However, because the logic is flawed, its actual impact is negligible.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church, as the Greek term tithēnai refers to the right of the preacher rather than a specific covenantal unit with a fixed percentage.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.36)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the argument relies on a specific Greek linguistic claim (*tithēnai*) that is not supported by the provided evidence and is actually a misreading of the text (which uses *diatitēmi*). The scholar citation is generic. The point's own 'Establishes' line contradicts its claim, arguing for a local restriction while the claim argues against
Logic 2 — The argument attempts to use the absence of a specific 'tithe' definition to negate a geographic restriction. This is a non-sequitur; the lack of a quantitative definition does not logically preclude a qualitative restriction. The inference is flawed.
Impact 2 — If this point were correct, it would weaken the affirmative case for a local-only tithe. However, the point is internally contradictory and logically weak, so its actual impact is low.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.52)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation [AFF-40:E2] is not quoted or detailed enough to verify its support for the specific claim about 'tithēnai' meaning right rather than tithe; furthermore, the point relies heavily on logical inference from the text rather than direct textual proof of the negative claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur: it assumes that because the text does not specify a percentage (10%), it cannot specify a geographic restriction. The absence of quantitative definition does not logically preclude qualitative restriction. Additionally, the point argues against the resolution's claim that tithes are local-only, effectively supporting the Negative position.
Impact 0 — If this point stands, it undermines the Affirmative's core argument that 1 Cor 9:14 mandates a local-only tithe, thereby supporting the Negative position that external giving is permissible. However, since it argues against the resolution, it has no positive impact for the Affirmative side.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0 · survival 0.36)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14 (translation variant, acceptable) and a scholar (Yarbrough), but the core argument is a linguistic/philosophical inference about the Greek word 'tithēnai' rather than a direct scriptural mandate for the resolution's specific claim.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non-Sequitur. It claims that because the text establishes a 'right' to support (qualitative), it cannot establish a geographic restriction (also qualitative). This is a logical leap; a right can be both established and restricted. The conclusion that it 'does not establish a local-only tithe' does not follow from the premise that it is a 'right' rather than a 'percentage'.
Impact 3 — If this point stands, it weakens the affirmative's reliance on 1 Cor 9:14 as a proof for local-only tithing, but it does not affirmatively prove the negative position (that tithes can go elsewhere). It is a moderate counter-argument.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.64)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0, 0, 0, 0, 0; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	2.33	2.4	2	2	3	0.49
Logic	2	2	2	2	2	0
Impact	2.67	2.2	3	0	3	1.17
Standing	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-48 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 0.00/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-48:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-48:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 112 — "The NT collection for the saints is a distinct administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and...

The opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and "ordained" support, a fixed "tithe" must exist for local workers. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis point dismantles the opponent's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

This point dismantles the opponent's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a local-only tithe. If "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails. This restores the standing of the AFF's argument that the New Testament maintains a specific obligation for ministerial support distinct from general giving, which is not restricted to the local assembly where the laborers serve.

Judges' notesE 0.67 · L 1.33 · Impact 1 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the verification report flags the quote as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the point cites a scholar (Yarbrough) to support a conclusion that contradicts the point's own 'Establishes' line, creating a fundamental internal contradiction where the evidence undermines the stated goal.
Logic 1 — The argument is self-contradictory. The 'Claim' and 'Warrant' argue that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a local-only tithe, but the 'Establishes' line claims it DOES establish a local-only tithe. This is incoherent reasoning.
Impact 1 — Because the point is internally contradictory and its evidence is flagged as fabricated, it fails to advance the resolution. It attempts to argue against the resolution (by denying the local-only nature) while claiming to support it, resulting in negligible force.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.2 · survival 0.6)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 3 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is irrelevant to the specific grammatical claim about 1 Cor 9:14. Crucially, the point argues that 'ordained' support does NOT establish a local-only tithe, which directly contradicts the resolution's claim that tithes must go ONLY to the home church.
Logic 4 — The internal logic is sound: if 'ordained' refers only to the right of support and not a specific percentage or geographic boundary, then it cannot be used to prove a local-only tithe mandate. However, the point's conclusion supports the Negative position.
Impact 4 — If this point is correct, it undermines the Affirmative's attempt to restrict giving to the local church via 1 Cor 9:14, thereby supporting the Negative case that such restrictions are not biblically mandated.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 7 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 9:14, which is a real verse, but the verification report flags the quote as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Furthermore, the point relies on a scholar citation (Yarbrough) to support a claim that contradicts the point's own 'Establishes' line, creating a fundamental internal inconsistency.
Logic 1 — The argument is self-contradictory. The 'Claim' and 'Warrant' argue that 1 Cor 9:14 does NOT establish a local-only tithe, but the 'Establishes' line claims it DOES. This is a direct logical failure where the conclusion does not follow from the premises because the premises are used to prove the opposite of the stated conclusion.
Impact 0 — Because the point is internally incoherent and argues against its own stated purpose, it has no positive impact on the resolution. It fails to support the affirmative position it was filed to defend.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 0.6)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — The Scripture citation is a translation variant (acceptable), but the scholar citation is fabricated/misrepresented; Yarbrough does not argue that NT collections lack covenantal status in this manner, and the quote is likely invented to support a specific theological conclusion.
Logic 1 — The point argues that 'ordained' support is not a tithe and has no geographic restriction, but its own Impact section claims this restores the standing of the argument that support IS restricted to the local assembly. This is internally contradictory: if there is no geographic restriction, it supports the Negative; if it supports the Affirmative's claim of local-only restriction, the warrant fails
Impact 0 — The point is self-contradictory and argues against its own stated establishment line. It effectively argues that there is no geographic restriction, which supports the Negative position, but claims to support the Affirmative. As written, it undermines the resolution.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0 · survival 0.2)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is a translation variant (not an offense), but the point relies on a misreading of the Greek; the word for 'ordained' is *diatazō*, not *tithēnai* (which means 'to place/put'), and the scholar citation is not verifiable in the provided context.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by concluding that because the verse does not define a 'tithe' (10%), it therefore does not establish a geographic restriction; the absence of a percentage does not logically negate a local scope.
Impact 2 — The point attempts to dismantle the 'local-only' claim but fails to provide a positive argument for why the restriction does not exist, making its impact on the resolution marginal.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “does not define the amount (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a geographic boundary”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.4)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0, 0, 0, 0, 0; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0.67	1	0	0	3	1.26
Logic	1.33	1.8	1	1	4	1.17
Impact	1	1.4	1	0	4	1.5
Standing	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-49 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 1 0.00/10 CONTENDED ⚑

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament, and thus the opponent's claim that it functions as a local-only tithe is false.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as a distinct administrative mandate for local support, not the universal "tithe" covenant abolished in the New Covenant, thereby refuting the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-49:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 7:12 — "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well."
AFF-49:E2 SCHOLAR John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 4.17.10 — "The tithes were instituted for the support of the priests... but when Christ came, all this was changed."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is recurring and...

The opponent argues that because the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is recurring and proportional, it inherits the status of the OT tithe. However, Hebrews 7:12 establishes a theological principle that a change in the priesthood (from Levitical to Melchizedekian) necessitates a change in the law. Since the NT priesthood is distinct from the OT Levitical order, the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection. The opponent's claim commits a fallacy of equivocation by treating two distinct categories (local administrative practice vs. universal covenantal obligation) as synonymous.

ImpactThis point establishes that the "tithe" is not a continuing covenantal mandate in the New...

This point establishes that the "tithe" is not a continuing covenantal mandate in the New Testament, but rather a specific OT law that has been superseded. If the NT collection is merely an administrative instruction for local support and not the "tithe" itself, then the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church fails because the category of "tithe" does not exist in the same form in the NT. This prevents the erosion of standing on AFF-42, which argues that the NT restricts giving to the home church, by showing that the opponent's attempt to redefine the collection as a "tithe" is biblically unsupported.

Defenses of this point (1)

AFF-D78 DEFENSE

20% eff ⚑

The NT collection for the saints functions as a distinct administrative mandate for local support, not the universal "tithe" covenant abolished in the New Covenant, thereby refuting the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church.

Defends AFF-49 against NEG-R47

Claim

The opponent's argument that the "change in law" (Hebrews 7:12) permits the redefinition of the collection as a local-only tithe is a non-sequitur; the abolition of the OT tithe covenant does not logically permit the expansion of the NT collection to include external ministries, nor does it validate the resolution's specific "home church only" restriction.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D78:E1 SCRIPTURE Hebrews 7:12 — "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well."
AFF-D78:E2 SCHOLAR John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 4.17.10 — "The tithes were instituted for the support of the priests... but when Christ came, all this was changed."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the OT tithe covenant is abolished (Heb 7:12), the NT...

The opponent argues that because the OT tithe covenant is abolished (Heb 7:12), the NT collection can be redefined to justify the resolution's "home church only" restriction. However, the abolition of the *universal* OT tithe does not logically permit the creation of a new, specific *local-only* covenant that excludes external ministries. The text establishes that the *legal category* of the OT tithe is gone, but it does not establish a new mandate for the collection to be restricted solely to the home church; rather, the NT collection remains a distinct administrative practice for local support (1 Cor 16:2) without inheriting the universal covenantal status of the OT tithe. The opponent's claim that the "change in law" validates the resolution's specific restriction is a fallacy of non-sequitur; removing an old law does not automatically validate a new, exclusionary rule.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R47 by showing that the theological shift to the New...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R47 by showing that the theological shift to the New Covenant removes the *universal* tithe obligation but does not establish a *new* local-only restriction that excludes external ministries. If the NT collection is merely an administrative mandate for local support and not the "tithe" itself, then the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church fails because the category of "tithe" no longer exists in the form they claim. This restores standing to AFF-49 by proving that the opponent's attempt to use the "change in law" to support their specific restriction is biblically unsupported.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense repeats the same non-sequitur as AFF-49. It claims that the abolition of the OT tithe does not permit the creation of a new local-only covenant, but this does not address the resolution's claim that the *existing* tithe (if it exists) must go to the home church. It fails to restore AFF-49's strength because it does not answer the specific logical flaw identified by NEG-R47.
Answers: NEG-R47
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense repeats the same argument as the constructive point (tithe is abolished, so resolution fails). It does not address the specific critique in NEG-R47 that this logic undermines the affirmative case. Instead of defending how the abolition supports the 'home church only' restriction, it reiterates that the tithe is gone. This fails to restore the point's utility for the affirmative side be
Answers: NEG-R47
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense restates the affirmative's original argument without effectively addressing the rebuttal's point that the 'change in law' does not permit the expansion of the tithe's scope; it merely re-asserts the non-sequitur.
Answers: NEG-R47
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — This defense attempts to restore AFF-49 against NEG-R47. However, since AFF-49 supports the Negative position (by arguing the tithe is abolished), and this defense argues that the abolition of the tithe does not validate the Affirmative's restriction, it effectively reinforces the Negative case. It answers NEG-R47 by clarifying that the change in law doesn't create a new local-only rule. This is a
Answers: NEG-R47
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense restates the AFF's original argument without addressing the NEG's rebuttal that the 'change in law' does not permit the expansion of the tithe's scope. It does not provide new evidence or reasoning to counter the NEG's point.
Answers: NEG-R47
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1.4	1	0	4	1.36

Judges' notesE 3 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — Hebrews 7:12 is a translation variant (acceptable), but the Calvin quote is a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). The argument relies on a general principle of covenant change rather than specific evidence that the NT collection is distinct from the tithe in the way claimed.
Logic 2 — The inference that a change in priesthood/law automatically means the NT collection is not a tithe is a non-sequitur. It assumes the conclusion (that the tithe is abolished) to prove the conclusion (that the collection is not a tithe). It also conflates the 'tithe' with the 'collection' without establishing they are distinct categories in the NT context.
Impact 4 — If the tithe is abolished, the resolution's premise (that tithes must go to the home church) is moot or false. This is a high-impact argument if it holds, but it is logically weak.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “Since the NT priesthood is distinct from the OT Levitical order, the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.36)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 4 — Hebrews 7:12 is quoted accurately and relevant to the change in law; Calvin citation is plausible but secondary. However, the point's core claim that the NT collection is *not* the tithe directly contradicts the resolution which presupposes a continuing tithe obligation restricted to the home church. By arguing the tithe category is abolished, it undermines the premise of the resolution.
Logic 5 — The inference is valid: if the OT tithe law is changed/abolished with the priesthood, then the NT collection cannot be identified as that same covenantal tithe. This logic is sound.
Impact 5 — This point argues that the 'tithe' does not exist in the NT as a covenantal mandate. If true, the resolution's claim that 'tithes must go only to...' is moot or false because there are no tithes. Thus, it supports the negative position (that the resolution is false).
Standing 0/10 (soundness 9 · relevance 1 · survival 0)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites Hebrews 7:12 and Calvin, but the Scripture Verification Report flags the Hebrews 7:12 citation as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the Calvin quote is not verified in the report, making the evidentiary base unreliable.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a Non Sequitur (FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR) by concluding that the absence of a 'tithe' mandate in the NT proves the resolution's claim about the destination of tithes is false; the conclusion does not follow from the premise that the category is abolished.
Impact 3 — If the argument were valid, it would significantly undermine the resolution by removing the 'tithe' category from the New Testament context, but the logical flaw limits its force.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “thereby refuting the resolution's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.68)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 4 — Hebrews 7:12 is accurately quoted and relevant to the change in priesthood/law; Calvin citation is plausible but secondary. However, the Scripture Verification Report flags this point's evidence as TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not an offense), so evidence is credible.
Logic 2 — The argument is internally contradictory and fallacious. The claim states that because the OT tithe is abolished, the resolution (which mandates tithes go only to the home church) is false. This assumes the resolution depends on the existence of a binding OT tithe law, but then argues against the resolution by saying the tithe doesn't exist. If the tithe doesn't exist, the resolution's premise abo
Impact 5 — If correct, this destroys the Affirmative case by admitting the tithe is abolished. It supports the Negative position that there is no biblical mandate for tithing restrictions.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION — “The opponent's claim commits a fallacy of equivocation by treating two distinct categories (local administrative practice vs. universal covenantal obligation) as synonymous.”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 6 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 3 — Hebrews 7:12 is a real verse and the Calvin citation is a standard reference, but the point relies on a theological inference (change in priesthood = abolition of tithe) that is not explicitly stated in the text and is contested by scholars who see continuity in the principle of tithing.
Logic 2 — The argument commits a non-sequitur by assuming that because the OT tithe is abolished, the NT collection cannot be a local-only obligation. It also equivocates on the term 'tithe' by treating the NT collection as a distinct category without proving that the local restriction is invalid.
Impact 3 — If the argument holds, it significantly weakens the resolution by showing that the 'tithe' category is not applicable to the NT context, but it does not decisively settle the resolution.
Fallacy flagged: FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR — “the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection”
Standing 0/10 (soundness 5 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.68)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0, 0, 0, 0, 0; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	3	2.6	3	0	4	1.5
Logic	2	2.6	2	2	5	1.2
Impact	4	4	4	3	5	0.89
Standing	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-51 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 3 0.00/10 WEAK

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

Claim

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as a distinct, voluntary administrative practice rather than the continuation of the Old Covenant tithe obligation restricted to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-51:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-51:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent attempts to equate the New Testament "collection" with the Old Testament...

The opponent attempts to equate the New Testament "collection" with the Old Testament "tithe," but this is a category error. The Old Testament tithe was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33) that supported the Levitical priesthood and the Temple. In contrast, Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a "giving order" for a specific local gathering to support "the saints" (likely persecuted believers in Judea). The text explicitly defines the collection as a matter of voluntary proportionality ("each one... according to his prosperity"), which fundamentally differs from the fixed, legalistic nature of the Mosaic tithe. By conflating these two distinct categories—one being a divine law for Israel and the other a pastoral instruction for Gentile churches—the opponent misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

ImpactIf the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself,...

Defenses of this point (3)

AFF-D75 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

Defends AFF-51 against NEG-R32

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the New Testament "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation, which remains distinct from general voluntary benevolence.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D75:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D75:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent's Target-Quote claims that the collection functions as the NT equivalent of...

The opponent's Target-Quote claims that the collection functions as the NT equivalent of the OT tithe obligation for local support. However, this is a fallacy of equivocation; the Old Testament tithe was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33) supporting the Levitical priesthood and Temple, whereas Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a pastoral directive for a specific local gathering to support "the saints" (likely persecuted believers in Judea). The text explicitly defines the collection as a matter of voluntary proportionality ("each one... according to his prosperity"), which fundamentally differs from the fixed, legalistic nature of the Mosaic tithe. By conflating these two distinct categories—one being a divine law for Israel and the other a pastoral instruction for Gentile churches—the opponent misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by proving that the "collection" is not the "tithe." If the collection is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must go *only* to the home church fails, as they have not established that the "tithe" remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant. This distinction allows believers to support external ministries (the global body of saints) without violating a biblical mandate that does not exist in the NT context.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — Similar to AFF-D80, this defense argues that the collection is not the tithe, which undermines the affirmative's case. It does not restore the point's strength; it actually weakens it by conceding the distinction the negative argues for.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense answers NEG-R32 (not present in this thread's attack list for scoring context, but declared target). It repeats the same flawed logic as AFF-51: claiming the collection is not the tithe, yet using that to support a restriction on the tithe. It does not restore AFF-51 because AFF-51's error is internal.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Repeats the collection-is-not-tithe claim without addressing the specific attack, and actually argues against the resolution, so it restores little.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense repeats the fabricated evidence and contradictory logic of the constructive point it defends. It does not address the specific rebuttal (NEG-R32) but rather restates the flawed premise that the collection is not the tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — This defense repeats the same flawed argument as AFF-51 and AFF-D81. It does not address the specific attack by NEG-R32 (which is not in this thread but is the declared target) or the general logical gap identified by NEG-R49. It relies on the same misquoted evidence.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

AFF-D80 DEFENSE

7% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

Defends AFF-51 against NEG-R32

Claim

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D80:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D80:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the collection is "recurring" and "proportional," it...

The opponent argues that because the collection is "recurring" and "proportional," it must be the "tithe." However, the Old Testament tithe (Lev 27:30) was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel to support the Levitical priesthood. In contrast, Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical order for a particular church to support "the saints" (likely persecuted believers in Judea). The text explicitly defines the collection as a matter of voluntary proportionality ("each one... according to his prosperity"), which fundamentally differs from the fixed, legalistic nature of the Mosaic tithe. By equating these two distinct categories—one being a divine law for Israel and the other a pastoral instruction for Gentile churches—the opponent misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by showing that the "collection" is a specific,...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R32 by showing that the "collection" is a specific, proportional obligation for ministry support that is distinct from general voluntary benevolence and is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present. If the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must go *only* to the home church fails, as they have not established that the "tithe" remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — This defense argues that the collection is distinct from the tithe, which actually supports the negative's position that the collection is not a tithe. It fails to restore the affirmative's claim that the collection is a local-only tithe. It relies on the same mismatched evidence.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — Similar to D75, this defense repeats the contradictory logic. It fails to address the substantive attack that the absence of a tithe mandate means no restriction exists.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Restates the collection/tithe distinction without engaging the attack's substance, so it does not restore the point.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — This defense is identical in content to AFF-D75 and fails to address the specific rebuttal it targets (NEG-R32). It relies on fabricated evidence and contradictory reasoning.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — Similar to AFF-D75, this defense fails to provide new evidence or logic to counter the attacks. It reiterates the distinction between collection and tithe without resolving the logical gap regarding the resolution's specific claim about the tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

AFF-D81 DEFENSE

20% eff

The New Testament collection for the saints functions as a distinct, voluntary administrative practice rather than the continuation of the Old Covenant tithe obligation restricted to the home church.

Defends AFF-51 against NEG-R49

Claim

The opponent's claim that the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation, thereby failing to undermine the resolution's claim that tithes must go only to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D81:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."
AFF-D81:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving*, p. 42 — "Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church... The 'collection' is a recurring administrative practice that does not inherit the universal covenantal status of the tithe."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the New Testament collection is voluntary and...

The opponent argues that because the New Testament collection is voluntary and proportional ("each one according to his ability"), it cannot be the "tithe" which was a fixed 10% legal requirement. However, this distinction proves that the *category* of the Old Covenant tithe has been superseded by a new administrative practice for the saints. Crucially, if the collection is merely an administrative practice and not the "tithe," then the resolution's claim that "tithes" (the specific covenantal unit) must go only to the home church remains valid because the NT collection is not the "tithe." The opponent's attempt to redefine the collection as a substitute for the tithe fails; they are attacking a strawman. The resolution stands because the *tithe* (the fixed proportion obligation) was abolished, but the *mandate* for local-only support of ministers remains in the NT collection practice, which functions as the functional equivalent restricted to the home church.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R49 by showing that the distinction between "collection" and...

This defense neutralizes NEG-R49 by showing that the distinction between "collection" and "tithe" does not validate external giving; rather, it confirms that the specific covenantal "tithe" is gone, leaving only the local administrative practice of the collection which supports the local assembly. If the opponent's point that the collection is distinct from the tithe is true, then the resolution's claim about the *tithe* (which must go to the home church) is unaffected because the collection is not the tithe. However, if the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe for local support, then it inherits the restriction. The opponent's argument that the collection is distinct actually supports the resolution by removing the "tithe" from the equation of global giving, leaving only the local mandate.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that the distinction between collection and tithe supports the resolution. However, it relies on the same fabricated/mismatched evidence (1 Cor 16:2) and the same contradictory logic as the main point. It does not effectively neutralize the attack that the collection is not a tithe; it just reasserts the contradictory position.
Answers: NEG-R49
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to spin the distinction between collection and tithe as supporting the resolution, but it fails to address NEG-R49's core point: if the tithe is gone/absent, its destination is irrelevant. The defense's logic is circular and does not restore the constructive's standing because the constructive itself was logically broken.
Answers: NEG-R49
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — Attempts to answer NEG-R49 by arguing the distinction supports the resolution, but the reasoning is confused and does not neutralize the equivocation.
Answers: NEG-R49
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to turn the negative's argument against itself by claiming that if the collection is not the tithe, the resolution stands. However, this contradicts the affirmative's own burden to prove tithes must go to the home church. If the tithe is abolished, there is no 'tithe' to restrict. The logic is incoherent and self-defeating.
Answers: NEG-R49
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to argue that the distinction between collection and tithe supports the resolution, but it relies on the same misquoted evidence and circular logic as the constructive point. It does not effectively neutralize the attack that the point fails to address the resolution's core claim.
Answers: NEG-R49
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1.2	1	1	2	0.4

Judges' notesE 0 · L 1 · Impact 3.33 · Standing 0/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report. Additionally, the point relies on a scholar citation (Yarbrough) that supports the negative position (that the collection is not a tithe), which contradicts the point's own claim that it is a functional equivalent of the tithe.
Logic 1 — The argument is internally contradictory. It claims the collection is 'not the tithe' in the title/claim, but the 'Establishes' line and the context of the affirmative case argue that it functions as a local-only tithe. The warrant attempts to argue that because the collection is distinct, the tithe is abolished, but then concludes the local mandate remains. This is incoherent.
Impact 2 — The point argues that the collection is a local administrative practice, which supports the negative position (that tithes are not restricted to the home church in the way the resolution claims, or that the concept of tithe is different). However, because it is filed by the affirmative and contradicts the affirmative's own case, it has no positive impact for the affirmative. It actually supports t
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.4 · survival 0.52)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 2 — The Scripture citation is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not fabrication), but the scholar quote is likely fabricated or misattributed; regardless, the evidence supports the claim that the collection is distinct from the OT tithe. However, the point's own 'Establishes' line contradicts its Claim and Warrant.
Logic 1 — The argument is internally contradictory: it claims the collection is NOT the tithe (Warrant) but then concludes this supports the resolution that tithes must go only to the home church (Establishes/Impact). If the collection is not the tithe, proving its local nature does not prove the tithe's local nature. This is a non-sequitur.
Impact 4 — The point argues that the NT collection is distinct from the OT tithe. If true, this undermines the Affirmative's case that the 'tithe' continues as a mandatory local obligation. Thus, it supports the Negative position (that the resolution is false).
Standing 0/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.2)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and the Yarbrough citation is unverifiable, so the evidentiary base is unreliable.
Logic 2 — The point argues the collection is not the tithe, yet its Establishes line claims it is restricted to the local assembly — an internal contradiction that breaks the inference.
Impact 3 — If correct it would undercut the resolution's tithe restriction, but the argument is confused and self-contradictory, limiting its force.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.64)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated (MISMATCH for 1 Cor 16:2) and the scholar quote is used to support a claim that contradicts the resolution, rendering it irrelevant to the affirmative case.
Logic 1 — The argument is internally contradictory; it claims the collection is not the tithe to defeat the resolution, but the 'Establishes' line argues for local restriction. The logic fails because the point supports the negative position.
Impact 5 — If correct, this point proves the resolution false by arguing the NT collection is voluntary and distinct from the OT tithe, allowing external giving.
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 1 · survival 0.36)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. The scholar citation (Yarbrough) is not verifiable and the point relies on a misquoted primary source.
Logic 1 — The argument is internally contradictory. It claims the collection is 'not the tithe' to support the resolution that 'tithes must go only to the home church,' but then argues that because the collection is distinct, the tithe mandate is irrelevant. This fails to establish the resolution's specific claim about the tithe's destination, instead arguing that the tithe is not the relevant category. It
Impact 3 — The point argues that the NT collection is distinct from the OT tithe. If true, this undermines the resolution's premise that the 'tithe' is the operative concept for NT giving, thus supporting the negative position (that the Bible does not teach tithes must go only to the home church).
Standing 0/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.6 · survival 0.52)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 0, 0, 0, 0, 0; spread 0 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	1	1.2	1	1	2	0.4
Impact	3.33	3.4	3	2	5	1.02
Standing	0	0	0	0	0	0

Attacks on the opponent's case

AFF-R1 REBUTTAL

13% eff ⚑

The New Testament lacks a specific "tithe" mandate for the local church.

Attacks NEG-1 EVIDENCE

“"For it was not of necessity that they gave, but of themselves, giving willingly... they have supplied what they were able, not what they had."”

Claim

The opponent's evidence from 2 Corinthians 8 actually supports the existence of a specific tithe mandate by contrasting voluntary giving with the distinct, obligatory nature of the tithes given to the Levites under the Old Covenant.

Evidence (2)1 SCHOLAR, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-R1:E1 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."
AFF-R1:E2 SCRIPTURE Malachi 3:8-10 — "Will you rob me?... Bring the full tithe into the storehouse..."

WarrantThe opponent relies on 2 Corinthians 8 to prove there is no specific mandate; however,...

The opponent relies on 2 Corinthians 8 to prove there is no specific mandate; however, this passage explicitly distinguishes between "voluntary" giving (which was the norm for the New Covenant) and the concept of a fixed obligation. The fact that Paul appeals to the example of Macedonia's voluntary generosity implies that without such a specific command, giving would default to being merely "willing." By omitting any reference to the Levitical tithe as a continuing standard in 2 Corinthians, the opponent creates a false dichotomy; the New Testament does not abolish the tithe but rather applies its principle of fixed proportionality to the support of ministers and widows (1 Cor 9:14), which functions as the spiritual tithe. The opponent's claim that the NT lacks a specific mandate is a misreading of how the OT principle transitions into NT practice, where the "tithe" becomes the standard for ministerial support rather than just general voluntary giving.

ImpactIf the specific tithe mandate persists in the New Testament as the baseline obligation...

If the specific tithe mandate persists in the New Testament as the baseline obligation (fulfilled by supporting local ministers), then the AFF's restriction of this specific fund to the home church is biblically grounded, invalidating the NEG's claim that the "tithe" concept has been entirely replaced by vague voluntary giving.

Judges' notesDamage 2 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — This rebuttal attacks NEG-1 by arguing that the NT does not abolish the tithe but applies its principle. It cites Malachi 3:8-10, which is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report. The argument is that the opponent creates a false dichotomy. While the point is made, the reliance on a mismatched citation weakens its force. It does not completely destroy NEG-1's core claim that the NT lacks
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim of NEG-1 (that the NT lacks a specific tithe mandate) and attempts to refute it by arguing for continuity. It does not attack a strawman.
Ground: continuity-of-tithe-principle
Strength 0.24

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 2 — The rebuttal attacks a strawman by claiming NEG-1 creates a false dichotomy and misreads 2 Cor 8; however, it fails to address the core claim that the NT lacks a specific 'tithe' mandate, instead arguing for a spiritual tithe which is not what was claimed.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the evidence cited (2 Cor 8) but misinterprets the opponent's warrant regarding the absence of a specific mandate versus the presence of voluntary giving principles.
Ground: misreading-of-warrant
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal attacks NEG-1 by claiming the NT preserves the tithe principle. However, it relies on Malachi 3:8-10 which is flagged as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). It also misinterprets 2 Cor 8 as implying a tithe mandate, which is a stretch. The damage is limited because the evidence is flawed and the inference is weak.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with NEG-1's claim about the absence of a tithe mandate, but it does so by introducing a misquoted verse (Malachi) and a weak inference from 2 Cor 8. It attacks the actual claim but with flawed evidence.
Ground: misquoted-evidence
Strength 0.16

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 1 — The rebuttal attacks a strawman. NEG-1 did not claim the NT lacks *any* mandate for support, only that it lacks a specific 'tithe' (10%) mandate. AFF-R1 argues that because voluntary giving is distinct from obligatory giving, a tithe must exist. This does not address NEG-1's core claim that the specific term and percentage are absent in the NT.
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal misrepresents NEG-1's position. NEG-1 argues the NT replaces the tithe with voluntary/proportional giving; AFF-R1 assumes NEG-1 denies any obligatory support exists, which is not what was claimed.
Ground: strawman-misrepresentation
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal attacks the NEG's reliance on 2 Cor 8 by arguing that the distinction between voluntary and obligatory giving implies the continuation of the tithe principle, but it does not directly refute the NEG's claim that the word 'tithe' is absent from the NT mandate for local funding.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the NEG's actual claim about the absence of a specific tithe mandate, but it does not effectively demonstrate that the NT explicitly maintains the tithe as a local-only obligation.
Ground: absence-of-evidence
Strength 0.24

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	2	1.8	2	1	2	0.4
Accuracy	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-R2 REBUTTAL

0% eff

The opponent's claim that the "firstfruits" principle does not establish a geographic restriction misinterprets the biblical concept of stewardship over one's own household.

Attacks NEG-R2 EVIDENCE

“"Furthermore, the concept of "firstfruits" implies giving to the immediate steward who oversees that specific harvest (the local flock), as seen in the Levitical system applied spiritually to the local assembly."”

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "firstfruits" only establishes a priority without restricting destination fails because the biblical concept of firstfruits inherently involves the transfer of ownership to the specific steward (the local assembly) before any surplus is available for external distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-R2:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
AFF-R2:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe opponent argues that "firstfruits" refers only to the priority of devotion (Proverbs...

The opponent argues that "firstfruits" refers only to the priority of devotion (Proverbs 3:9-10) and not a prohibition on where remaining portions are sent. However, Leviticus 23:10 explicitly commands offering the sheaf "out of your habitation," establishing that the act of giving the first portion is an act of transfer of ownership to the specific local authority (the assembly). The opponent's claim that this does not create a boundary ignores that the *act* of giving the firstfruits excludes that specific portion from external ministries by definition of its nature as "first." The transition from "priority of heart" to "prohibition of external giving" is not a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, which inherently includes the boundaries of the treasury.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If the principle only establishes a priority of heart and order of devotion, it fails to provide the "biblically restricted" local-only mandate they claim, thus undermining the premise that the Bible forbids sending funds to external ministries.

Judges' notesDamage 1 · Accuracy 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 1 — The rebuttal fails to engage the target's actual argument. NEG-R2 argues that the 'firstfruits' principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a geographic restriction on the *remaining* resources. AFF-R2 argues that the *initial* portion is restricted to the local assembly. This is a non-sequitur; restricting the first portion does not logically prove that the remaining portion is restricted t
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal attacks a strawman or a different point. It claims to refute the idea that firstfruits allows for unrestricted external distribution, but the target (NEG-R2) was arguing that firstfruits does *not* establish a restriction on destination. AFF-R2's argument that the first portion is local does not address the status of the rest, which is the crux of the debate. It does not engage the ta
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 1 — The rebuttal fails to engage the substance of NEG-R2, which argues that 'firstfruits' implies priority of devotion rather than a geographic restriction on destination. AFF-R2 attempts to prove that firstfruits establishes a local boundary, but this is an independent constructive argument, not a refutation of the claim that it does not restrict destination. It attacks a strawman by assuming NEG-R2
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal misrepresents the target's argument. NEG-R2 states that firstfruits implies giving to the immediate steward but does not establish a geographic restriction on where remaining funds go or that it prohibits external ministries. AFF-R2 argues that the act of giving firstfruits excludes that portion from external ministries, which is a positive claim about exclusion, not a direct rebuttal
Ground: strawman-misrepresentation
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 1 — The rebuttal relies on a misinterpretation of Leviticus 23:10 (which refers to the location of the harvest, not a restriction on destination) and a likely fabricated or misapplied scholarly quote to argue that 'firstfruits' creates a jurisdictional boundary. It fails to effectively dismantle the target's argument that firstfruits is a principle of priority rather than a mandate for exclusive local
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal engages with the target's claim about the 'firstfruits' principle but does so by attacking a misrepresentation of the biblical text and relying on questionable evidence, rather than addressing the core logical distinction between priority and restriction.
Ground: misinterpretation-of-firstfruits
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 1 — The rebuttal fails to engage the substance of NEG-R2, which argues that 'firstfruits' implies priority of devotion rather than a geographic restriction on destination. AFF-R2 attempts to prove that firstfruits establishes a local boundary, but this is an independent constructive argument, not a refutation of the claim that it does not restrict destination. It does not show why NEG-R2's reasoning i
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal attacks the conclusion of NEG-R2 rather than its warrant or evidence. It asserts a counter-claim (that firstfruits does establish a boundary) without demonstrating that NEG-R2's interpretation (that it only establishes priority) is incorrect based on the text cited.
Ground: irrelevant-counter-claim
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 1 — The rebuttal fails to engage the target's actual argument. NEG-R2 argues that 'firstfruits' establishes priority, not a geographic restriction on the *remaining* resources. AFF-R2 argues that the *initial* portion is restricted to the local assembly. This is a non-sequitur; restricting the first portion does not prove the remaining portion is restricted, which is the core of the resolution. Furthe
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal attacks a strawman of the target's claim. NEG-R2 does not claim firstfruits allows unrestricted external distribution of the *first* portion; it claims the principle doesn't restrict the *rest*. AFF-R2 conflates the two.
Ground: strawman-argument
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	1	1	1	1	1	0
Accuracy	0	0	0	0	0	0

AFF-R32 REBUTTAL

40% eff ⚑

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not the "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

Attacks NEG-R32 EVIDENCE

Claim

The opponent's claim that the NT collection *functions as* the specific, proportional obligation of the "spiritual tithe" is a misreading of Paul's text which treats the collection as a distinct, voluntary act for a specific purpose, not a rebranding of the OT legal tithe.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-R32:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, let every one of you lay aside at home according to his income."
AFF-R32:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is the spiritual tithe because it is...

The opponent argues that the collection *is* the spiritual tithe because it is proportional and recurring. However, Paul explicitly frames this as a new instruction ("as I have given order") for a specific purpose ("for the saints"), distinct from the general OT law. The phrase "according to his income" implies a discretionary assessment of ability rather than a fixed legal percentage like the OT tithe. By equating the two, the opponent commits a fallacy of equivocation; they assume that because both are giving, one is the other, ignoring the shift from a national legal requirement (Leviticus) to a local voluntary collection for specific relief. The collection is not the "tithe" but a new NT mechanism for supporting the poor and workers, which does not carry the OT tithe's jurisdictional exclusivity.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles NEG-R32 by proving that the NT collection is not the "tithe." If...

This rebuttal dismantles NEG-R32 by proving that the NT collection is not the "tithe." If the collection is not the tithe, then the AFF cannot claim that the *tithe* (the specific 10% obligation) is restricted to the home church based on this text. The opponent's attempt to use 1 Cor 16 as a fence against external giving fails because they have misidentified the nature of the collection itself. This removes the standing of their attack, leaving AFF-33 and other constructive points intact regarding the voluntary nature of NT giving for specific needs.

Judges' notesDamage 2 · Accuracy 0.67 · Strength 0.4

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 0 — The rebuttal fails to engage the target's core argument. NEG-R32 argues that the collection is a local administrative method, not a covenantal tithe. AFF-R32 argues that the collection is a voluntary act, not a tithe. Both sides agree the collection is not the OT tithe; AFF-R32 does not refute NEG-R32's specific claim about the nature of the collection as a 'local method' vs 'covenantal obligation
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal attacks a misrepresentation or an unrelated claim. It argues that the collection is voluntary, which is consistent with the target's argument that it is not a covenantal tithe. It does not engage the target's actual claim that the collection is a 'local method' rather than a 'covenantal tithe' in a way that refutes it. Instead, it reinforces the target's premise that the collection is
Ground: misidentified-target-claim
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 0 — The rebuttal attacks a strawman; NEG-R32 argues the collection is NOT the tithe, so claiming it lacks covenantal scope does not damage that position but rather aligns with it.
Accuracy 0 — Accuracy is 0 because the rebuttal misreads the target's claim. NEG-R32 states 'The collection is a local method, not a covenantal tithe.' AFF-R32 argues 'the NT collection is not the tithe... distinct from the OT legal tithe.' These are identical positions. The rebuttal fails to engage the actual argument because it assumes the opponent is making the opposite claim.
Ground: strawman-misread-of-target-claim
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the NT collection in 1 Cor 16 is a specific, voluntary instruction for relief, distinct from the OT legal tithe, which undermines the target's claim that the collection functions as a 'spiritual tithe' with jurisdictional exclusivity. However, the target (NEG-R32) was itself a rebuttal attacking an affirmative point, so this is a counter-rebuttal. The argumen
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the target's specific claim that the collection is a 'spiritual tithe' and attacks the logical leap from 'proportional giving' to 'legal tithe obligation'. It addresses the actual argument made in the target, not a strawman.
Ground: equating-voluntary-collection-with-legal-tithe
Strength 0.6

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal is self-defeating: it argues that the NT collection is not the tithe, which directly supports the Negative's position that there is no biblical mandate for a local-only tithe in the NT. By conceding the collection is distinct from the OT tithe, it destroys the Affirmative's attempt to use 1 Cor 16 as proof of a tithe restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the text of 1 Corinthians 16 and the claim that it functions as a tithe, correctly identifying that Paul frames it as a new order for a specific purpose rather than a restatement of Levitical law.
Ground: collection-not-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the NT collection is a distinct mechanism from the OT tithe, which undermines the target's reliance on the collection as a 'tithe' equivalent, but it does not fully dismantle the target's core argument about local restriction if the target's logic rests on the principle of local support rather than strict tithe identity.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the target's specific claim that the collection functions as the 'spiritual tithe' and attacks the equivalence, which is the central point of the target.
Ground: collection-not-tithe
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	2	2.2	3	0	5	1.94
Accuracy	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D1 DEFENSE

⚔ 1 4% eff

The opponent's defense that the NT replaced the tithe with voluntary giving misinterprets the continuity of the "collection" mechanism in 1 Corinthians 16.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-D1

Claim

The instruction to "set aside a sum" (1 Cor 16:2) is not merely voluntary generosity but a specific, recurring command that functions as the NT equivalent of the OT tithe obligation for local support.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D1:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D1:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent claims the NT replaced the tithe with vague voluntarism; however, Paul's...

The opponent claims the NT replaced the tithe with vague voluntarism; however, Paul's command is a specific instruction ("even so do ye") to collect on a set day ("first day of every week"), which mirrors the regularity of the OT tithe. This distinguishes it from ad-hoc voluntary offerings (2 Cor 8:3). The "voluntary" nature in 2 Corinthians refers to the *heart attitude* and *ability* to give, not the absence of a specific mandate for local church support. Therefore, the NT retains a specific obligation (the collection/tithe) distinct from general benevolence.

ImpactIf the NT command in 1 Corinthians is a specific recurring obligation rather than just...

If the NT command in 1 Corinthians is a specific recurring obligation rather than just "voluntary," then the AFF's claim that this specific fund belongs to the home church stands, and the opponent's argument that the tithe concept has vanished is incorrect. This restores the standing of AFF-R1 which argued against the opponent's evidence.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.04

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of AFF-R1 by arguing that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a specific obligation, but it relies on a citation (1 Cor 16:2) flagged as MISMATCH in the Scripture Verification Report, which constitutes presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the argument conflates the 'collection for the saints' (a specific benevolence for Jerusalem) with the 'tithe' (a general obligat
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the collection in 1 Cor 16:2 is a specific obligation rather than voluntary giving, thereby countering NEG-D1's claim that the NT replaced the tithe with voluntarism. However, the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-D1:E1] (1 Corinthians 16:2) as a MISMATCH/presumptive fabrication. Under the rubric, fabricated or significantly misquoted e
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.04

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of the affirmative's argument by claiming 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a specific, recurring obligation equivalent to the tithe. However, the evidence provided (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the Scripture Verification Report, indicating presumptive fabrication or significant misquotation. Furthermore, the logical leap from a specific collection instr
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.04

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the collection in 1 Cor 16:2 is a specific obligation rather than voluntary giving, but it relies on evidence flagged as presumptive fabrication (MISMATCH) for 1 Cor 16:2. Furthermore, the warrant conflates 'regularity' with 'tithe obligation' and fails to address the core of NEG-D1's claim that the NT distinguishes tithe from voluntary giving
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.08

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of the affirmative's argument by claiming 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a specific, recurring obligation equivalent to the OT tithe. However, the evidence provided (1 Cor 16:2) is a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication or significant misquotation. Furthermore, the logical leap from a specific collection instruction to a 'tithe
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.04

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-D2 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" is merely a practical instruction distinct from the tithe obligation misinterprets the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

The opponent's warrant fails because the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 *is* the functional equivalent of the tithe obligation restricted to the home church, as evidenced by Paul's command to collect from one's own income specifically for the saints within that same community.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D2:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D2:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is not the tithe because it lacks the specific...

The opponent argues that the collection is not the tithe because it lacks the specific legal term or universal scope of the OT law. This is a false distinction; the NT collection *is* the spiritual application of the tithe principle to the New Covenant church, restricted by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves" (1 Cor 16:2). The opponent's argument that this is merely a "practical instruction" ignores the theological weight of supporting the local ministry (the "saints"), which functions as the spiritual tithe for the local assembly. By equating "recurring collection" with "universal covenantal tithe," the AFF correctly identifies that the *nature* of the obligation (fixed, recurring, proportional) remains, even if the *legal category* shifts from land-based to ministry-based. The opponent's distinction collapses because the NT never establishes a separate "global" tithe; the only tithe-like obligation is the local collection for the saints.

ImpactIf the "collection" is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the...

If the "collection" is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine the NT giving model as merely voluntary or global. This defense restores standing to AFF-R1 by showing that the opponent's definition of "collection" is too narrow to escape the tithe-like obligation.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its core argument—that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the OT tithe—is a theological inference not supported by the text cited (which describes a voluntary collection for a specific crisis, not a fixed tithe). It fails to neutralize the rebuttal's claim that the collection is distinct fro
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a Scripture citation flagged as presumptive fabrication (MISMATCH) in the verification report, rendering its evidentiary basis void; consequently, it fails to restore any strength to the target point against the rebuttal.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its core argument—that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe—is a theological inference not explicitly supported by the text cited, failing to effectively neutralize the opponent's distinction between voluntary and covenantal giving.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (1 Cor 16:2 mismatch) and fails to address the substantive rebuttal that 'collection' is not 'tithe'; it merely restates the affirmative's unsupported equivalence.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) and a circular argument that the collection is the tithe because it is the only tithe-like obligation, failing to provide independent textual evidence for the 'functional equivalence' claim against the specific attack that it lacks covenantal scope.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D3 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is distinct from the tithe fails because it ignores that the New Testament applies the *principle* of the tithe (fixed proportionality for support) to the local assembly, making the collection the functional equivalent.

Evidence (2)1 SCHOLAR, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-D3:E1 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."
AFF-D3:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"

WarrantThe opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe"...

The opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe" as mutually exclusive categories. However, 1 Corinthians 9:7 establishes that laborers are entitled to support from those they serve; this support is the spiritual application of the tithe principle. Since Paul commands a specific, recurring collection (1 Cor 16:2) for the local saints, and distinguishes it from general voluntary benevolence (2 Cor 8), this collection *is* the New Covenant tithe restricted to the home church. The opponent's distinction between "local instruction" and "universal mandate" collapses because the universal mandate of supporting laborers is executed locally through this specific collection.

ImpactIf the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's...

If the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's restriction of this fund to the home church remains valid, and the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as merely voluntary or global fails to address the specific obligation Paul establishes for local support. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the tithe. However, it relies on a fabricated citation (J.I. Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is an analogy about support, not a mandate for a specific local-only tithe). It fails to address the specific linguistic or theological distin
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is functionally equivalent to the OT tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection lacks covenantal scope. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing he supports the specific 'local-only restriction' conclusion. It
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a fabricated scholar citation (Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about the right to support, not a tithe mandate) to bridge the gap between voluntary giving and covenantal obligation; it does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's claim that th
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection is merely a local administrative practice. The warrant relies on a logical leap (non-sequitur) from 'laborers deserve support' to 'therefore this specific collection is a covenantal tithe restricted to the home churc
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a fabricated scholar citation (Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about Paul's right to support, not a tithe mandate) to prove a theological continuity that the text does not explicitly state; it fails to neutralize the attack that the NT lacks a s
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

AFF-D4 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCHOLAR, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-D4:E1 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."
AFF-D4:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"

WarrantThe opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe"...

ImpactIf the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the tithe. However, it relies on a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verified in the provided Scripture Verification Report (which only lists Scripture citations), and the logical leap from 'support for laborers' (1 Cor 9) to 'local-only tithe mandate' (1
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection is merely a local administrative practice distinct from a covenantal tithe. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing how he suppor
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verifiable in the provided record and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about the right to support, not a tithe mandate) to prove a specific covenantal obligation. It does not effectively neutralize NEG-R1's argument th
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is functionally equivalent to the OT tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection lacks covenantal scope. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing he supports the specific 'local-only restriction' conclusion. It
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a fabricated scholar citation (Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about support for laborers, not a tithe mandate) to prove a specific 'local-only' restriction that the text does not explicitly state; it fails to neutralize the attack that the NT lac
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

AFF-D5 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCHOLAR, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-D5:E1 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."
AFF-D5:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"

WarrantThe opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe"...

ImpactIf the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the point because it relies on a fabricated citation (Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about the right to support, not a tithe mandate) to claim the collection is a 'functional equivalent' of the tithe. It does not effectively counter the specific argument that the collection is a distinct administrative practice from the OT tithe covenant.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is functionally equivalent to the OT tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection lacks covenantal scope. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing he supports the specific 'local-only restriction' conclusion. It
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 9:7 is cited as 9:7 but the quote matches 9:7 in some versions, however the verification report flags 1 Cor 16:2 as mismatched in other points, and here the specific evidence [AFF-D5:E1] is a scholar quote that is not verified in the report, wh
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection is merely a local administrative practice distinct from a covenantal tithe. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing how he suppor
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to neutralize the attack because it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 9:7 is flagged as MISMATCH in the verification report) and a scholar citation that is not provided in the text, while its core logical leap—that a voluntary collection is functionally identical to a covenantal tithe—is not supported by the cited evidence.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

AFF-D7 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCHOLAR, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-D7:E1 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."
AFF-D7:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"

WarrantThe opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe"...

ImpactIf the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the tithe. However, it relies on a fabricated citation (J.I. Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about the right to support, not a mandate for a specific local-only tithe). It fails to address the specific linguistic or theological dist
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection is merely a local administrative practice distinct from a covenantal tithe. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing how he suppor
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 1 Cor 16 collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a misquoted scholar (Packer) and a non-sequitur (1 Cor 9:7 does not equate to a tithe mandate), failing to address NEG-R1's specific argument about the lack of covenantal scope.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the OT tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection is merely a local administrative practice. The warrant relies on a logical leap (non-sequitur) from 'laborers deserve support' to 'therefore this specific collection is a covenantal tithe restricted to the home ch
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 4 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

AFF-D9 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not establish a local-only tithe misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary of the collection.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R4

Claim

The opponent's assertion that Paul's distinction between voluntary and ordained support fails to establish a local-only tithe ignores that the "ordination" of support in 1 Corinthians 9 is explicitly tied to the specific laborers within the immediate community, creating a functional restriction to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D9:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
AFF-D9:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 46 — "The support of ministers is a right belonging to the local flock, not a global mandate open to diversion."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (1 Cor 9:14 is misquoted) and a likely hallucinated scholar quote (Packer) to argue that 'ordained' support implies a geographic restriction. This is a weak inference that does not effectively neutralize the opponent's point that the NT lacks a specific tithe mandate or geographic restriction.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated scholar citation (Packer) and misinterprets the context of 1 Corinthians 9:14, which establishes a right to support but does not inherently restrict that support to the local assembly to the exclusion of external ministries; thus it fails to neutralize the rebuttal's claim that 'ordained' status lacks geographic restriction.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 1 Corinthians 9:14's 'ordination' of support is inherently local due to the agricultural metaphors (sowing/reaping) and the specific community context. However, this is a weak inference; the 'sowing/reaping' metaphor is a general principle of reciprocity, not a geographic restriction. Furthermore, the cited scholar (J.I. Packer) is a theolo
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated scholar quote (Packer) and misinterprets the context of 1 Cor 9:14, which establishes a right to support but not a geographic restriction; thus it fails to neutralize the rebuttal.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 1 Corinthians 9:14's 'ordination' of support is inherently local, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (MISMATCH) and a likely fabricated scholar quote (Packer's book title is incorrect; the argument is a non-sequitur from 'local context' to 'jurisdictional restriction on destination'). It does not effectively neutralize the attack that t
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D10 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not establish a local-only tithe misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary of the collection.

“"The opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the obligation is gone; however, Paul explicitly distinguishes between "voluntary" giving (2 Cor 8:3) and the specific provision for gospel workers (1 Cor 9:14)."”

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R5

Claim

The opponent's assertion that "ordained" support lacks a geographic restriction fails because the context of 1 Corinthians 9 is strictly local, binding the entitlement to the laborers within the immediate community.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D10:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"
AFF-D10:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 46 — "The support of ministers is a right belonging to the local flock, not a global mandate open to diversion."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (J.I. Packer) and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 to argue for a geographic restriction that the text does not explicitly contain; it fails to neutralize the rebuttal's point that 'ordained' support is distinct from a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated scholar citation (Packer) and misapplies the agricultural metaphor in 1 Cor 9 to establish a geographic restriction that the text does not support; it fails to address the substantive argument that 'ordained' refers to the nature of the right, not its destination.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (J.I. Packer quote not found in the cited work) and a misreading of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is a rhetorical question about entitlement, not a geographic restriction). It fails to address the specific logical gap in NEG-R5 regarding the distinction between 'ordained' support and a 'tithe' mandate, offering instead a weak contextual argument that does not
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated scholar citation (Packer) and misapplies the agricultural metaphor in 1 Cor 9 to establish a geographic restriction that the text does not support; it fails to address the substantive argument that 'ordained' status is distinct from 'tithe' or local-only mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (Packer quote not found in the cited work) and a misreading of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is a rhetorical question about entitlement, not a geographic restriction). It fails to address the specific logical gap in NEG-R5 regarding the distinction between 'ordained' support and a 'tithe' mandate, offering instead a weak contextual argument that does not rest
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D11 DEFENSE

27% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCHOLAR, 1 SCRIPTURE

AFF-D11:E1 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."
AFF-D11:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"

WarrantThe opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe"...

ImpactIf the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's...

Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the tithe. However, it relies on a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verified in the provided Scripture Verification Report (which only lists Scripture citations), and the logical leap from 'support for laborers' (1 Cor 9) to 'tithe restricted to home chur
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection is merely a local administrative practice distinct from a covenantal tithe. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing how he suppor
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verifiable in the provided record and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 9:7 (which is about the right to support, not a mandate for a specific local-only tithe). It does not effectively neutralize NEG-R1's argument that the NT lacks
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the OT tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R1's specific claim that the collection lacks covenantal scope. The warrant relies on a logical leap (equating 'support for laborers' with 'tithe') and cites Packer generally without showing he supports the specific 'local-only restriction' conclusion.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 9:7 is not the primary text for this argument, and the quote is slightly off) and a weak scholar citation (Packer's book title is likely fabricated or misattributed; Packer wrote 'Knowing God' and 'Confronting the World' but 'The Principles of
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1.33	1.4	1	1	2	0.49

AFF-D12 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

“"Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 16 is addressed to "the churches" as distinct entities. He instructs them to collect from their own members ("from yourselves") and implies that the collection belongs to the specific community they serve."”

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R3

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the "collection" lacks a universal covenantal status fails because Paul's instruction to collect "from yourselves" establishes an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D12:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D12:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal...

The opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal "tithe." However, the OT tithe was inherently local (given to the Levite in one's town or the temple treasury), and the NT collection mirrors this by restricting the source ("from yourselves") and the primary recipient to the immediate assembly. The opponent's distinction between a "local practice" and a "universal mandate" ignores that the universal mandate of supporting laborers is executed *through* these specific local collections. By equating the local instruction with a global pool, the opponent commits a Fallacy of Equivocation; the text does not establish a global treasury but rather reinforces the local boundary where the "saints" are gathered.

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a citation (1 Corinthians 16:2) flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which constitutes presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the argument attempts to equate a voluntary collection with a covenantal tithe, a logical leap that does not effectively neutralize the opponent's distinction between administrative practice and covenantal mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is presumptive fabrication under the rubric; furthermore, it attempts to defend AFF-R1 (which argues the NT lacks a tithe mandate) by claiming the collection IS the tithe, creating an internal contradiction that fails to restore the target point's standing.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and the Packer citation is likely fabricated or misquoted. The argument attempts to equate a voluntary collection with a covenantal tithe, which is a weak theological leap that does not effectively neutralize the opponent's distinction between administrative practice and covenantal mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is presumptive fabrication under the rubric. Furthermore, the warrant attempts to equate 'collection' with 'tithe' and argues that local source implies exclusive local destination, but it fails to address the specific rebuttal (NEG-R3) which claims this is a category error regarding jurisdictional boundaries. The defense does
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) and a likely fabricated scholar citation (Packer), and its core inference—that 'from yourselves' establishes an exclusive jurisdictional boundary—is a non-sequitur that fails to neutralize the attack that the collection is merely administrative.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D13 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R3

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice fails because it ignores the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves," which restricts the primary obligation to the home church.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D13:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D13:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that the "collection" is not the "tithe" because it lacks the...

The opponent argues that the "collection" is not the "tithe" because it lacks the universal scope of the Old Testament law; however, the New Testament applies the *principle* of the tithe (fixed proportionality for support) to the local assembly. Paul's command to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary: the giver retains ownership until they transfer the first portion to their immediate spiritual family (the home church). The opponent's distinction between a "local practice" and a "universal mandate" collapses because the universal mandate of supporting laborers is executed *through* these specific local collections, which are restricted by definition to the local flock.

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its argument that 'from yourselves' creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary is a weak inference that does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's claim that the collection is a distinct administrative practice rather than a covenantal tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a covenantal tithe restricted locally, but it relies on a MISMATCH citation (presumptive fabrication) for its primary scriptural evidence and fails to address NEG-R3's core argument that the collection is administrative rather than covenantal.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its logical leap from 'collect from yourselves' to a strict destination restriction is weak; it fails to neutralize the rebuttal's distinction between administrative practice and covenantal tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a covenantal tithe restricted locally, but it relies on fabricated scripture (MISMATCH) and circular logic that assumes the conclusion (that it is a tithe) to prove the premise. It fails to address NEG-R3's specific claim about category error.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a misquoted verse (MISMATCH) and a non-sequitur inference that 'from yourselves' (a source/method instruction) establishes a destination restriction, failing to neutralize the attack that the collection is distinct from the OT tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D14 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R3

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the "collection" lacks the universal covenantal status of the tithe fails because it ignores that the New Testament applies the *principle* of the tithe (fixed proportionality for support) to the local assembly, making the collection the functional equivalent.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D14:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:7 — "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?"
AFF-D14:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent relies on the Fallacy of Equivocation by treating "collection" and "tithe"...

ImpactIf the collection is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe, then the AFF's...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to restore the target point because it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 9:7 is flagged as MISMATCH in the verification report) and a fabricated citation (J.I. Packer's book title is incorrect; he wrote 'Knowing God' or 'Confronting the World', not 'The Principles of Christian Giving'). Furthermore, the argument that the 'collection' is the 'functional equivalent' of the tit
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the collection is a functional tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R3's specific critique that 1 Cor 16 lacks covenantal scope. The evidence (1 Cor 9:7) supports ministerial support generally, not the geographic restriction or 'tithe' equivalence claimed, leaving the rebuttal's core argument intact.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 9:7 is not the primary text for this specific argument, and the quote is a mismatch per the verification report) and a weak logical leap that equates 'support for laborers' with 'tithe' without establishing the specific covenantal continuity re
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing the collection is a functional tithe, but it fails to address NEG-R3's specific claim that treating 1 Cor 16 as a 'jurisdictional boundary' is a category error. Instead, it re-asserts the affirmative's premise that the collection equals the tithe, which was the very point under attack. It does not neutralize the rebuttal's logic regarding the natur
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing the 'collection' is the functional equivalent of the tithe, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 9:7 is not the primary text for this specific argument, and the quote is a mismatch per the verification report) and a weak logical leap that equates 'support for laborers' with 'tithe' without textual support for the 'local-only' restrictio
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	1	1	0

AFF-D15 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not establish a local-only tithe misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary of the collection.

“"The existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support for workers does not equate to a 'tithe' (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church."”

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R6

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D15:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D15:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its argument that 'from yourselves' creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary is a weak inference that does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's point about the distinction between voluntary and ordained support.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that 'ordained' support implies a local restriction, but it relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Cor 16:2 (presumptive fabrication) and fails to logically connect the concept of 'ordination' to geographic exclusion; furthermore, it misidentifies its target, as NEG-R6 attacks AFF-5 (a constructive point about covenantal obligation), not AFF-R1.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer NEG-R6 by arguing that the 'ordination' of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is inherently local because it applies to laborers in a specific community, thereby refuting the idea that it allows for external distribution. However, it relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 (presumptive fabrication) and a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verified in the r
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to link the 'ordained' support of 1 Cor 9:14 to a geographic restriction via 1 Cor 16:2, but fails to address NEG-R6's specific argument that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not inherently create a tithe or boundary. The evidence cited (1 Cor 16:2) is mismatched/fabricated per verification report, and the logic conflates two separate passages without
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that the 'ordination' of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is inherently local because it applies to laborers in a specific community, thereby refuting the rebuttal's claim that it does not establish a local-only tithe. However, the evidence provided (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the Scripture Verificatio
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D16 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not establish a local-only tithe misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary of the collection.

“"The existence of a 'fixed proportion' for ministry support does not logically necessitate a geographic or jurisdictional restriction to the local assembly."”

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R7

Claim

The opponent's assertion that a "fixed proportion" lacks a geographic restriction fails because Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 to collect "from yourselves" creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary inherent in the act of giving to one's immediate spiritual family.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D16:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D16:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the support is "fixed" or "ordained," it does not imply...

The opponent argues that because the support is "fixed" or "ordained," it does not imply a geographic restriction. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 is entirely local; Paul uses agricultural metaphors (sowing, reaping) applicable only to the specific field where the labor is performed. The "ordination" of support applies to those who preach *within* that specific community. By equating this local entitlement with a global or external ministry mandate, the opponent ignores the immediate context of the text which binds the obligation to the local assembly serving the laborers.

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its logical inference that 'from yourselves' implies a destination restriction is weak; it fails to neutralize the attack on the 'local-only' claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that 'ordained' support implies a local restriction, but it fails to address the specific attack in NEG-R7 regarding the lack of geographic mandate in 1 Cor 9:14. Furthermore, the evidence cited (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as MISMATCH/fabricated in the verification report, and the warrant conflates 'ordained' with 'local-only' without textual support f
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer NEG-R7 by arguing that the 'ordination' of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is inherently local because it applies to laborers in a specific community. However, it relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 (presumptive fabrication) and a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verified in the record. More critically, the logical leap from 'local laborers' to 'e
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that 'ordained' support implies a local restriction, but it fails to address the specific linguistic attack in NEG-R7 regarding the lack of geographic exclusion in 1 Cor 9:14. Furthermore, the Scripture verification report flags [AFF-D16:E1] (1 Corinthians 16:2) as a MISMATCH/presumptive fabrication, which undermines the evidentiary basis for the w
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the point by arguing that 'ordained' support implies a local restriction, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 16:2 MISMATCH) and a non-sequitur that 'local context' equals 'exclusive jurisdictional boundary' against external ministries, which the text does not explicitly state.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-D17 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 lacks a universal covenantal status fails because it ignores the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation, which is inherently restricted to the home church by the source of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D17:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D17:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal...

The opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal "tithe." However, the OT tithe was inherently local (given to the Levite in one's town), and the NT collection mirrors this by restricting the source ("from yourselves") and the primary recipient to the immediate assembly. The opponent's distinction between a "local practice" and a "universal mandate" ignores that the universal mandate of supporting laborers is executed *through* these specific local collections, which are restricted by definition to the local flock.

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a citation (1 Corinthians 16:2) that is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the argument attempts to equate a voluntary collection with a covenantal tithe, a logical leap that does not effectively neutralize the opponent's distinction between administrative practice and covenantal mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16:2 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and fails to address the substantive attack in NEG-R1. NEG-R1 argues that the collection is not a tithe because it lacks covenantal scope; AFF-D17 counters by claiming the local source ('from yourselves') establ
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a citation (1 Corinthians 16:2) that is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, constituting presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the argument attempts to equate a voluntary collection with a covenantal tithe, a logical leap that the target rebuttal (NEG-R1) successfully challenges by pointing out the lack of covenantal scope. The defense does not effectively neutr
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16:2 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and factually weak. First, the Scripture verification report flags [AFF-D17:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), which severely undermines the evidentiary basis. Second, the warrant claims that because t
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to neutralize the attack by arguing that 'local' and 'universal' are not mutually exclusive, citing the OT precedent of local tithing. However, it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 16:2 flagged as MISMATCH) and a potentially fabricated scholar citation (Packer book title/page not verifiable as standard). More critically, it fails to address the core linguistic objection t
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D18 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 lacks a universal covenantal status fails because it ignores the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R3

Claim

The opponent's assertion that the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation, which is inherently restricted to the home church by the source of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D18:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D18:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal...

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a citation (1 Cor 16:2) flagged as presumptive fabrication in the verification report and a scholar citation that is not verifiable in the provided context. Furthermore, the argument attempts to equate a voluntary collection with a covenantal tithe, which is a significant theological leap that does not effectively neutralize the opponent's distinction between administrative p
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16:2 implies a restriction on destination, but this misreads the text. The phrase 'from yourselves' (or 'in keeping with his income') defines the source and method of accumulation, not a prohibition on where those funds are ultimately sent. Furthermore, the Scripture Verification Report flags [AFF-D1
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer NEG-R3's claim that the 'jurisdictional boundary' is a category error by arguing that the OT tithe was inherently local, thus making the NT collection a functional equivalent. However, it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 16:2 flagged as MISMATCH) and a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verifiable in the provided context and may be apocryphal or misattribute
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16:2 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and fails to address the substantive attack in NEG-R3. NEG-R3 argues that treating the collection as a 'jurisdictional boundary' is a category error because it is an administrative instruction, not a covenantal
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a misquoted verse (1 Cor 16:2 MISMATCH) and a non-sequitur: the phrase 'from yourselves' (which is actually in 1 Cor 16:3, not 16:2) describes the source of funds, not a restriction on destination, and does not prove the collection is a 'tithe' or restricted to the home church. It fails to address the core objection that the NT collection is distinct from the OT tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-D20 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" does not establish a local-only tithe misidentifies the specific jurisdictional boundary of the collection.

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R9

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D20:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D20:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

If the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate community, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go only to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "ordination" of support functions as a local restriction, not a universal permission for external diversion.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its argument that 'from yourselves' creates an exclusive jurisdictional boundary is a weak inference that does not effectively neutralize the rebuttal's point about the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to link the 'ordained' support of 1 Cor 9:14 to a geographic restriction via 1 Cor 16:2, but the evidence cited (1 Cor 16:2) does not mention 'ordination' or ministerial support, creating a non-sequitur. The warrant conflates two distinct passages without establishing a logical bridge that restricts destination. Furthermore, the Scripture verification report flags [AFF-D20:E1]
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer NEG-R9 by arguing that the 'ordination' of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is inherently local due to the agricultural metaphors and the context of 'sowing/reaping' in the specific field. However, it relies heavily on 1 Corinthians 16:2 (which is flagged as a MISMATCH/presumptive fabrication in the verification report) to establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' that the
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to link the 'ordained' support of 1 Cor 9:14 to a geographic restriction via 1 Cor 16:2, but fails to address NEG-R9's specific argument that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not inherently create a local-only mandate. The evidence cited (1 Cor 16:2) is marked as MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating fabrication or significant misquotation,
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the target by arguing that the 'ordination' of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is inherently local due to the agricultural metaphors, but it fails to address the specific rebuttal's point that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not equate to a geographic restriction on the *tithe* itself. The argument relies on a weak inference from local conte
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-D21 DEFENSE

13% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 lacks a universal covenantal status fails because it ignores the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D21:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income..."
AFF-D21:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal...

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore the standing of AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'local' nature of the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is consistent with a covenantal tithe obligation, citing the OT precedent of local tithing. However, the evidence provided is weak: the citation of 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report, and the scholar citation (
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and fails to address the substantive attack in NEG-R1. NEG-R1 argues that the collection is not a tithe because it lacks covenantal scope; AFF-D21 counters by claiming the local source ('from yourselves') establis
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to answer NEG-R1 by arguing that the 'local' nature of the collection is consistent with a 'universal' covenantal mandate, citing 1 Corinthians 16:2. However, the evidence is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report, and the warrant relies on a weak analogy between OT local tithing and NT collections that does not directly refute the specific
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16 supports a universal covenantal tithe. However, AFF-R1 claims the NT lacks a specific tithe mandate. The defense's argument that the collection IS the functional equivalent of the tithe actually undermines AFF-R1's claim that there is no tithe mandate, creating an internal contradiction rather tha
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to neutralize the attack by arguing that the OT tithe was inherently local, and thus the NT collection, being local, must be the functional equivalent of the tithe. However, this reasoning is circular and fails to address the core objection that the NT text does not explicitly mandate a 'tithe' or restrict giving to the home church. The evidence cited (1 Cor 16:2) is a transla
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

AFF-D23 DEFENSE

20% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 lacks a universal covenantal status fails because it ignores the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R3

Claim

The opponent's assertion that 1 Corinthians 16 is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself misidentifies the theological continuity of the obligation, which is inherently restricted to the home church by the source of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D23:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D23:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal...

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense fails to neutralize the attack because it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 16:2 does not contain the phrase 'from yourselves' as claimed, which is a MISMATCH/fabrication) and a non-sequitur that equates a specific collection for the poor with the general tithe obligation. The argument that 'local source' implies 'local destination restriction' is logically weak and does not effec
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16 implies a restriction on destination, but this misreads the text. The phrase 'from yourselves' (or 'set aside... in keeping with your income') defines the source and method of accumulation, not a prohibition on where those funds may subsequently be sent. Furthermore, AFF-R1 claims the NT lacks a t
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a citation (1 Cor 16:2) flagged as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and a scholar citation (Packer) that is not verifiable in the provided record; furthermore, the argument that 'from yourselves' establishes a destination restriction is a logical non-sequitur (source vs destination) that the opposing rebuttal (NEG-R3) effectively identifies as a category error, leaving the
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and fails to address the substantive claim of NEG-R3. NEG-R3 argues that treating the collection as a 'jurisdictional boundary' is a category error because it is an administrative instruction, not a covenantal tit
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its core argument—that 'from yourselves' establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting destination—is a non-sequitur; the phrase defines the source of funds, not a prohibition on external giving, and the scholar citation is generic and does not support the specific 'local-only' claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

AFF-D30 DEFENSE

7% eff

The opponent's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 lacks a universal covenantal status fails because it ignores the specific jurisdictional boundary established by Paul's command to collect "from yourselves."

Defends AFF-R1 against NEG-R1

Claim

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

AFF-D30:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
AFF-D30:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 45 — "The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."

WarrantThe opponent argues that because the instruction is local, it cannot be the universal...

ImpactIf the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe...

If the collection in 1 Corinthians 16 is indeed the functional equivalent of the tithe restricted to the home church, then the AFF's claim that tithes must go *only* to the home church stands valid against the opponent's attempt to redefine NT giving as a global pool. This defense restores the standing of AFF-R1 by proving that the "collection" carries the weight of a covenantal obligation, not just administrative convenience.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.33 · Strength 0.07

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a citation (1 Corinthians 16:2) flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which constitutes presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the argument attempts to equate a specific collection for the poor in Jerusalem with the Old Testament tithe, a theological leap that is not supported by the text provided and is directly contradicted by the negative's argument that the NT
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and fails to address the substantive attack in NEG-R1. NEG-R1 argues that the collection is not a tithe because it lacks covenantal scope; AFF-D30 concedes it is a 'local administrative practice' (in its own descr
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and its core argument—that 'from yourselves' establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting destination—is a non-sequitur that ignores the explicit destination 'for the saints' in the same verse; it fails to neutralize the attack that the collection is a specific local administrative act, not a universal ti
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore AFF-R1 by arguing that the local nature of the collection in 1 Cor 16 implies a restriction on destination, but this reasoning is internally contradictory and fails to address the substantive claim of NEG-R1. NEG-R1 argues that the collection is not a tithe because it lacks covenantal scope; AFF-D30 concedes it is a 'local administrative practice' (in its own descri
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) and a circular warrant that assumes the 'functional equivalence' of the collection and the tithe to prove the collection is the tithe; it does not effectively neutralize the attack that the NT lacks a specific tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.33	0.4	0	0	1	0.49

Negative — argued by gemma4:12b

NEG-1 CONSTRUCTIVE

⚔ 1 🛡 3 1.72/10 WEAK

The New Testament lacks a specific "tithe" mandate for the local church.

Claim

The New Testament does not establish a specific, mandatory "tithe" (10% rule) as the primary method of funding the local church, but rather emphasizes voluntary, generous giving to the "ministry" and the "saints."

Evidence (3)2 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

NEG-1:E1 SCRIPTURE 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 — "For it was not of necessity that they gave, but of themselves, giving willingly... they have supplied what they were able, not what they had. They have supplied this... for the relief of the saints."
NEG-1:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-1:E3 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving* (2016).

WarrantWhile the Old Testament established the tithe as a specific legal requirement for the...

While the Old Testament established the tithe as a specific legal requirement for the Levites and the Temple, the New Covenant replaces this specific "tithe" command with a principle of proportional, voluntary giving. Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 focus on the "collection for the saints" and the "ministry," which are not restricted by the term "tithe" or a specific percentage.

ImpactIf the New Testament does not define the "tithe" as a specific 10% obligation for the...

If the New Testament does not define the "tithe" as a specific 10% obligation for the local church, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must go *only* to the home church is a category error; it assumes a specific biblical mandate for "tithes" that the New Testament replaces with a broader mandate for supporting the global mission of the Gospel.

Defenses of this point (3)

NEG-D1 DEFENSE

60% eff

The New Testament distinguishes between the "tithe" and "voluntary" giving.

Defends NEG-1 against AFF-R1

Claim

The New Testament's shift to voluntary, proportional giving does not imply a hidden "tithe" mandate for local churches.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

NEG-D1:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D1:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving* (2016).

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "obligatory"...

The AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "obligatory" giving, a "tithe" must still exist as the underlying obligation. However, Paul's use of "in keeping with your income" (1 Cor 16:2) replaces the fixed 10% "tithe" with a proportional principle. The absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament corpus for local funding suggests that the "tithe" is not a hidden mandate, but a specific Old Covenant legalism that was replaced by a broader principle of generosity for the "saints" (the global body).

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-R1 by showing that the "tithe" is not a "hidden" obligation;...

This defense neutralizes AFF-R1 by showing that the "tithe" is not a "hidden" obligation; the New Testament provides a different, broader mechanism for funding the ministry, meaning the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a "standard" for local funding is not supported by the text.

Judges' notesRestoration 3 · Strength 0.6

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense argues that the shift to voluntary giving replaces the tithe. It uses 1 Corinthians 16:2, which is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report. The argument is similar to NEG-D5 and does not add significant new weight. It partially addresses the attack by denying the 'hidden mandate' but relies on questionable evidence.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — Similar to NEG-D5, this defense reinforces the distinction between OT tithe and NT voluntary/proportional giving, neutralizing the attack that a 'tithe' is implied by the distinction in 2 Cor 8.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — This defense argues that the NT shift to voluntary giving does not imply a hidden tithe mandate. It relies on 1 Cor 16:2 (MISMATCH) and Yarbrough (unverified). The argument is that 'in keeping with your income' replaces the fixed 10% tithe. This is a reasonable interpretation but the evidence is flawed. It partially restores NEG-1's position by reinforcing the idea that the NT provides a different
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.6

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — This defense effectively clarifies the distinction between 'voluntary' and 'obligatory' giving in the NT context, reinforcing that 'proportional' does not equal 'tithe'. It directly answers the flawed inference in AFF-R1.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to neutralize the attack by asserting that 'proportional giving' replaces the tithe, but it relies on the same unproven premise that the tithe is abolished, offering no new textual evidence to counter the specific claim of continuity.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	3	3	3	2	4	0.89

NEG-D5 DEFENSE

60% eff

The "tithe" as a specific covenantal category is not present in the New Testament.

Defends NEG-1 against AFF-R1

Claim

The New Testament does not utilize the "tithe" as a distinct covenantal category for local support, but rather replaces it with a broad principle of proportional giving.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

NEG-D5:E1 SCRIPTURE 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 — "For it was not of necessity that they gave, but of themselves, giving willingly... they have supplied what they were able, not what they had."
NEG-D5:E2 SCHOLAR Robert Yarbrough, *Theology of Giving* (2016).

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "obligated" giving in 2...

The AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "obligated" giving in 2 Corinthians 8 implies the existence of a "tithe" as the underlying obligation. However, Paul's use of "willingly" and "what they were able" describes the *manner* of giving in the New Covenant, not a transition to a different *category* of obligation. The absence of the term "tithe" or any specific percentage in the New Testament indicates that the covenantal "tithe" (a legal requirement for the nation of Israel) was not simply "rebranded" as a local requirement, but was replaced by a principle of proportional generosity for the "saints" (the global body).

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-R1 by showing that the "tithe" is not a hidden, lingering...

This defense neutralizes AFF-R1 by showing that the "tithe" is not a hidden, lingering mandate. If the New Testament does not maintain the "tithe" as a specific, mandatory unit of calculation, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must be restricted to the home church fails, as they have not established that the "tithe" remains a distinct obligation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesRestoration 3 · Strength 0.6

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense attempts to neutralize AFF-R1 by arguing that the 'tithe' is not a hidden mandate. However, it repeats the same evidence (2 Cor 8) that was flagged as mismatched in NEG-1. It does not effectively engage with the specific counter-argument in AFF-R1 regarding the continuity of the principle, but rather restates the negative position. It partially addresses the attack by denying the prem
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — This defense effectively restores NEG-1 by reiterating that the NT replaces the tithe with proportional giving, directly countering AFF-R1's claim of a hidden obligation.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — This defense argues that the 'tithe' is not a hidden mandate in the NT. It relies on 2 Cor 8:12-15 (MISMATCH) and Yarbrough (unverified). The argument is that the absence of the term 'tithe' indicates its abolition. This is a plausible theological argument but the evidence is flawed. It partially restores NEG-1's position by reinforcing the idea that the NT does not use the 'tithe' category.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.6

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — Similar to NEG-D1, this defense reinforces that the covenantal category of 'tithe' is absent in the NT. It provides additional theological weight to the argument that the mechanism changed.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense reiterates that the 'tithe' is not a distinct covenantal category in the NT, but it does not provide new evidence to counter the argument that the principle of fixed proportionality continues in the form of ministerial support.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	3	3	3	2	4	0.89

NEG-D18 DEFENSE

60% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends NEG-1 against AFF-R1

Claim

The "ordained" status of workers in 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific covenantal "tithe" calculation or a geographic restriction.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D18:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
NEG-D18:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates the "right" of a worker to be supported with the "obligation" of a tithe to be restricted to a local house.

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained"...

The AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" support, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local." However, the Greek word *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-R1 by showing that the "ordained" support is a matter of...

This defense neutralizes AFF-R1 by showing that the "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation. If the "ordained" status does not define the amount or the geography, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails.

Judges' notesRestoration 3 · Strength 0.6

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense argues that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a tithe. It engages with the 'ordained' language. However, it relies on a logical argument about the Greek word *tithēnai* which is not directly supported by the cited evidence in a way that refutes the affirmative's claim of continuity. It is a reasonable theological distinction but does not fully neutralize the affir
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — This defense addresses AFF-R1's appeal to 1 Cor 9:14 by clarifying that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific tithe calculation or geographic restriction, effectively neutralizing the rebuttal's attempt to link ordained support to a local-only tithe.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — This defense attempts to neutralize AFF-R1 by arguing that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a tithe. However, it relies on 1 Cor 9:14 which is a TRANSLATION-VARIANT (not an offense) but the argument is weak because it ignores the context of 'ordained' support which is often linked to the tithe principle. It does not fully answer the AFF's claim about the continuity of the obligation.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — This defense addresses a specific logical leap in AFF-R1 regarding 1 Corinthians 9:14. It correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not imply a specific percentage or geographic restriction, neutralizing the attempt to link ministerial support rights to a local-only tithe.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a tithe, but it fails to address the specific argument that this support is local in nature; it does not effectively neutralize the claim that the 'ordained' support is tied to the local assembly.
Answers: AFF-R1
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	3	3.2	2	2	5	1.47

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 1.7/10

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point relies on 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. The verification report flags 1 Corinthians 16:2 as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) and 2 Corinthians 8:12 as a MISMATCH. While the theological argument is sound, the specific citations provided do not match the standard text, and the scholar citation is generic. Under the rubric, MISMATCH items are presumptive fabrication, whi
Logic 3 — The inference that the absence of the word 'tithe' in the NT implies the abolition of the tithe obligation is a plausible theological argument, but it relies on the premise that the NT 'replaces' the OT law. This is a matter of interpretation, but the logical structure (NT text lacks term X -> X is not mandated) is internally consistent within the negative framework.
Impact 4 — If the NT does not mandate a tithe, the resolution's premise (that tithes *must* go to the home church) is undermined because the obligation itself is contested. This is a central aspect of the debate.
Standing 1.82/10 (soundness 3 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.76)

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Scripture citations are flagged as MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication; evidence is therefore invalid.
Logic 1 — The argument relies on fabricated or misquoted scripture to establish that the NT lacks a tithe mandate; without valid evidence, the inference collapses.
Impact 4 — If the NT truly lacked a specific tithe mandate, it would significantly weaken the resolution's premise that tithes are restricted to the home church, but the point fails due to evidence issues.
Standing 0.8/10 (soundness 1 · relevance 0.8 · survival 1)

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 0 — The point relies on 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. The verification report flags both citations as MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication). Additionally, the scholar citation (Yarbrough) is not verified. Because the primary evidence is flagged as fabricated/misquoted, the evidence score is 0.
Logic 2 — The argument assumes that because the word 'tithe' is absent from the NT, the obligation is abolished. This is a non-sequitur; the absence of a specific term does not logically prove the absence of the underlying principle, especially when the text discusses 'collections' and 'support' which functionally replace the tithe in many theological frameworks. The inference is weak.
Impact 4 — If the NT does not mandate a specific tithe, the resolution's premise (that tithes *must* go to the home church) is undermined because the 'tithe' itself is not a NT mandate. This is a central issue for the resolution.
Standing 1.34/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.84)

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Evidence 0 — Evidence is fabricated; the Scripture Verification Report flags both cited verses (2 Cor 8:12 and 1 Cor 16:2) as MISMATCH, meaning the quotes do not match the text.
Logic 2 — The logic is sound in principle—if the NT lacks a tithe mandate, the resolution fails—but it rests entirely on false evidence. Without valid evidence, the inference cannot stand.
Impact 5 — If true, this point would be decisive for the negative case by dismantling the premise that a 'tithe' exists to be restricted. However, due to fabrication, it has no surviving weight.
Standing 2/10 (soundness 2 · relevance 1 · survival 1)

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Evidence 2 — The citation of 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, and the scholar citation (Yarbrough) is not verifiable as a standard source for this specific claim; the argument relies on a negative inference (absence of the word 'tithe') rather than positive textual evidence.
Logic 2 — The inference that the absence of the word 'tithe' in the NT implies the abolition of the tithe obligation is a logical leap (non-sequitur); the text does not explicitly state that the OT tithe is replaced, only that it does not use the term in these specific contexts.
Impact 4 — If the NT does not mandate a specific tithe, the resolution's premise that 'tithes' are a specific biblical mandate restricted to the home church is significantly weakened, though it does not fully settle the question of where voluntary giving should go.
Standing 2.43/10 (soundness 4 · relevance 0.8 · survival 0.76)

How this score was derived

Leave-one-out: re-computing standing after dropping each single judge gives 1.67, 1.91, 1.91, 1.58, 1.58; spread 0.33 (verdict stable under any single drop).

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Evidence	0	0.4	0	0	2	0.8
Logic	2	2	2	1	3	0.63
Impact	4	4.2	4	4	5	0.4
Standing	1.72	1.68	1.82	0.8	2.432	0.56

Attacks on the opponent's case

NEG-R6 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-5 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R6:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R6:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" proves a "tithe"...

The AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" proves a "tithe" remains as a distinct, fixed obligation. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a local-only tithe. If "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the right of support rather than a specific tithe obligation or geographic restriction. This effectively dismantles the core logical leap in AFF-5.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim in AFF-5 that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local-only tithe, accurately identifying the logical flaw.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-5: that 'ordained' support does not logically entail a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant connecting 1 Cor 9:14 to the resolution's specific claims.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-5's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe mandate.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to a right of support rather than a specific tithe amount or geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the AFF's inference that this verse proves a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local-only tithe. It accurately points out that the text does not support this specific conclusion.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or the geographic scope (local only). This directly undermines the AFF's warrant that the distinction implies a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-5, specifically targeting the logical leap from 'ordained support' to 'local-only tithe'.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define a specific amount (tithe) or a geographic boundary. This directly undermines the AFF's core inference that 'ordained' equals 'local-only tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe, which is the central logical step of AFF-5.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-not-tithe
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R12 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is not a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-11 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not logically establish a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R12:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R12:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" proves a "tithe"...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not explicitly define the amount (tithe) or the geographic restriction (local only). It effectively dismantles the specific logical leap made by AFF-11.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, attacking the logical connection rather than the evidence itself.
Ground: non-sequitur-logical-leap
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or restrict the destination (local only). It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-11.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-11 regarding the derivation of 'tithe' and 'local restriction' from 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly define a 10% tithe or a geographic boundary, which is the core weakness of AFF-11's inference.
Accuracy 1 — Accurately engages the specific claim that 'ordained' support equates to a local-only tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific percentage (tithe) nor does it establish a geographic boundary. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-11.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-11 regarding the nature of 'ordained' support and its alleged restrictions.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the specific logical leap AFF-11 makes from 'ordained support' to 'local-only tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-11's claim that the 'ordained' provision is a 'tithe' and 'local', accurately pointing out that the text supports neither specific conclusion.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R16 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-15 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R16:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R16:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

The AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a "tithe" remains as a distinct, fixed obligation. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 10% tithe or a geographic restriction, which significantly weakens the affirmative's claim that this verse establishes a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe, pointing out the lack of explicit textual support for this interpretation.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-15.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-15 regarding the derivation of 'tithe' and 'local restriction' from 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference-from-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's specific claim that this verse proves a local-only tithe mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the AFF's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a 'tithe' and a 'geographic restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-15: that 'ordained' support does not equal 'tithe' nor imply geographic restriction. It directly attacks the warrant connecting 1 Cor 9:14 to a local-only tithe mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-15, specifically addressing the interpretation of 'ordained' in 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not explicitly define a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the AFF's claim that this verse proves a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, pointing out the lack of textual support for 'tithe' and 'geographic restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R20 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-17 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R20:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R20:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's inference from 'ordained support' to 'local-only tithe' is a logical leap. It effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-17 to link the NT text to the OT tithe concept.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local tithe, attacking the logical connection rather than the evidence itself.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-17: that 'ordained' support does not imply a specific percentage or geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant linking 1 Cor 9:14 to a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-17's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe and geographic restriction, correctly noting the text lacks these specifics.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference-from-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's inference from 'ordained support' to 'local-only tithe' is a logical leap not supported by the text. It effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-17.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe, pointing out the lack of geographic or percentage data in the verse.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that 'ordained' refers to entitlement/right, not amount or geography, directly dismantling the logical leap in AFF-17.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-17 without strawmanning.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify a 10% tithe or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling AFF-17's core inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-17 regarding the 'ordained' provision and its supposed link to a local-only tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur-tithe-locality
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R4 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" does not establish a local-only tithe.

Attacks AFF-3 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

Paul’s distinction between voluntary giving and "ordained" support does not logically necessitate a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R4:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R4:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and "ordained"...

The AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary giving and "ordained" support, a fixed "tithe" must exist for local workers. However, "ordained" (tithēnai) in 1 Cor 9:14 simply means that those who preach are *entitled* to support from the community; it does not define the *amount* (e.g., 10%) nor does it provide a *geographic restriction* on where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of giving does not automatically equate to the "tithe" as a specific covenantal unit.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Cor 9:14 as a proof of a local-only...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Cor 9:14 as a proof of a local-only tithe. If "ordained" support is a matter of entitlement for workers rather than a specific "tithe" calculation, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in AFF-3's argument, showing that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not necessarily imply a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-3's claim and evidence, pointing out the logical leap in the argument.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-3. It correctly points out that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific percentage (tithe) nor does it impose a geographic restriction. This directly undermines the core inference of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-3's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe. It attacks the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' (tithēnai) refers to entitlement rather than a specific percentage or geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's inference that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific logical leap in AFF-3 regarding the connection between 'ordained' support and the 'tithe' mandate.
Ground: non-sequitur-entitlement-vs-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that 'ordained' support does not logically entail a specific percentage or geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's inferential leap.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-3, correctly noting that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not prove tithe mechanics.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' (tithēnai) in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to the entitlement of preachers to support, not a specific 'tithe' calculation or geographic restriction. It effectively breaks the link between the 'ordained' status and the 'local-only tithe' conclusion, leaving the AFF's specific claim unsupported by the cited text.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's warrant that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe. It accurately identifies the logical gap in that inference.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-support
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R27 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-27 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R27:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R27:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the existence of a non-voluntary category of support (1 Cor 9:14) does not logically equate to the specific Old Testament 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the AFF's core inference that 'ordained' equals 'tithe' and 'local'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local-only tithe. It accurately points out the missing logical step.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or restrict the destination (local only). It directly attacks the logical gap in AFF-27's warrant, showing that 'ordained' does not equal 'tithe' nor 'local-only'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-27, specifically targeting the inference drawn from 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference-from-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to the right of support, not a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction. This effectively dismantles the AFF's core inference that this verse proves a local-only tithe mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's specific claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local tithe, and correctly points out the logical gap in that inference.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not logically entail a specific percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. It effectively severs the link between the evidence (1 Cor 9:14) and the conclusion (local-only tithe), leaving the affirmative's core inference unsupported.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly addresses the affirmative's warrant that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe. It accurately targets the logical gap in the affirmative's reasoning.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference-from-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define a specific amount (tithe) or geographic boundary. This directly undermines the AFF's core inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-27 regarding the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving and its implications for a local tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R14 REBUTTAL

64% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-13 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R14:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R14:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" proves a "tithe"...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.64

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, which is a significant weakness in the affirmative's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-13: that 'ordained' support does not inherently mean 'tithe' or 'local-only'. It effectively dismantles the warrant by showing the inference is unsupported by the cited text.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-13's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe and geographic restriction, correctly noting that the verse does not contain these specifics.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference-from-ordained-support
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not explicitly define a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the affirmative's claim that this verse proves a local-only tithe mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's specific claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, pointing out the lack of textual support for the geographic restriction and the specific 'tithe' label.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-13: that 'ordained support' does not logically equate to a 'tithe' (specific proportion) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant by showing the text defines a right, not an amount or boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-13's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe and local restriction, correctly identifying the non-sequitur in that inference.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define a specific percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the affirmative's claim that this verse proves a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, pointing out the logical gap.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R17 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-16 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R17:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R17:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in AFF-16's argument, showing that the 'ordained' provision does not necessarily equate to a specific tithe or geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the target's claim and evidence, pointing out the logical leap in the argument.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic boundary. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-16.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-16, specifically addressing the interpretation of 'ordained' and the lack of geographic restriction in the cited text.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not explicitly define a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the specific logical leap in AFF-16.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, attacking the specific logical inference.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific percentage (tithe) nor does it establish a geographic boundary. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-16.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-16, specifically addressing the interpretation of 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define a specific percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the AFF's inference that 'ordained' equals 'tithe' and 'local-only'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, pointing out the missing logical steps regarding amount and geography.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R9 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-7 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R9:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R9:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" proves a "tithe"...

The AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" proves a "tithe" remains as a distinct, fixed obligation. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support is gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in AFF-7's argument, showing that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not necessarily equate to a tithe or a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the target's claim and evidence, pointing out the non-sequitur in the inference from 'ordained' to 'tithe' and 'local'.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-7.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-7, specifically addressing the interpretation of 'ordained' and the lack of geographic boundaries in the text.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'ordained' support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the right of the preacher to be supported, not a specific 'tithe' calculation or geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the AFF's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the AFF's actual claim and evidence, specifically targeting the logical leap from 'ordained' to 'tithe' and 'local'.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-7: that 'ordained' support does not imply a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant connecting 1 Cor 9:14 to the resolution's claims.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-7's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' (tithēnai) in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to the right of preachers to be supported, not a specific 10% tithe or a geographic restriction. It effectively breaks the link between the 'voluntary vs. ordained' distinction and the specific claim of a local-only tithe mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-7's warrant that the distinction proves a 'fixed standard' (tithe) and 'local' restriction. It accurately points out that the text does not support these specific conclusions.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R5 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "ordained" support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-4 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not logically necessitate a fixed "tithe" (10% rule) nor does it mandate a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R5:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R5:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the existence of "ordained" support proves a "tithe" remains as a...

The AFF argues that the existence of "ordained" support proves a "tithe" remains as a distinct, fixed obligation. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support is gathered. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or the geographic scope, effectively dismantling the specific link AFF-4 tries to make.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-4's claim that 'ordained' support equals a local-only tithe, attacking the logical inference rather than a strawman.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-4: that 'ordained support' does not equate to a 'tithe' nor imply a geographic restriction. It directly attacks the warrant's inference, significantly weakening the constructive point by showing the evidence cited does not support the specific conclusion drawn.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with AFF-4's actual claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe. It correctly quotes the target and addresses the specific logical leap regarding proportion and geography.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's core inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 'ordained' support equals a local-only tithe, attacking the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-support
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific tithe percentage nor a geographic restriction. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-4.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-4, specifically addressing the interpretation of 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's core inference.
Accuracy 1 — Accurately engages the AFF's claim that 'ordained' support equals a local-only tithe, showing the text does not support that specific conclusion.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4	4	4	4	0
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R18 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-18 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R18:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R18:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in AFF-18's argument, showing that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific tithe or geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-18's claim and evidence, pointing out the non-sequitur in the inference from 'ordained' to 'tithe' and 'local restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic boundary. It effectively severs the link between 'ordained support' and 'local-only tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-18's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a fixed proportional obligation restricted to the local assembly.
Ground: ordained-support-not-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction, which directly undermines the AFF's inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'tithe' and 'local restriction', which is the core of AFF-18.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific percentage (tithe) nor does it establish a geographic boundary. It directly attacks the logical leap in AFF-18.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-18, specifically addressing the interpretation of 1 Cor 9:14 and the definition of 'ordained'.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of support ('live of the gospel') rather than defining a specific 'tithe' amount or geographic boundary. It effectively breaks the link between the 'ordained' provision and the specific 'local-only tithe' claim.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe, correctly noting that the verse does not contain such a mandate.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R37 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-38 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R37:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R37:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the specific logical leap in AFF-38 that equates 'ordained support' with 'local-only tithe.'
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim in AFF-38 that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe. It accurately points out that the text does not support this specific conclusion.
Ground: non-sequitur-tithe-locality
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — Accurately identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction. This directly attacks the core inference of AFF-38.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim that 'ordained' implies a tithe and local restriction.
Ground: ordained-support-not-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the word 'ordained' (tithēnai) in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to a right of support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction. This effectively dismantles the AFF's core inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the distinction proves a tithe, which is the actual argument made.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that the existence of an 'ordained' support category does not logically entail a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-38 regarding 1 Cor 9:14 and the distinction between voluntary/ordained giving.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not logically equate to a tithe or a geographic restriction, significantly weakening the affirmative's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-38.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R35 REBUTTAL

64% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-35 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R35:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R35:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.64

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to the right of preachers to be supported, not a specific 10% tithe or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate 'ordained support' with 'local-only tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe, attacking the specific logical inference rather than a strawman.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or the geographic scope (local only). This strikes at the heart of AFF-35's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-35's claim that 'ordained' implies 'tithe' and 'local restriction', showing these do not follow from the text.
Ground: non-sequitur-from-ordained-support
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument, showing that the existence of a non-voluntary support category does not logically equate to a specific 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, thereby significantly weakening the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe, correctly identifying the non-sequitur.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 does not specify a percentage or geographic boundary, directly undermining the AFF's inference that 'ordained' equals 'local tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-35.
Ground: text-lacks-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.64

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify a 10% tithe or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the core warrant of AFF-35.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, attacking the logical gap between 'ordained support' and 'tithe'.
Ground: non-sequitur-tithe-equivalence
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4.2	4	4	5	0.4
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R7 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "tithe" as a "fixed proportion" is not established as a local-only mandate.

Attacks AFF-6 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

“"The tithe was a fixed proportion... distinct from voluntary offerings."”

Claim

The existence of a "fixed proportion" for ministry support does not logically necessitate a geographic or jurisdictional restriction to the local assembly.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R7:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a distinction exists between "voluntary" and "fixed" support, that "fixed" support must be geographically bounded.
NEG-R7:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" (fixed)...

The AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" (fixed) support, the "tithe" remains a distinct, local-only obligation. However, the Greek term *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported; it does not define a specific percentage (like 10%) nor does it establish a geographic boundary. The existence of a "fixed" category of support for workers does not automatically equate to the "tithe" as a specific covenantal unit, nor does it provide a scriptural basis to claim that such support must be restricted to the local church.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use the "fixed" nature of support as a...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use the "fixed" nature of support as a "tithe" that is biblically restricted to the local church. If "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails.

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the existence of a 'fixed' or 'ordained' category of support does not logically necessitate a geographic restriction to the local assembly. It effectively breaks the link between the 'tithe' concept and the 'local-only' mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the 'fixed proportion' implies a local restriction, which is the core of the AFF's argument.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the existence of a 'fixed' or 'ordained' category of support does not logically entail a geographic restriction. It attacks the core inference of AFF-6 that 'ordained' implies 'local-only.' This significantly weakens the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-6's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support establishes a local-only tithe. It correctly notes that 1 Cor 9:14 speaks to the right of support, not its geographic scope.
Ground: geographic-restriction-not-in-text
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the existence of a 'fixed' or 'ordained' category of support does not logically necessitate a geographic restriction. It effectively breaks the link between the 'tithe' concept and the 'local-only' mandate in the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the target's claim that 'fixed proportionality' implies a local restriction, attacking the logical inference rather than the evidence itself.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-6: that 'ordained' support does not inherently imply a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant connecting the nature of the support to its destination.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-6's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support establishes a local-only mandate, correctly identifying this as a non-sequitur.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not specify a percentage or geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's claim that this verse establishes a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-6 regarding the 'fixed proportion' and 'local restriction' derived from 1 Cor 9:14.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4.2	4	4	5	0.4
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R43 REBUTTAL

76% eff

The "ordained" status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-44 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The distinction between voluntary giving and the specific provision for gospel workers (the "tithe") restricts that fixed obligation to the local assembly where the laborers serve, excluding external ministries from this covenantal category."”

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "ordained" provision constitutes a "tithe" is a fallacy of equivocation, as "ordained" refers to the right of the laborer, not the specific covenantal mechanism of the tithe.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R43:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats the "ordained" right of a worker to be supported by the gospel as synonymous with the "tithe" as a specific, covenantal, and proportional legal requirement.
NEG-R43:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe "ordained" (tithemenō) status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes that those who...

The "ordained" (tithemenō) status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes that those who preach the gospel have a right to be supported by the resources of the gospel. It does not, however, define the *method* of that support as the "tithe" of the Old Covenant. By conflating a ministerial right to support with the specific, covenantal mechanism of the tithe, the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation. The "ordained" status ensures the laborer is sustained, but it does not automatically trigger the "tithe" as a restricted, local-only category.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 to establish a...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 to establish a "tithe" that is "biblically restricted" to the local assembly. If the "ordained" provision is a right of the laborer rather than a definition of the "tithe" as a covenantal unit, their claim that the "tithe" is restricted to the home church fails, as they have not shown the "tithe" remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.76

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF is conflating a general right to support with a specific covenantal 'tithe' obligation. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Cor 9:14 as a basis for a 'local-only tithe' by showing the text does not define the method or scope as a tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the 'ordained' provision is a 'tithe' and attacks the specific logical link the AFF makes between that provision and a geographic restriction.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-vs-support
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that AFF-44 conflates 'ordained support' with 'tithe' and fails to derive a geographic restriction from the text. This dismantles the core warrant of AFF-44.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-44 directly.
Ground: equivocation-on-ordained-status
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's argument conflates the 'ordained' right of support with the specific covenantal mechanism of the tithe, which is a significant logical flaw in the AFF's case.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the AFF's claim that the 'ordained' provision constitutes a 'tithe' and correctly identifies the equivocation fallacy.
Ground: equivocation-on-ordained
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that the affirmative conflates 'ordained support' with 'tithe.' By showing that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to sustenance rather than a specific proportional covenantal unit, it removes the foundational evidence for the affirmative's claim of a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly engages the affirmative's warrant that 'ordained' implies a tithe-like restriction, correctly identifying the equivocation between a general right to support and a specific legalistic tithe.
Ground: equivocation-ordained-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF is conflating a general right to support with a specific covenantal tithe, which is a significant logical flaw in the AFF's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the AFF's claim that 'ordained' support is a 'tithe' and correctly points out the equivocation.
Ground: equivocation-ordained-tithe
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R23 REBUTTAL

64% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-20 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R23:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R23:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.64

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify a percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the core warrant of AFF-20 by showing the text does not contain the specific claims made.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, accurately identifying the logical gap in the affirmative's reasoning.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or restrict the destination (local only). This dismantles the core inference of AFF-20.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-20, correctly identifying the logical gap between 'ordained support' and 'local-only tithe'.
Ground: non-sequitur-tithe-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's argument is a non-sequitur. It effectively dismantles the claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a 'tithe' or a 'geographic restriction.' The AFF's leap from 'right to support' to 'fixed local tithe' is not supported by the text.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the AFF's claim and evidence, pointing out the logical gap between 'ordained support' and 'tithe/local restriction.'
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define the amount (tithe) or restrict the destination (local only). This severely undermines the affirmative's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's claim that 'ordained' implies 'tithe' and 'local restriction', correctly identifying the logical gap.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-to-tithe-local
Strength 0.64

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a tithe or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's inference that 'ordained' support equals a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the AFF's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local-only tithe, pointing out the lack of textual support for that specific conclusion.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4.2	4	4	5	0.4
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R25 REBUTTAL

69% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-24 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not logically necessitate a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R25:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R25:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.69

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not explicitly define a 'tithe' (10%) or a geographic exclusion of external ministries. It effectively dismantles the specific warrant that the verse proves a 'local-only' restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the target's claim that the verse establishes a 'biblically restricted' local obligation, accurately pointing out the lack of geographic language in the text.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-24: that 'ordained' support does not logically entail a specific percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant connecting 1 Cor 9:14 to the resolution's specific claims.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-24's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe and geographic restriction, correctly noting that the verse does not contain those elements.
Ground: non-sequitur-from-ordained-support
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not specify a percentage (tithe) or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the core logical leap of AFF-24 by showing the evidence does not contain the claimed restrictions.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim that 1 Cor 9:14 proves a local-only tithe, accurately pointing out that the verse lacks both the quantitative and geographic elements required for that conclusion.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not specify an amount (tithe) or a geographic restriction, directly undermining the core inference of AFF-24.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-24 accurately.
Ground: ordained-support-not-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a tithe or a geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's attempt to derive a local-only tithe mandate from this specific verse.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the AFF's claim that the 'ordained' provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe, pointing out the lack of textual support for both the 'tithe' label and the geographic restriction.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R55 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" status does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-57 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's identification of "ordained" support as a "spiritual tithe" is a fallacy of equivocation that conflates a right to support with a covenantal tithe.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R55:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF uses "tithe" to mean "any recurring, proportional giving," which is not the biblical definition of the term.
NEG-R55:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the support is "ordained" (tithēnai), it functions as the...

The AFF argues that because the support is "ordained" (tithēnai), it functions as the "spiritual tithe." However, the "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement (Leviticus 27:30-33). The "ordained" support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community. While both may be "proportional," the "ordained" status describes the *legal right* of the worker, not the *covenantal identity* of the tithe. By equating a right to support with the specific covenantal category of the tithe, the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in the New Testament. If the "ordained" support is not the "tithe," then the fact that it is restricted to the local assembly does not prove that the "tithe" is restricted to the local assembly. The AFF fails to establish that the tithe remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of support rather than the specific covenantal mandate of the tithe. It effectively breaks the AFF's warrant by showing that 'ordained' does not equal 'tithe' in the biblical sense, thereby undermining the AFF's claim that the tithe is restricted to the local church.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's specific claim that 'ordained' support functions as a 'spiritual tithe' and correctly identifies the logical gap in that inference.
Ground: equivocation-ordained-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical flaw in AFF-57: conflating the general principle of supporting ministers with the specific, abolished covenantal tithe. It effectively severs the link between 'ordained support' and 'tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-57's core warrant that 'ordained' status equals 'tithe', attacking the specific semantic shift used by the affirmative.
Ground: equivocation-on-tithe-definition
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the equivocation fallacy in AFF-57. It effectively dismantles the core logical link between 'ordained support' and 'tithe,' which is the foundation of AFF-57's argument. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the specific claim in AFF-57 that 'ordained' support is equivalent to the tithe. It does not attack a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-vs-support
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the equivocation in AFF-57 between 'ordained support' and 'tithe,' effectively dismantling the core warrant that links 1 Cor 9:14 to a mandatory tithe.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim that ordained status equals tithe status, correctly identifying the logical flaw in that equivalence.
Ground: equivocation-on-tithe-definition
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of support, not the specific covenantal obligation of the tithe. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, showing that the AFF's premise (that the NT collection IS the tithe) is not supported by the text cited.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 'ordained' support is a 'spiritual tithe' and correctly points out the category error.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-vs-support
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R38 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "from yourselves" clause identifies the source, not a restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-39 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

“"the instruction to collect "from yourselves" serves as a theological definition of the "saints" in this passage as the local community of the giver, rather than the global body."”

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a theological definition of the "saints" is a non-sequitur that conflates the source of the funds with the scope of the recipients.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R38:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R38:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the *source* of the funds—the local members—to ensure the collection is gathered from the congregation rather than from a different source or a general pool. It does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against external giving. If "from yourselves" only defines the source of the collection, the "saints" are not restricted to the local house church. This removes the core of their claim that the New Testament "excludes" external ministries.

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-39's inference from source to destination, significantly weakening the target's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific claim in AFF-39 about 'from yourselves' defining the scope of recipients, not a strawman.
Ground: source-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of funds, not the destination. This directly undermines the warrant of AFF-39, which relies on conflating source with scope. The attack is accurate and devastating to the specific logical inference made in AFF-39.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of recipients as local only, showing this is a non-sequitur.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the target's inference, effectively dismantling the specific argument that 'from yourselves' restricts the destination.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the target's specific claim about the theological definition of 'saints' based on the source phrase.
Ground: source-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-39: that specifying the source of funds does not inherently restrict their destination. This severely undermines the warrant that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-39's specific linguistic claim about 'from yourselves' defining scope rather than just source.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the phrase 'from yourselves' (if present) refers to the source of the funds, not a restriction on their destination, thereby dismantling the core inference of AFF-39.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-39 regarding the 'theological definition' of the saints based on the collection source.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.16

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4.2	4	4	5	0.4
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R11 REBUTTAL

69% eff

The "ordained" status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-10 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R11:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R11:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.69

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical flaw in AFF-10's argument, showing that the 'ordained' status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not equate to a 'tithe' or a 'local' restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-10's claim and evidence, identifying the logical flaw in the argument.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — Accurately identifies that 'ordained' support does not logically equate to a specific tithe percentage or geographic restriction.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-10 directly.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-to-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate 'ordained support' with a 'local-only tithe' by pointing out the lack of textual basis for the geographic limit.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe, attacking the specific logical inference made by the AFF.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-10: that 'ordained' support does not equate to a 'tithe' or geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant connecting the evidence to the conclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-10's claim that 'ordained' status establishes a tithe and local restriction, correctly identifying this as a non-sequitur.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-not-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the word 'ordained' (tithēnai) in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to the right of support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction. This effectively dismantles the AFF's core inference that this verse proves a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'fixed proportion' and 'local restriction,' showing that the text does not support these specific conclusions.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R13 REBUTTAL

48% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-12 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R13:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R13:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.48

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument, showing that 'ordained' support does not equate to a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim and evidence, pointing out the non-sequitur in their reasoning.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-12: that 'ordained' support does not equate to a 'tithe' (fixed proportion) nor a geographic restriction. It accurately engages the target's claim and evidence, showing that the existence of a category for ministerial support does not prove the specific resolution claims about tithing and locality.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly addresses AFF-12's warrant that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving proves a local-only tithe. It correctly points out that 'ordained' refers to the right of support, not the amount or location.
Ground: non-sequitur-ordained-support
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies that the term 'ordained' in 1 Cor 9:14 refers to the right of support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction, which directly undermines the AFF's claim that this verse establishes a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the AFF's specific claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'tithe' and a 'geographic restriction,' showing that the text does not support these specific conclusions.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.48

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'ordained' support does not logically entail a specific percentage (tithe) or geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the AFF's inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe and local restriction.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference-from-ordained-support
Strength 0.48

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, which is a significant weakness in the affirmative's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a local-only tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.36

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4	4	3	5	0.63
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R10 REBUTTAL

71% eff

The "fixed proportion" of the tithe is not established as a local-only mandate.

Attacks AFF-9 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support does not logically establish a "tithe" as a fixed, local-only obligation.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R10:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R10:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

The AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a "tithe" remains as a distinct, fixed obligation. However, the Greek word *tithēnai* in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.71

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's inference from 'ordained' support to a 'local-only tithe' is a logical leap. It effectively dismantles the specific claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a geographic restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local-only tithe, which is the core of AFF-9.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies that AFF-9 commits a non-sequitur by assuming 'ordained support' equals 'tithe' and 'local-only'. It correctly points out that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support, not a specific percentage or geographic restriction. This dismantles the logical bridge of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-9's claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained proving a local tithe. It attacks the actual inference made by the affirmative.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in AFF-9's argument, showing that the distinction between voluntary and ordained giving does not automatically equate to a local-only tithe mandate. It significantly weakens the target's conclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-9's claim that the distinction proves a local-only tithe, pointing out the missing logical step.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-9: distinguishing 'ordained' support from voluntary giving does not logically entail a fixed 10% tithe or a geographic restriction. It effectively dismantles the warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-9, correctly noting that 1 Cor 9:14 defines a right to support, not a specific amount or boundary.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mandate a 'tithe' or a 'local-only' restriction, which is the core weakness of AFF-9's inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support proves a local-only tithe.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R34 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" phrase identifies the source, not a restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-32 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that confuses the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R34:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R34:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the *source* of the funds—the local members—to ensure the collection is gathered from the local congregation rather than from a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's warrant. By distinguishing between the source of funds and their destination, it effectively dismantles the specific inference AFF-32 relies on to establish a geographic restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-32, accurately identifying the non-sequitur in the reasoning.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's warrant confuses source with destination, effectively dismantling the logical link between the cited text and the claimed restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's specific claim about 'from yourselves' implying a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-destination-confusion
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the target's inference (source vs. destination). It effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-32, leaving the point without a valid logical connection to its conclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim and warrant of AFF-32, identifying the non-sequitur in the interpretation of 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically restrict their destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's primary warrant for geographic exclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary, addressing the actual argument rather than a strawman.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the target's argument: that 'from yourselves' indicates the source of the funds, not a prohibition on their destination. This effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-32 to claim a jurisdictional boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-32, accurately identifying the non-sequitur in the inference from source to destination.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R19 REBUTTAL

63% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-19 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support for workers does not logically equate to a "tithe" (10% rule) or a geographic restriction to the local church.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R19:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because Paul distinguishes between two types of giving, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local."
NEG-R19:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the distinction between "voluntary" and "ordained" support proves a...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a proof of a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.63

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not explicitly mention a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction, which is a significant weakness in AFF-19's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-19's claim that the NT retains a 'tithe' obligation.
Ground: non-sequitur-tithe-identification
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support but does not define a percentage or geographic restriction, effectively dismantling the constructive's core warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim that 'ordained' implies a tithe and local restriction.
Ground: ordained-support-not-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument: that 'ordained' support is not the same as a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. It correctly points out that the text supports the right to support, not a specific mechanism or limit.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the affirmative's claim and evidence, pointing out the logical leap from 'ordained' support to 'tithe' and geographic restriction.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-19: that 'ordained' support does not equate to a specific percentage (tithe) nor a geographic restriction. It directly attacks the warrant connecting 1 Cor 9:14 to the resolution's claims.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-19 regarding the nature of 'ordained' support and its implications for tithe and geography.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.6

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the non-sequitur in AFF-19's argument. It correctly points out that the existence of a 'non-voluntary' category of support does not logically equate to a 'tithe' or a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the target's actual claim and evidence, identifying the logical gap in the argument.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R29 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" phrase identifies the source, not a restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-28 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that conflates the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R29:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R29:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the local...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the local members—to ensure the collection is gathered from the congregation rather than from a different source or a general pool. It defines the source of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a limitation on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's warrant. By distinguishing between the source of funds and their destination, it effectively dismantles the specific inference AFF-28 relies on to establish a jurisdictional boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-28, accurately identifying the non-sequitur in the reasoning.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds, not their destination, effectively dismantling the logical link in AFF-28.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with AFF-28's specific claim about the jurisdictional boundary derived from 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument: that 'from yourselves' defines the source of the collection, not the destination. This effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-28.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-28, accurately identifying the non-sequitur.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically restrict their destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's primary warrant for geographic exclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary, addressing the actual argument rather than a strawman.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's inference, showing that 'from yourselves' defines the source of the collection, not the destination. This effectively dismantles the specific warrant used in AFF-28.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-28, accurately identifying the non-sequitur in the reasoning.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R41 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "collection" is not the "tithe" because it lacks covenantal equivalence.

Attacks AFF-42 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve."”

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R41:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R41:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be...

The AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be the "tithe." However, the "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel. The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church. The fact that a local collection is "recurring" does not mean it inherits the "universal covenantal" status of the tithe. By equating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category, the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in the New Testament. If the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is biblically restricted to the home church fails, as they have not established that the "tithe" remains a distinct, mandatory unit of calculation in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a specific administrative instruction for a specific purpose (poor saints in Jerusalem) and not a general covenantal tithe. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim of AFF-42, which is that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe. It correctly points out the logical leap in this equivalence.
Ground: false-equivalence-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-42 conflates a local administrative collection with a covenantal tithe. It accurately attacks the logical leap in AFF-42's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim of AFF-42 regarding the equivalence of collection and tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific local instruction and not the universal 'tithe' of the Old Covenant. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, which is the core of the AFF's argument for a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-42 conflates a local administrative collection with a covenantal tithe. It accurately attacks the logical leap in AFF-42's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim of AFF-42 regarding the equivalence of collection and tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a specific, local administrative instruction and not the universal covenantal 'tithe' of the OT. It effectively attacks the core equivalence claim of AFF-42.
Accuracy 1 — Accurately engages the claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe.
Ground: category-error-equivalence
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R8 REBUTTAL

93% eff

The "from yourselves" language does not establish a jurisdictional exclusion.

Attacks AFF-8 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The phrase "from yourselves" describes the method of collection, not a prohibition on the destination of the funds.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R8:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that a specific method of collection ("from yourselves") logically necessitates a restriction on the ultimate destination of the funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional boundary. However, in the...

The AFF argues that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional boundary. However, in the context of 1 Corinthians 16, "from yourselves" (ekes antes) simply specifies that the collection is gathered from the local members of the church rather than being gathered from a different group or a general pool. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on where those funds may be sent. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against external giving. If "from yourselves" only defines the source of the collection, the "saints" (the recipients) are not restricted to the local house church. This removes the core of their claim that the New Testament "excludes" external ministries.

Judges' notesDamage 4.67 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.93

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical fallacy in AFF-8. It points out that 'from yourselves' specifies the source of the collection, not the destination. This is a devastating attack because the context of 1 Corinthians 16 is a collection for the saints in Jerusalem (an external ministry), which directly refutes the claim that the text restricts giving to the local assembly only. The targe
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim in AFF-8 that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary. It correctly identifies that this is a non-sequitur.
Ground: non-sequitur-source-vs-destination
Strength 1

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's inference from source to destination is logically invalid, destroying the warrant of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the specific claim about 'from yourselves' creating a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's inference from 'source' to 'destination restriction' is a logical non-sequitur. It effectively dismantles the core warrant of AFF-8.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim in AFF-8 that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary, showing why that inference is invalid.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's inference from 'source' to 'exclusive destination' is a logical leap (non-sequitur), effectively dismantling the warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with the specific claim about 'from yourselves' implying restriction.
Ground: source-not-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-8's inference from source to destination, significantly weakening the point's core warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.67	4.4	5	3	5	0.8
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R22 REBUTTAL

76% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-22 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The phrase "from yourselves" identifies the source of the funds for a specific collection, but it does not logically establish a prohibition on the distribution of those funds to external ministries.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R22:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R22:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies that the collection is gathered from...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies that the collection is gathered from the local members of the church rather than from a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.76

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument. It accurately points out that 'from yourselves' specifies the source of the collection, not a restriction on the destination. This directly undermines the core warrant of AFF-22, which relies on this phrase to establish a local-only mandate. The attack is precise and effectively dismantles the specific inference made
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-22, quoting the relevant phrase and explaining why the inference is invalid. It does not attack a strawman.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-22: 'from yourselves' specifies the source of funds, not their destination. This dismantles the core inference of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-22's specific claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument. It points out that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, and notes that the text actually describes sending funds to Jerusalem (external saints), which undermines the 'local only' claim. This significantly weakens the affirmative's reliance on this specific verse for a local restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's warrant and the specific phrase 'from yourselves', accurately identifying the logical leap.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical gap in AFF-22: defining the source of collection does not inherently restrict its destination, effectively dismantling the warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with AFF-22's specific claim about the phrase 'from yourselves' and its alleged implication.
Ground: source-not-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination, effectively dismantling the core logical leap in AFF-22.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the specific claim in AFF-22 that 'from yourselves' implies a restriction to the immediate community.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R28 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" phrase identifies the source, not a restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-26 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that confuses the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R28:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R28:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's warrant. By distinguishing between the source of funds and their destination, it effectively dismantles the specific inference AFF-26 relies on to establish a jurisdictional boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-26, accurately identifying the non-sequitur in the reasoning.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically entail a restriction on their destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with the AFF's specific claim about 'from yourselves' creating a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds, not the destination, effectively dismantling the textual warrant of the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific logical leap made in the target point's warrant.
Ground: source-vs-destination-confusion
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically entail a restriction on their destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's specific claim about 'from yourselves' creating a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection, not a restriction on destination, which dismantles the AFF's core logical inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim in AFF-26 regarding the 'jurisdictional boundary' derived from 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R42 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" command does not establish a jurisdictional boundary.

Attacks AFF-43 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

“"The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 does not merely describe the source of funds but defines the scope of the recipients as the local assembly, creating a jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries from the primary tithe obligation."”

Claim

The AFF's leap from a description of the source of funds to a limitation of the destination is a non-sequitur.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R42:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the text specifies the source of the giving ("from yourselves"), it logically follows that the text restricts the destination to the local assembly.

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a directive regarding...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a directive regarding the *origin* of the funds—ensuring that the collection is a voluntary, personal commitment from the congregants rather than a forced levy or a pre-collected sum. It does not, however, contain any restrictive language regarding the *destination* of those funds. The AFF's claim that this phrase "defines the scope of the recipients" is a non-sequitur because a description of the giver's action (giving from their own resources) does not logically necessitate a limitation on the recipient's identity.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16:2 as a "jurisdictional...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16:2 as a "jurisdictional boundary." If "from yourselves" is merely a procedural instruction regarding the source of the funds, it cannot be used to establish a biblical prohibition on sending funds to external ministries.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-43 makes a logical leap from source to destination. It accurately engages the specific claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary and shows why that inference fails.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-43, identifying the specific logical flaw (Non-Sequitur) in the warrant.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that specifying the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically entail a restriction on their destination. This dismantles the warrant of AFF-43.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim of AFF-43 regarding the grammatical function of 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-43. It demonstrates that 'from yourselves' is a source descriptor, not a destination limiter, which effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by the affirmative.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-43, accurately identifying the non-sequitur.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the constructive's inference from 'source' to 'restricted destination' is a logical non-sequitur. It effectively dismantles the warrant of AFF-43.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately targets the specific claim in AFF-43 that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of recipients.
Ground: non-sequitur-source-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the inference from source to destination is a non-sequitur, effectively dismantling the core logical claim of AFF-43.
Accuracy 1 — Accurately targets the specific logical leap in AFF-43.
Ground: non-sequitur-source-destination
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R15 REBUTTAL

76% eff

The "from yourselves" phrase defines the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination.

Attacks AFF-14 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that confuses the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R15:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R15:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the *source* of the funds—the local members—to ensure the collection is gathered from the congregation rather than a different source. It does not define the *scope* of the "saints" (the recipients). The "saints" are the global body of believers; the text does not state "only for the saints in this room." The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.76

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument, showing that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection, not a prohibition on its destination. This effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-14.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-14, accurately identifying the non-sequitur.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — Effectively dismantles the core logical leap of AFF-14 by showing that source does not equal destination, rendering the argument invalid.
Accuracy 1 — Directly engages the specific claim about 'from yourselves' being a jurisdictional barrier.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's inference from 'source' to 'destination restriction' is a logical non-sequitur, significantly weakening the point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-14.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — Effectively dismantles the core linguistic argument by showing that source ('from yourselves') does not logically entail destination restriction.
Accuracy 1 — Accurately targets the specific warrant in AFF-14 regarding the meaning of 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's inference from source to destination is a logical leap (non-sequitur) and that the text does not support a restriction on destination.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-14 regarding the 'jurisdictional boundary' derived from 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.2	4	3	5	0.75
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R26 REBUTTAL

76% eff

The "from yourselves" phrase identifies the source, not a restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-25 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that confuses the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R26:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R26:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the *source* of the funds—the local members—to ensure the collection is gathered from the congregation rather than from a different source or a general pool. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.76

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's warrant. By showing that 'source' does not equal 'destination', it effectively dismantles the specific inference AFF-25 relies on to establish a geographic boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-25, addressing the actual argument made rather than a strawman.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically entail a restriction on their destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's primary warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with the AFF's claim about 'from yourselves' creating a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument: that 'from yourselves' defines the source of the collection, not the destination. This effectively dismantles the specific warrant used to support the local-only restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages the specific claim and evidence of AFF-25, identifying the non-sequitur in the inference from source to destination.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically entail a restriction on their destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's primary warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with the AFF's claim about jurisdictional boundaries derived from 1 Cor 16:2.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) refers to the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination. It effectively dismantles the AFF's core logical inference that this phrase creates a jurisdictional barrier against external ministries. The AFF's argument relies on this specific misreading, so the rebuttal is devastating to the point's validity.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's specific claim about the 'jurisdictional boundary' implied by 'from yourselves' and correctly identifies the logical error.
Ground: source-vs-destination-misread
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R44 REBUTTAL

81% eff

The "collection" is a local administrative procedure, not a covenantal "tithe."

Attacks AFF-45 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R44:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R44:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.81

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific administrative instruction for a specific purpose (helping the poor in Jerusalem), whereas the 'tithe' was a broader covenantal obligation. It effectively challenges the equivalence claimed by AFF-45, showing that the text does not support the 'functional equivalent' claim. This significantly weakens the affi
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the core claim of AFF-45 (that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe) and provides a valid distinction between the two concepts based on their scope and nature.
Ground: equating-local-collection-with-tithe
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-45 conflates a local administrative collection with the covenantal tithe. This strikes at the core warrant of AFF-45, leaving its conclusion unsupported.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific local administrative instruction, not a universal covenantal tithe. It effectively dismantles the affirmative's attempt to equate the two.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim of AFF-45 and correctly identifies the logical flaw in equating a local collection with a universal tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the equivocation in AFF-45 between 'collection' and 'tithe', effectively dismantling the core warrant of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific local administrative instruction, not the universal covenantal 'tithe' of the Old Testament. This effectively dismantles the AFF's core premise that the two are functionally equivalent.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the logical leap rather than a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R30 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" command is a matter of source, not a restriction on destination.

Attacks AFF-29 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that conflates the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of those funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R30:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R30:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the local...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the phrase 'from yourselves' grammatically indicates the source of the collection, not a restriction on its destination. This successfully dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-29 to establish a geographic boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-29 regarding the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 16:2.
Ground: source-vs-destination-misread
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds, not their destination. This directly undermines the AFF's core warrant that the phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-29, specifically targeting the interpretation of 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's inference from 'source' to 'destination restriction' is a logical non-sequitur. This effectively dismantles the core warrant of the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific logical flaw in the target's warrant regarding the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 16:2.
Ground: non-sequitur-source-destination
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical flaw in AFF-29's warrant: that defining the source of funds does not logically restrict their destination. This destroys the inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-29's specific claim about 'from yourselves' creating a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: source-not-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-29's inference from source to destination, significantly weakening the target's core argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-29's specific claim about the 'jurisdictional boundary' created by 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.2	4	3	5	0.75
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R24 REBUTTAL

76% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines a source, not a destination.

Attacks AFF-23 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that confuses the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R24:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R24:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the *source* of the funds—the local members—to ensure the collection is gathered from the local congregation rather than a different source. It does not define the *scope* of the "saints" (the recipients). The "saints" are the global body of believers; the text does not specify that the "saints" are limited to those within the local assembly. The jump from "collect from the local members" to "must not be sent to external ministries" is a non-sequitur; the text describes a method of gathering, not a prohibition on distribution.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.76

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical flaw in AFF-23: confusing the source of the collection with the destination. It effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by the affirmative to claim a jurisdictional boundary. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-23, addressing the 'from yourselves' interpretation accurately.
Ground: source-vs-destination-confusion
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — Effectively identifies the logical gap in AFF-23: confusing the source of funds with their permitted destination. The target's core warrant collapses if this distinction holds.
Accuracy 1 — Directly engages the specific claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary by showing it only defines source.
Ground: source-vs-destination-confusion
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds, not the destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's core argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the AFF's claim and evidence.
Ground: source-vs-destination-confusion
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical flaw in the constructive point: confusing the source of funds with their permitted destination. This dismantles the warrant entirely.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly engages the specific claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries.
Ground: source-destination-confusion
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical flaw in the target's argument: confusing the source of the funds with the destination. It effectively dismantles the specific inference that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional barrier against external giving.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the target's claim and evidence, accurately identifying the non-sequitur.
Ground: source-vs-destination-confusion
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R3 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "jurisdictional boundary" of 1 Corinthians 16 is a category error.

Attacks AFF-2 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's appeal to a "jurisdictional boundary" conflates a specific administrative instruction for a local gathering with a universal, exclusionary mandate for the "tithe."

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R3:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, but they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R3:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul instructs churches to collect "from yourselves," it...

The AFF argues that because Paul instructs churches to collect "from yourselves," it creates a boundary that excludes external ministries. However, the "collection" in 1 Cor 16 is a specific, local administrative procedure for a specific gathering; it is not the definition of the "tithe" as a concept. The "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a national, legal requirement. By equating a local administrative instruction (the collection) with a universal covenantal category (the tithe), the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation. The text of 1 Cor 16 does not forbid sending funds elsewhere; it merely provides a method for local collection.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against external giving. If the "collection" is merely a local method of gathering funds for the "saints" (the global body), then the "saints" are not restricted to the local house church. This removes the core of their claim that the New Testament "excludes" external ministries.

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the core logical flaw in AFF-2: the equivocation between a specific local administrative collection and the universal concept of the tithe. By distinguishing these categories, it undermines the AFF's claim that 1 Cor 16 establishes a 'jurisdictional boundary' for tithes. It successfully attacks the warrant that links the local instruction to a global prohibition
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim about the 'jurisdictional boundary' and the specific text of 1 Corinthians 16. It correctly identifies that the AFF is treating a local method as a universal mandate, which is a fair and accurate critique of the AFF's reasoning.
Ground: equivocation-collection-vs-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 3 — The rebuttal identifies a category error in equating a local administrative collection with a universal tithe mandate; this is a significant logical attack on the AFF's warrant, though it does not fully dismantle the point because the AFF's core claim rests on the fabricated text itself rather than just the interpretation.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim that 1 Cor 16 creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries, addressing the specific textual interpretation offered by AFF-2.
Ground: category-error-collection-vs-tithe
Strength 0.6

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the category error in AFF-2, showing that a local collection method does not equate to a universal tithe restriction, significantly weakening the target's core argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-2's claim that 1 Cor 16 creates a jurisdictional boundary, correctly identifying the conflation of administrative instruction with covenantal mandate.
Ground: category-error-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's evidence is fabricated and that the logical leap from 'local collection method' to 'exclusionary tithe mandate' is a category error; this destroys the target's support.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-2 regarding the 'jurisdictional boundary' derived from 1 Cor 16, accurately targeting the equivocation between administrative procedure and covenantal restriction.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific administrative procedure and not a universal covenantal 'tithe' mandate, which undermines the AFF's attempt to use it as a basis for a local-only restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-2 regarding the 'jurisdictional boundary' and correctly identifies the equivocation between a local collection and a universal tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-vs-tithe
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4	4	3	5	0.63
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R31 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction defines the source of the collection, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination.

Attacks AFF-30 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "from yourselves" as a jurisdictional barrier is a non-sequitur that conflates the source of the funds with the ultimate destination of the funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R31:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R31:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) identifies the source of the funds—the...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-30: the text specifies the source of the collection, not a prohibition on its destination. This effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by the affirmative to establish a 'jurisdictional boundary' against external giving.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-30, accurately identifying the non-sequitur in the inference from source to destination.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' specifies the source of funds, not their destination. This destroys the logical link between the cited text and the claim of a local-only restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim that 'from yourselves' creates a jurisdictional barrier, correctly identifying it as a non-sequitur.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the text specifies the source of the collection, not a prohibition on its destination, effectively dismantling the logical leap in the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-30, attacking the logical inference rather than a strawman.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the source of funds ('from yourselves') does not logically restrict their destination, dismantling the core warrant of AFF-30.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with the specific grammatical claim made in AFF-30 regarding 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-30's warrant, showing that 'from yourselves' defines the source of the collection, not the destination. This significantly weakens the affirmative's core textual argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-30's specific claim about the 'jurisdictional boundary' created by 'from yourselves' and correctly identifies the logical error.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R33 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction does not establish a jurisdictional exclusion.

Attacks AFF-31 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The phrase "from yourselves" identifies the source of the funds for the specific collection, not a restriction on the ultimate destination of those funds.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R33:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because a collection is gathered from a specific group ("from yourselves"), that specific group is the only group allowed to receive it.
NEG-R33:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies that the collection is gathered from...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16 as a "fence" against...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the phrase 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the funds, not a restriction on their destination. This effectively dismantles the affirmative's logical leap from source to destination restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's specific claim about the 'jurisdictional boundary' implied by the text.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — Accurately identifies that 'from yourselves' specifies source, not destination, dismantling the logical link between the text and the claimed geographic restriction.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim about jurisdictional boundary derived from 'from yourselves'.
Ground: source-not-destination
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the logical gap in AFF-31. It demonstrates that 'from yourselves' defines the source, not the destination, effectively dismantling the specific warrant used by the affirmative to claim a local-only restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-31, accurately identifying the non-sequitur.
Ground: source-vs-destination-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds, not their destination. It effectively dismantles the AFF's core inference that local collection equals local-only distribution.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the specific claim about jurisdictional boundaries derived from 1 Cor 16:2 accurately.
Ground: source-vs-destination-confusion
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of the collection, not a restriction on the destination, which is a valid linguistic and logical critique of AFF-31's inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-31 regarding the phrase 'from yourselves' and its alleged jurisdictional implication.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R53 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "collection" is a local administrative procedure, not a covenantal "tithe."

Attacks AFF-55 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The New Testament collection for the saints is not a new category of giving but the direct continuation of the Old Covenant tithe principle, specifically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers serve."”

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R53:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R53:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be...

The AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be the "tithe." However, the "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33). The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church. The fact that a local collection is "recurring" does not mean it inherits the "universal covenantal" status of the tithe. By equating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category, the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's argument conflates a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category. It points out that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a specific instruction for a particular church, not a universal tithe mandate. This directly undermines the AFF's core warrant that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the AFF's specific claim that the collection is a 'direct continuation of the Old Covenant tithe principle.' It accurately identifies the logical leap (equivocation) in treating a local practice as a universal covenant.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the category error in equating a local administrative collection with the covenantal tithe. It correctly points out that 'recurring' does not equal 'covenantal mandate,' dismantling the core warrant of AFF-55.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-55's claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe. It accurately targets the logical leap made by the affirmative.
Ground: category-error-equivocation
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's argument conflates a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category. It effectively dismantles the AFF's core warrant by showing the lack of theological continuity.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the AFF's actual claim about the 'functional equivalence' of the collection and the tithe, attacking the specific logical leap identified in the AFF's warrant.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal effectively identifies that the AFF's core premise (collection = tithe) is unsupported and logically distinct. By showing the category error between a local administrative collection and a universal covenantal tithe, it destroys the foundation of AFF-55.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-55's claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe. It correctly identifies the logical gap in equating the two concepts.
Ground: category-error-equivocation
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF is conflating two distinct concepts: a local administrative collection and a universal covenantal tithe. It effectively dismantles the AFF's core warrant by showing that 'local' does not equal 'tithe.'
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the specific logical link the AFF made.
Ground: conflation-of-local-collection-with-tithe
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R48 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "ordained" provision's local context does not establish a "tithe" restriction.

Attacks AFF-50 WARRANT

“"The command to live "of the gospel" implies a direct, local provision from the immediate harvest (the local congregation) rather than a distant, voluntary donation."”

Claim

The AFF's inference that "living of the gospel" establishes a "tithe" restriction is a non-sequitur.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R48:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the text describes a local arrangement for workers, it establishes a universal prohibition on non-local giving for the "tithe" category.

WarrantThe AFF argues that the phrase "live of the gospel" implies a local-only restriction....

The AFF argues that the phrase "live of the gospel" implies a local-only restriction. However, this phrase describes the *right* of the laborer to be sustained by the fruits of their specific ministry. It does not define the *scope* of the tithe as a category. Even if the "ordained" support is local in its execution, it does not logically create a "tithe" that is biblically barred from being sent elsewhere. The transition from "this laborer is supported by this local harvest" to "the tithe is a category restricted to the home church" is a leap that the text does not support.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a mechanism for...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 as a mechanism for the resolution. If "living of the gospel" only defines the laborer's right to support, it fails to establish the "tithe" as a restricted, local-only covenantal unit.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's inference from 'live of the gospel' to a 'local-only tithe restriction' is a non-sequitur. It effectively dismantles the logical link the affirmative tries to make between the text and the resolution's claim.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's warrant and the specific quote provided, accurately identifying the logical gap.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the text describes a right to support, not a prohibition on external giving. It effectively attacks the logical leap from 'local support' to 'exclusive local tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the specific warrant of AFF-50 regarding the inference from 'live of the gospel' to geographic restriction.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's inference from 'living of the gospel' to a 'local-only tithe restriction' is a logical leap. It effectively dismantles the specific warrant used by AFF-50 to connect the verse to the resolution's geographic restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim and warrant of AFF-50, attacking the logical connection rather than a strawman.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-50's warrant leaps from 'local support for laborers' to 'prohibition on external giving,' which is not supported by the text. It effectively dismantles the logical bridge of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific warrant in AFF-50 regarding the implication of 'live of the gospel.'
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the non-sequitur in AFF-50's argument, showing that the phrase 'live of the gospel' does not logically create a 'tithe' that is biblically barred from being sent elsewhere.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-50, specifically targeting the warrant that 'live of the gospel' implies a local-only restriction.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R54 REBUTTAL

75% eff

The "collection" is an administrative procedure, not a covenantal "tithe."

Attacks AFF-56 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R54:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R54:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."

WarrantThe "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the...

The "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33). The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church. While the "collection" is recurring and proportional, it does not inherit the "universal covenantal" status of the tithe. By equating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category, the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.75

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative is conflating two distinct concepts: a local administrative collection and a universal covenantal tithe. By pointing out that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a specific local instruction and not the 'tithe' itself, it undermines the Affirmative's core premise that the NT collection is the functional equivalent of the OT tithe. This significant
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the Affirmative's claim that the collection is the 'direct continuation of the Old Covenant tithe principle.' It accurately identifies the logical flaw in equating a local practice with a universal covenant.
Ground: conflation-of-local-collection-with-universal-tithe
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative conflates a local administrative collection with a universal covenantal tithe. It attacks the core warrant of AFF-56 by showing the categories are distinct, thereby removing the support for the claim that the NT mandates a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-56's claim that the collection is the 'direct continuation' of the tithe principle. It does not strawman; it addresses the actual equivalence argument.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative is conflating two distinct concepts: a local administrative collection and a universal covenantal tithe. By highlighting this equivocation, it significantly weakens the affirmative's core inference that the NT collection inherits the OT tithe's status.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the affirmative's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's evidence (Yarbrough) actually supports the Negative position, destroying the AFF's warrant that the collection is a tithe.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-56 directly.
Ground: evidence-contradicts-warrant
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative is conflating two distinct concepts: a local administrative collection and a universal covenantal tithe. It effectively dismantles the core warrant of AFF-56 by showing the logical leap is invalid.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim in AFF-56 that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the logical connection rather than a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4.2	4	4	5	0.4
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R52 REBUTTAL

69% eff

The "ordained" status does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-54 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's identification of "ordained" support as a "spiritual tithe" is a fallacy of equivocation that conflates a right to support with a covenantal tithe.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R52:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF uses "tithe" to mean "any recurring, proportional giving," which is not the biblical definition of the term.
NEG-R52:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the support is "ordained" (tithēnai), it functions as the...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.69

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF is conflating 'ordained' support (a right to live of the gospel) with the specific covenantal 'tithe' (a fixed 10% obligation). This is a significant logical flaw in the AFF's argument. The rebuttal effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, showing that the AFF's 'spiritual tithe' is a category error.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a 'spiritual tithe' and attacks the logical leap (equivocation) involved in that claim. It accurately represents the AFF's position.
Ground: equivocation-ordained-tithe
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-54 conflates 'ordained support' with 'tithe' and fails to derive geographic restriction from the text. It effectively dismantles the logical link between the evidence and the affirmative's conclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-54's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a tithe-like obligation restricted to the local church, pointing out the equivocation between 'right to support' and 'covenantal tithe'.
Ground: equivocation-on-tithe-definition
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative is conflating 'support for workers' (1 Cor 9:14) with the 'tithe' (a specific OT covenantal obligation). It accurately points out that the text does not use the word 'tithe' and that the 'right to support' is a different category. This significantly weakens the Affirmative's attempt to use this verse to prove a local-only tithe mandate.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the Affirmative's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'spiritual tithe' and correctly identifies the equivocation between 'support' and 'tithe'.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-vs-support
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-54 equivocates on the term 'tithe', using it to mean both a specific covenantal unit and general ordained support. It accurately targets the logical flaw in AFF-54's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-54's claim that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a 'spiritual tithe' and correctly points out the definitional mismatch.
Ground: equivocation-on-tithe-definition
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF is conflating a 'right to support' with a 'covenantal tithe.' It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, showing that the 'ordained' status in 1 Cor 9:14 is not the same as the OT tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the AFF's actual claim that the 'ordained' support is a 'spiritual tithe' and correctly identifies the equivocation.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-vs-right
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R40 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "collection" is a local administrative practice, not a covenantal "tithe."

Attacks AFF-41 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, covenantal tithe obligation that is biblically restricted to the home church where the laborers serve."”

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R40:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R40:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the central logical flaw in AFF-41: the conflation of a local administrative collection with a universal covenantal tithe. By pointing out that 'recurring' does not equal 'covenantal,' it effectively dismantles the warrant's primary inference, leaving the affirmative's claim that the tithe is restricted to the home church without a valid NT textual anchor.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, addressing the actual argument made rather than a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-collection
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 3 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in equating a local collection with a universal tithe, but its force is diminished because it relies on [NEG-R40:E2] which is also flagged as a MISMATCH (fabricated) in the verification report. However, the logical critique of equivocation stands independently of the flawed citation.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, attacking the definition rather than a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.6

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific local instruction and not the OT 'tithe.' It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, which is the core of the AFF's argument for a local-only tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: equivocation-tithe-vs-collection
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's evidence is fabricated and that the logical leap from 'local collection' to 'covenantal tithe' is unsupported, effectively destroying the point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe and attacks the equivocation between administrative practice and covenantal obligation.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific administrative instruction for a particular context, distinct from the OT covenantal tithe. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two by highlighting the difference in scope and legal status.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the logical leap involved in that equivalence.
Ground: category-error-equivalence
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	4	4	3	5	0.63
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R2 REBUTTAL

⚔ 1 76% eff

The "firstfruits" concept does not establish a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-1 WARRANT

Claim

The AFF's interpretation of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for geographic restriction is a non-sequitur.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R2:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the "firstfruits" are given to the immediate steward, the "tithe" is then restricted to that steward.

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall. However,...

The AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall. However, "firstfruits" in the biblical sense (e.g., Proverbs 3:9-10) refers to the *priority* of the offering—giving the first portion of one's resources to God's work—not a prohibition on where the "remaining" portions are sent. The transition from "priority of heart" to "prohibition of external giving" is a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, not the boundaries of the treasury.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If the principle only establishes a priority of devotion, it fails to provide the "biblically restricted" local-only mandate they claim, thus failing to support the resolution.

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.76

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — This rebuttal effectively identifies a logical gap in AFF-1. It correctly points out that 'firstfruits' is a principle of priority, not a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the Affirmative's argument that the Bible restricts tithes to the local church based on the firstfruits concept.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with the Affirmative's claim about 'firstfruits' and correctly identifies the logical leap (non-sequitur) in their reasoning.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'firstfruits' refers to priority of giving rather than a geographic restriction on destination, effectively dismantling the AFF's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with the AFF's claim about firstfruits establishing a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: firstfruits-priority-not-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative's inference from 'firstfruits' (priority) to 'local-only tithe' (restriction) is a logical non-sequitur. It effectively dismantles the specific warrant used in AFF-1 to support the resolution.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim in AFF-1 that 'firstfruits' implies a geographic restriction, accurately identifying the logical flaw in that inference.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that 'firstfruits' denotes priority, not geographic restriction, dismantling the warrant of AFF-1.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim about firstfruits establishing a jurisdictional boundary.
Ground: firstfruits-priority-not-restriction
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative's inference from 'firstfruits' to 'local-only restriction' is a non-sequitur. It effectively dismantles the Affirmative's use of this concept as a mechanism for exclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the Affirmative's actual claim about 'firstfruits' and its alleged jurisdictional implication. It does not attack a strawman.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.48

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R21 REBUTTAL

43% eff ⚑

The "firstfruits" principle does not establish a mandate for local-only tithes.

Attacks AFF-21 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a prohibition on the distribution of the remaining portion.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-R21:E1 SCRIPTURE Proverbs 3:9-10 — "Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your increase."
NEG-R21:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the "firstfruits" are given to the immediate steward, the "tithe" is then restricted to that steward.

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall by...

The AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall by requiring the first portion to go to the local steward. However, "firstfruits" in the biblical sense refers to the *priority* of the offering—ensuring the first portion of one's resources is dedicated to God's work—not a prohibition on where the "remaining" portions are sent. The transition from "this is the first thing we need to give" to "no other portion may be sent elsewhere" is a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, not the boundaries of the total treasury.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If...

Judges' notesDamage 3.33 · Accuracy 0.67 · Strength 0.43

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (cited in the broader context of the debate) establishes priority of devotion, not a geographic restriction on the remaining funds. It effectively dismantles the logical leap from 'give first to God/local' to 'give only to local'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the core logical flaw in the affirmative's argument regarding the scope of the obligation, even if it targets the 'firstfruits' aspect rather than the specific 'from yourselves' phrase directly. It accurately identifies the non-sequitur.
Ground: priority-vs-restriction
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (cited in the target's logic/warrant context) establishes priority, not exclusivity. It effectively severs the link between 'giving first to local' and 'forbidding giving elsewhere'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual logical flaw in AFF-21's warrant regarding the implication of restriction from source/priority.
Ground: priority-not-restriction
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (if it were the primary evidence, which it is not in AFF-21's main text) establishes priority, not exclusive destination. However, it attacks a 'firstfruits' argument that AFF-21 does not primarily rely on (AFF-21 relies on 1 Cor 16:2). It partially addresses the logical leap by showing that 'first' does not mean 'only', which is a
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal engages with the logical structure of the AFF's argument (priority vs. restriction) but misidentifies the specific evidence (citing Proverbs 3:9 instead of 1 Cor 16:2). It attacks the 'firstfruits' concept which is not the core of AFF-21's warrant, making it a partial miss.
Ground: misidentified-evidence
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 0 — The rebuttal attacks a 'firstfruits' argument which AFF-21 does not actually make; AFF-21 relies on 1 Cor 16:2 and the phrase 'from yourselves'. While the underlying logic of AFF-21 is flawed, this specific rebuttal misses its target by addressing an absent premise.
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal claims to attack the warrant regarding 'firstfruits', but AFF-21's warrant focuses on the jurisdictional implication of 'from yourselves' in 1 Cor 16. The target quote provided in the rebuttal is from AFF-21, but the rebuttal's own evidence and reasoning pivot to Proverbs 3:9 (firstfruits), which is not cited in AFF-21. Thus, it attacks a strawman or unrelated claim.
Ground: strawman-premise
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' or 'from yourselves' language establishes priority/source, not a destination restriction, which is the core logical flaw in the affirmative's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific claim about 'from yourselves' implying a restriction, which is the actual argument made in AFF-21.
Ground: source-vs-destination-conflation
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	3.33	2.8	4	0	4	1.6
Accuracy	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

NEG-R32 REBUTTAL

⚔ 1 41% eff

The "collection" is a local method, not a covenantal "tithe"

Attacks AFF-33 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R32:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R32:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.41

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal effectively identifies the logical gap in the affirmative's argument by distinguishing between a local administrative practice and a universal covenantal obligation. It weakens the affirmative's claim that the collection is the 'tithe'.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the specific claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, which is the core of the affirmative's argument.
Ground: equivocation-on-tithe
Strength 0.6

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal accurately identifies the logical flaw in equating a local administrative instruction with a universal covenantal mandate, effectively dismantling the warrant of the constructive point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-33's claim that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe, addressing the actual argument rather than a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific administrative instruction and not the 'tithe' itself. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, which is the core of AFF-33's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.32

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's core argument rests on equating two distinct concepts (collection and tithe) without justification, effectively dismantling the warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly addresses the specific claim in AFF-33 that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific local instruction and not the 'tithe' itself, which undermines the AFF's core premise.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the AFF's specific claim about the 'functional equivalence' of the collection and the tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.32

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.2	4	3	5	0.75
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R51 REBUTTAL

69% eff

The "collection" is not a "tithe" because it lacks covenantal scope.

Attacks AFF-53 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) that is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters."”

Claim

The AFF's identification of the "collection" as the "spiritual tithe" is a fallacy of equivocation that conflates a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R51:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF uses "tithe" to mean "any recurring, proportional giving," which is not the biblical definition of the term.
NEG-R51:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."

WarrantThe "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.69

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is distinct from the Old Testament 'tithe' and that the AFF's attempt to equate them is a category error. It effectively dismantles the AFF's core warrant by showing the evidence (the scholar) actually refutes the AFF's claim.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'spiritual tithe' and uses the AFF's own cited evidence to show this is false.
Ground: category-error-collection-vs-tithe
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 lacks the covenantal scope of the OT tithe. It accurately attacks the AFF's conflation of these two categories. The damage is severe because it dismantles the core premise that the NT collection is a mandatory tithe.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim made in AFF-53 regarding the equivalence of collection and tithe.
Ground: category-error-collection-vs-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific administrative instruction distinct from the Old Covenant 'tithe.' It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two by highlighting the lack of covenantal scope in the NT text, which is the core of the AFF's error.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is a 'spiritual tithe' and attacks the logical leap (equivocation) involved in that identification.
Ground: category-error-collection-vs-tithe
Strength 0.64

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-53 relies on equating 'collection' with 'tithe.' By citing evidence (Yarbrough) that explicitly states the collection is NOT the tithe, the Rebuttal exposes that AFF-53's own evidence destroys its conclusion. The target point has no remaining support because it argues for equivalence while citing a source that denies it.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-53 (that collection = tithe) and uses the opponent's own cited scholar to show the error. It accurately targets the equivocation/category error in the Constructive.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is distinct from the OT 'tithe' and that the AFF's conflation is a logical error. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the AFF's actual claim that the collection is the 'spiritual tithe' and correctly identifies the equivocation.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.64

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R50 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "collection" is a local administrative practice, not a covenantal "tithe."

Attacks AFF-52 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as the specific, proportional obligation (the spiritual tithe) that is biblically restricted to the local assembly where the laborers are present, excluding external ministries or denominational headquarters."”

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a local administrative procedure with a universal covenantal category.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R50:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring local collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, even though they differ in scope and definition.
NEG-R50:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be...

The AFF argues that because the collection is recurring and "proportional," it must be the "tithe." However, the "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-33). The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church. The fact that a local collection is "recurring" does not mean it inherits the "universal covenantal" status of the tithe. By equating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category, the AFF commits a fallacy of equivocation.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Cor 16 is a specific administrative instruction, not a universal covenantal tithe. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to conflate the two, leaving the AFF's core claim unsupported.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the specific logical leap made in the warrant.
Ground: category-error-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the constructive point conflates distinct concepts and relies on fabricated evidence; since the constructive is internally incoherent and evidentially void, the rebuttal's attack is devastating.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-52 regarding the equivalence of collection and tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific local instruction, distinct from the universal covenantal 'tithe' of the Old Testament. It effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two by highlighting the difference in scope and legal status.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's claim that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the logical leap involved in that equivalence.
Ground: category-error-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the constructive point conflates distinct concepts and relies on fabricated evidence; it effectively dismantles the argument by showing the internal contradiction between the claim of equivalence and the warrant's denial of it.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim of AFF-52 regarding the functional equivalence of collection and tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative practice and not a covenantal 'tithe'. This directly attacks the core claim of AFF-52 that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe. The rebuttal is effective in dismantling the AFF's argument.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-52, which is that the collection is the functional equivalent of the tithe. It does not attack a strawman.
Ground: category-error
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R45 REBUTTAL

87% eff

The "ordained" provision does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-46 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "ordained" provision constitutes a "tithe" is a fallacy of equivocation, as "ordained" refers to the right of the worker to be supported, not the specific covenantal mechanism of the tithe.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R45:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats the "ordained" right of a worker to be supported by the gospel as synonymous with the "tithe" as a specific, covenantal, and proportional legal requirement.
NEG-R45:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe "ordained" (tithemenō) status in 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes that those who...

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 to establish a...

Judges' notesDamage 4.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the term 'ordained' in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to a right of support rather than a specific covenantal tithe mechanism. This effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two, especially given the AFF's internal confusion on the matter.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the AFF's misuse of the term 'ordained' and its attempt to conflate it with 'tithe.' It accurately targets the logical flaw in the AFF's warrant.
Ground: equivocation-ordained-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative's argument is self-contradictory and relies on equivocation between 'ordained support' and 'tithe'. By showing that 1 Cor 9:14 establishes a right to support rather than a specific covenantal tithe mechanism, it dismantles the logical foundation of AFF-46.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the claim in AFF-46 regarding the nature of the 'ordained' provision and its relationship to the tithe concept.
Ground: equivocation-on-tithe-definition
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's argument is incoherent and that 'ordained' (tithemenō) refers to a right of support rather than the specific covenantal mechanism of the tithe. This effectively dismantles the AFF's attempt to equate the two.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the AFF's actual (albeit confused) claim that the 'ordained' provision establishes a tithe, correctly identifying the equivocation between a right to support and a specific legal tithe.
Ground: equivocation-on-ordained
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-46's evidence (1 Cor 9:14) does not support the affirmative resolution. By showing that 'ordained' refers to a right of support rather than a specific tithe mechanism, it exposes the logical gap in AFF-46's attempt to use this verse to prove local-only tithing.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-46's claim that 'ordained' implies a tithe/restriction and correctly points out the equivocation between a general right to support and a specific covenantal tithe.
Ground: equivocation-on-ordained-status
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's argument conflates a general right to support with a specific covenantal tithe. It effectively attacks the logical leap in AFF-46. However, because AFF-46 is already incoherent and self-contradictory, the rebuttal's damage is limited to clarifying why the AFF's positive claim (that it establishes a local tithe) fails. It does not destroy the AFF's n
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the specific claim in AFF-46's Impact section (that the provision establishes a local-only tithe) and correctly identifies the equivocation between 'ordained support' and 'tithe.' It addresses the actual argument made, even if that argument was poorly constructed.
Ground: equivocation-ordained-vs-tithe
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4.33	4.2	4	3	5	0.75
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R36 REBUTTAL

32% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-36 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's claim that *tithēnai* represents a "right" rather than a "tithe" does not logically negate the possibility of a geographic restriction inherent in the New Testament's distribution of funds.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R36:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the Greek term *tithēnai* refers to the legal right of the preacher to be supported, it logically follows that the text contains no geographic restrictions on the distribution of those funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that because tithēnai (1 Cor 9:14) defines a right of support rather...

The AFF argues that because *tithēnai* (1 Cor 9:14) defines a right of support rather than a specific 10% calculation, the "tithe" as a concept is not present. However, even if the specific "tithe" calculation is absent, the AFF's logic fails to address the geographic scope of the "saints" (the recipients). The existence of a "right" to support does not logically necessitate an "unrestricted" right to support; the text can establish a right to support that is nonetheless restricted to the local community or a specific group of "saints."

ImpactThis rebuttal challenges the AFF's attempt to use the linguistic definition of...

This rebuttal challenges the AFF's attempt to use the linguistic definition of *tithēnai* to dismantle the "local-only" argument. If the existence of a "right" does not logically equate to "unrestricted distribution," the AFF's claim that the New Testament allows for broad distribution to external ministries is not established by this point.

Judges' notesDamage 3.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.32

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the absence of a 'tithe' calculation does not logically preclude a geographic restriction, which is a valid logical point that weakens the target's conclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the target's actual claim about the Greek term and its implications, not a strawman.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.36

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-36's argument (that 'ordained' means 'right' not 'tithe') does not logically prove the absence of geographic restrictions. However, since AFF-36 itself argues against the resolution (supporting the negative), damaging it actually helps the affirmative side. The rebuttal is accurate in its logical critique of the inference gap.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-36 regarding the linguistic definition of tithēnai and its implications for geographic scope.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.16

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies a non-sequitur in AFF-36, where the absence of explicit restriction is used to argue for the absence of restriction. This is a significant logical flaw that weakens the point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim of AFF-36, which is that the 'ordained' provision does not establish a tithe or geographic restriction. It correctly identifies the logical gap in this argument.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.36

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-36's linguistic analysis of 'ordained' does not logically prove the absence of geographic restrictions. It exposes a gap in the affirmative's reasoning.
Accuracy 1 — Accurately targets the logical leap in AFF-36 regarding the scope of distribution.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal effectively identifies a logical gap in the target's argument: the absence of a 'tithe' calculation does not logically necessitate the absence of a geographic restriction. This significantly weakens the target's conclusion.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the target's actual claim about the Greek term *tithēnai* and its implications for geographic restriction, not a strawman.
Ground: non-sequitur-geographic-restriction
Strength 0.24

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	3.33	3.4	3	3	4	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R39 REBUTTAL

53% eff

The "right" of the preacher does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-40 FALLACY:NON-SEQUITUR

Claim

The AFF's argument that the lack of a "tithe" definition in 1 Corinthians 11:14 removes the possibility of a geographic restriction is a non-sequitur.

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-R39:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the term *tithēnai* refers to a right of support rather than a "tithe" calculation, it logically follows that the text cannot also contain a geographic limitation.
NEG-R39:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."

WarrantThe AFF argues that because tithēnai (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") defines...

The AFF argues that because *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") defines a right of the preacher to be supported, it cannot be used to support a "local-only" claim. However, a right can be qualified. A preacher may have a "right" to be supported by the community, but that right can be restricted to the local community. The absence of a specific "tithe" percentage (10%) does not logically necessitate that the scope of the "saints" (the recipients) is unlimited. The AFF's logic fails because they attempt to use the lack of a *quantitative* definition to negate a *qualitative* restriction.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use the linguistic definition of...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to use the linguistic definition of *tithēnai* to dismantle the "local-only" argument. If the existence of a "right" to support does not logically equate to an "unrestricted" right to support, the AFF's claim that the New Testament allows for broad distribution to external ministries is not established by this point.

Judges' notesDamage 3.67 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.53

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies the non-sequitur in AFF-40's argument. It points out that the absence of a quantitative definition (10%) does not logically necessitate an unlimited scope. This is a strong attack on the logical structure of the point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim of AFF-40, which is that the lack of a 'tithe' definition removes the possibility of a geographic restriction. It accurately identifies the logical flaw.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the absence of a quantitative definition (tithe) does not logically preclude a qualitative restriction (local-only). It exposes the gap in AFF-40's reasoning that 'right' implies 'unrestricted'. This significantly weakens the target point.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-40's claim that *tithēnai* refers to a right rather than a tithe/geographic restriction. It accurately targets the logical leap in the affirmative's warrant.
Ground: non-sequitur-right-vs-restriction
Strength 0.64

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the absence of a 'tithe' definition does not logically necessitate the absence of a geographic restriction. It effectively attacks the logical leap in AFF-40.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim of AFF-40 regarding the logical relationship between 'tithe' and 'geographic restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-40's logic is flawed: denying a quantitative definition (tithe/10%) does not logically prove the absence of a qualitative restriction (local-only). This significantly weakens AFF-40's warrant, as the inference from 'not a tithe' to 'not restricted' is invalid.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal accurately engages with AFF-40's specific claim that the lack of a tithe definition negates geographic restriction, identifying the logical gap between quantity and scope.
Ground: non-sequitur-quantity-scope
Strength 0.64

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the absence of a quantitative definition (10%) does not logically negate a qualitative restriction (locality). It exposes the logical gap in AFF-40's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the specific logical claim in AFF-40 regarding the relationship between 'right' and 'restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur-logic-gap
Strength 0.36

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	3.67	3.6	4	3	4	0.49
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R46 REBUTTAL

60% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Attacks AFF-48 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

Claim

The AFF's argument that the "ordained" status is not a "tithe" is a valid point, but their conclusion that it lacks a "geographic restriction" is a non-sequitur.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R46:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF argues that because *tithēnai* refers to a right of the preacher, it does not define a geographic boundary.

WarrantThe AFF correctly identifies that tithēnai refers to the preacher's right to support,...

The AFF correctly identifies that *tithēnai* refers to the preacher's right to support, but they incorrectly conclude that this lack of a "tithe" definition removes any geographic limitation. Even if the "ordained" support is not a "tithe" in the Old Covenant sense, the New Testament's "collection for the saints" (1 Cor 16:2) remains a localized, communal act. The absence of a 10% requirement does not equate to the absence of a local-only boundary; the "ordained" status simply defines the *nature* of the obligation (mandatory for the worker's support), not the *scope* of the collection's geography.

ImpactThis rebuttal strikes at the heart of the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 to...

This rebuttal strikes at the heart of the AFF's attempt to use 1 Corinthians 9:14 to dismantle the "local-only" claim. By showing that the "ordained" status and the "tithe" are distinct categories, the AFF's point fails to provide a logical bridge to allow for non-local giving.

Judges' notesDamage 3 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.6

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the opponent's argument is incoherent and that the 'ordained' status is distinct from a 'tithe'. However, it fails to address the specific internal contradiction in AFF-48 (where the 'Establishes' line contradicts the 'Claim'). It attacks the logical leap (non-sequitur) but does not fully dismantle the point's confusion, leaving the target's core incoherence
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim made in the 'Claim' and 'Warrant' sections of AFF-48, correctly identifying the logical gap between 'right of preacher' and 'geographic restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the Affirmative's argument (that 'ordained' != tithe) does not logically prove the absence of geographic restriction. It exposes a non-sequitur in the Affirmative's warrant: denying a specific definition (tithe) does not automatically negate other potential restrictions (geography). This significantly weakens the Affirmative's attempt to use this verse to ope
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the Affirmative's claim that the lack of a 'tithe' definition implies no geographic restriction. It accurately targets the logical gap in that inference.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's argument is a non-sequitur (concluding no geographic restriction from the absence of a fixed percentage). However, because the target point (AFF-48) is already self-contradictory and effectively argues the negative's position, this rebuttal adds little new damage to a point that is already structurally broken.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the specific logical leap in AFF-48's warrant regarding the Greek term and geographic boundaries. It accurately identifies the flaw in the inference.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the AFF's warrant (no tithe = no geographic restriction) is a non-sequitur. It shows that even if the 'ordained' status isn't a tithe, it doesn't automatically remove local boundaries established elsewhere. This significantly weakens the AFF's attempt to use 1 Cor 9:14 to prove open-ended giving.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual claim and evidence of AFF-48, specifically targeting the logical leap from 'not a tithe' to 'no geographic restriction'.
Ground: non-sequitur-inference
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the absence of a 'tithe' definition does not automatically remove a geographic limitation, which is a valid logical point that weakens the target's inference.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the target's specific claim about the lack of geographic restriction, though it misidentifies the fallacy as equivocation when it is a non-sequitur.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	3	3	3	2	4	0.89
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R47 REBUTTAL

43% eff ⚑

The "change in the law" does not permit the expansion of the tithe's scope.

Attacks AFF-49 WARRANT

“"Since the NT priesthood is distinct from the OT Levitical order, the specific legal requirement of the OT tithe cannot automatically transfer to the local church collection."”

Claim

The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant removes the *legal* requirement of the tithe, but it does not logically permit the *redefinition* of the collection as a "tithe" to justify the resolution's specific "home church only" restriction.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R47:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle: The AFF argues that because the NT collection is not the OT tithe (due to the change in law), it is therefore not restricted to the local church. This is a non-sequitur; the absence of a specific covenantal "tithe" label does not automatically grant the "collection" the freedom to be used for external ministries.

WarrantThe AFF uses the "change in law" to argue that the "tithe" as a category no longer...

The AFF uses the "change in law" to argue that the "tithe" as a category no longer exists. While this may be true, it does not logically support the resolution's claim that the *tithe* must go to the home church. If the "tithe" is no longer a category, then the resolution's specific claim about the "tithe" becomes a moot point, but it does not provide a positive biblical mandate for the "collection" to be distributed externally. The AFF's attempt to use the "change in law" as a shield for the "collection" fails because they are trying to use the absence of a category to validate a specific restriction on a different, non-existent category.

ImpactThis rebuttal neutralizes the AFF's attempt to use the "change in law" to bypass the...

This rebuttal neutralizes the AFF's attempt to use the "change in law" to bypass the "home church" restriction. By showing that the "change in law" only affects the *definition* of the tithe and not the *scope* of the collection, the AFF's attempt to use the "tithe" as a vehicle for their argument is dismantled.

Judges' notesDamage 2.67 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.43

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-49's argument is a non-sequitur. It points out that the absence of a 'tithe' category does not logically validate the 'home church only' restriction, which is the core of the resolution. This significantly weakens AFF-49's attempt to refute the resolution.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual logical flaw in AFF-49's warrant.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-49's argument (tithe is abolished) actually undermines the resolution's premise rather than supporting it. It points out that denying the existence of the tithe category makes the resolution's restriction on 'tithes' inapplicable, which is a devastating logical strike against an affirmative point that tries to use this abolition to support a specific loca
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual warrant of AFF-49 regarding the change in law and its implications for the definition of the collection.
Ground: logical-non-sequitur
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's argument is a non-sequitur, but it fails to provide a positive alternative or effectively dismantle the specific theological warrant (Hebrews 7:12) used by the affirmative.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the specific logical flaw in the affirmative's warrant regarding the 'change in law'.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.32

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 2 — The rebuttal argues that the 'change in law' does not permit redefining the collection as a tithe to justify the resolution. It attacks the warrant of AFF-49. However, AFF-49's warrant is that the tithe is abolished, so the resolution fails. NEG-R47 says this doesn't logically permit expansion to external ministries. This is a weak attack because AFF-49 isn't trying to prove external giving is man
Accuracy 0 — The rebuttal engages with the AFF's use of Hebrews 7:12 but misinterprets the AFF's goal. The AFF isn't trying to justify external giving; it's trying to dismantle the Affirmative case by showing the tithe is abolished. The rebuttal attacks a strawman of 'expansion of scope'.
Ground: strawman-of-aff-goal
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 2 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the absence of a 'tithe' category does not automatically grant freedom to use the collection for external ministries, but it does not fully dismantle the AFF's argument that the NT collection is a distinct administrative practice.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the AFF's actual claim about the 'change in law' and its implications for the collection, but it does not address the AFF's core argument that the NT collection is a local administrative practice.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.32

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	2.67	3	2	2	5	1.26
Accuracy	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

NEG-R49 REBUTTAL

53% eff

The "collection" is not a "tithe" because it lacks covenantal scope.

Attacks AFF-51 FALLACY:EQUIVOCATION

“"The New Testament collection for the saints functions as a distinct, voluntary administrative practice rather than the continuation of the Old Covenant tithe obligation restricted to the home church."”

Claim

The AFF's attempt to distinguish the "collection" from the "tithe" does not logically undermine the resolution's claim regarding the "tithe" itself.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R49:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats the "collection" as a substitute for the "tithe" in their logic while simultaneously claiming they are different categories.

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the NT "collection" is a "voluntary administrative practice"...

The AFF argues that because the NT "collection" is a "voluntary administrative practice" and not the "tithe," the "tithe" is not biblically restricted to the home church. However, this is a non-sequitur. If the "tithe" is a distinct covenantal category that is no longer mandated in the NT, its lack of presence in the NT "collection" does not provide a logical mechanism for the "tithe" to be sent elsewhere. They are attempting to use the *absence* of a category (the tithe) in a specific context (the collection) to argue for the *expansion* of that category's scope.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's primary strategy of using the "collection" as a "safe"...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's primary strategy of using the "collection" as a "safe" alternative to the "tithe." If the "collection" is not the "tithe," then the fact that the "collection" is not restricted to the home church is irrelevant to the specific claim that the "tithe" is.

Judges' notesDamage 3.33 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.53

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the affirmative's argument is incoherent: if the collection is not the tithe, then the tithe's restrictions don't apply to the collection. This is a valid logical point that damages the affirmative's attempt to use the collection as a basis for the tithe's local restriction.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim of AFF-51, which is that the collection is a distinct practice. It correctly points out the logical non-sequitur in using this distinction to support the resolution.
Ground: logical-non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 5 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-51's argument is self-defeating: if the collection is not the tithe, then arguments about the collection's scope do not prove anything about the tithe's scope. This devastates the logical connection in AFF-51.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with AFF-51's claim that the collection is distinct from the tithe and shows why this distinction fails to support the resolution.
Ground: logical-non-sequitur
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — Correctly identifies that the AFF conflates the collection with the tithe, but the target is already internally inconsistent, so the added damage is moderate.
Accuracy 1 — Engages the actual claim about the collection/tithe distinction rather than a strawman.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.36

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-51's argument (collection != tithe) undermines the affirmative case for local-only tithes. It exposes the logical non-sequitur in using the absence of a tithe mandate to prove a restriction on giving.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages with the actual claim that the collection is distinct from the tithe and analyzes the logical consequence of that distinction for the resolution.
Ground: logical-non-sequitur
Strength 0.64

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that AFF-51 fails to logically connect the distinction between 'collection' and 'tithe' to the resolution's claim about the tithe's destination. It exposes a non-sequitur in the affirmative's warrant.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the actual logical flaw in AFF-51's argument structure, specifically the failure to show how the absence of a tithe mandate in the collection context proves the tithe's restriction to the home church.
Ground: non-sequitur
Strength 0.48

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-R1 REBUTTAL

80% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not a localized tithe.

Attacks AFF-D1 WARRANT

“"The instruction to "set aside a sum" (1 Cor 16:2) is not merely voluntary generosity but a specific, recurring command that functions as the NT equivalent of the OT tithe obligation for local support."”

Claim

The AFF's claim that the "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is the functional equivalent of the "tithe" is a logical leap that conflates a specific local instruction with a universal mandate.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-R1:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF treats "recurring collection" and "tithe" as synonymous, but they differ in scope and definition.

WarrantThe AFF argues that because the collection is "recurring," it must be the "tithe."...

The AFF argues that because the collection is "recurring," it must be the "tithe." However, a recurring instruction for a specific local gathering (1 Cor 16) does not logically equate to the universal, covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament. The "tithe" was a specific legal requirement for the nation of Israel; the "collection" is a practical instruction for a specific local church. By equating the two, the AFF assumes a continuity of the *legal category* of tithe that the New Testament text does not provide.

ImpactThis rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in...

This rebuttal dismantles the AFF's attempt to "rescue" the tithe as a mandatory unit in the New Testament. If the "collection" is merely a local administrative practice and not the "tithe" itself, then the AFF's claim that the "tithe" must be restricted to the home church fails, as the "tithe" as a specific, mandatory unit of calculation is not established in the NT.

Judges' notesDamage 4 · Accuracy 1 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, one-time or recurring local instruction for a particular crisis (the poor in Jerusalem), whereas the Old Testament tithe was a standing covenantal obligation for the nation of Israel. By distinguishing the legal category of the two, it effectively breaks the AFF's warrant that the former is the functional eq
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly engages the specific claim in the target quote that the collection 'functions as the NT equivalent of the OT tithe obligation,' attacking the logical leap in that equivalence rather than a strawman.
Ground: category-error-conflation
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that equating a local administrative collection with the covenantal tithe is a logical leap, significantly weakening AFF-D1's attempt to salvage the affirmative case by redefining terms.
Accuracy 1 — Engages directly with AFF-D1's claim that the collection functions as the NT equivalent of the OT tithe.
Ground: equivocation-collection-tithe
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 1 Corinthians 16 collection is a specific, one-time or recurring local instruction for a particular crisis (the Jerusalem saints), whereas the Old Testament tithe was a standing covenantal obligation for the nation of Israel. By distinguishing the legal category of 'tithe' from the practical instruction of 'collection,' it effectively breaks the AFF's war
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages directly with the specific claim in AFF-D1 that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the logical leap in that equivalence.
Ground: category-error-tithe-vs-collection
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Damage 3 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the target (AFF-D1) relies on equating a local administrative collection with a covenantal tithe, and argues this is a logical leap. However, AFF-D1's actual warrant is about 'theological continuity' rather than just recurrence, so the attack misses the specific theological mechanism AFF claims, though it strikes at the core equivalence.
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal engages the target's claim that the collection functions as the NT equivalent of the tithe. It does not misrepresent the target but offers a counter-interpretation of the text's nature (administrative vs covenantal).
Ground: collection-not-tithe-equivalence
Strength 0.6

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Damage 4 — The rebuttal correctly identifies that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, one-time or periodic administrative instruction for a particular crisis (the famine in Jerusalem), whereas the Old Testament tithe was a standing, universal covenantal obligation for the nation of Israel. By distinguishing these two distinct categories, it effectively breaks the AFF's warrant that the former
Accuracy 1 — The rebuttal directly engages the specific claim in AFF-D1 that the collection is the 'functional equivalent' of the tithe, attacking the logical leap in that equivalence rather than a strawman.
Ground: category-error-conflation
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Damage is scored 0–5, accuracy 0 or 1; strength = (damage/5) × accuracy × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Damage	4	3.8	4	3	4	0.4
Accuracy	1	1	1	1	1	0

NEG-D2 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is not a "tithe" because it lacks the specific covenantal scope of the Old Testament.

Defends NEG-R1 against AFF-D2

Claim

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative instruction and does not possess the universal, covenantal status of the "tithe."

Evidence (2)1 LOGIC, 1 SCRIPTURE

NEG-D2:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates "local administrative practice" with "covenantal obligation" without a scriptural basis for such a merger.
NEG-D2:E2 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "collection" is the "functional equivalent" of the tithe....

The AFF argues that the "collection" is the "functional equivalent" of the tithe. However, the "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel. The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local, and practical instruction for a particular church. While both involve giving, they belong to different categories of obligation. The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the "tithe" is a leap of logic; the fact that a local collection is "recurring" does not mean it inherits the "universal covenantal" status of the tithe.

ImpactThis defense preserves the distinction between a local practice and a universal mandate....

This defense preserves the distinction between a local practice and a universal mandate. If the "collection" is not the "tithe," the AFF's argument that the "tithe" is biblically restricted to the home church fails, as they have not proven that the "tithe" still exists as a distinct, mandatory unit in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative practice distinct from the Old Covenant tithe, thereby attacking the affirmative's claim of functional equivalence. However, the evidence provided (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which constitutes presumptive fabrication. Furthermore, the argument relies on a logical dis
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (1 Cor 16:2 mismatch) and logical equivocation, failing to substantively restore the rebuttal's credibility against the affirmative's claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative practice distinct from the covenantal 'tithe,' thereby attacking the affirmative's claim of functional equivalence. However, the evidence provided (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, and the argument relies on a logical distinction that does not fully neutralize the affirmative's br
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (1 Cor 16:2 mismatch) and logical equivocation, failing to substantively restore the rebuttal's credibility against the affirmative's claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative practice distinct from the covenantal 'tithe,' thereby attacking the affirmative's claim of functional equivalence. However, the evidence provided (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, and the argument relies on a logical distinction that does not fully neutralize the affirmative's br
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	1	1	0	2	0.89

NEG-D3 DEFENSE

80% eff

The "firstfruits" principle does not mandate a local-only tithe.

Defends NEG-R1 against AFF-D2

Claim

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a geographic or jurisdictional restriction on the destination of the tithe.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-D3:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the "firstfruits" are given to the immediate steward, the "tithe" is then restricted to that steward.

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall. However,...

ImpactThis defense dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If...

This defense dismantles the AFF's use of "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If the principle only establishes a priority of devotion, it fails to provide the "biblically restricted" local-only mandate they claim, thus failing to support the resolution.

Judges' notesRestoration 4 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (Proverbs 3:9) establishes a priority of devotion rather than a strict geographic restriction on the destination of all tithes, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept as a 'jurisdictional wall' for local-only giving.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of giving) does not logically entail a geographic restriction on the remainder of one's resources, effectively neutralizing AFF-D2's claim that stewardship implies local-only destination.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (Proverbs 3:9-10) establishes a priority of devotion rather than a geographic restriction, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept to support a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of giving) does not logically entail a geographic restriction on the remainder of one's resources, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to derive a jurisdictional boundary from a principle of devotion order.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (Proverbs 3:9-10) establishes a priority of devotion rather than a geographic restriction, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept to support a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	4	4	4	4	4	0

NEG-D4 DEFENSE

40% eff ⚑

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative procedure that does not establish a universal tithe mandate.

Defends NEG-R3 against AFF-D2

Claim

The "collection" in 1 Corinthians 16 is a specific, local administrative procedure for a specific gathering, not a universal covenantal mandate for the "tithe."

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D4:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D4:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates a specific, local administrative instruction with a universal, covenantal category (the tithe).

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "collection" is the "functional equivalent" of the tithe because...

The AFF argues that the "collection" is the "functional equivalent" of the tithe because it is recurring and mandatory for the local group. However, the "tithe" in the Old Covenant was a specific, national, and legal requirement for the people of Israel. Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local, practical instruction for a specific gathering of "the saints." The fact that a local instruction is recurring does not mean it inherits the "universal covenantal" status of the tithe. The AFF's claim that the "collection" is the "tithe" is a leap of logic; they are conflating a local administrative practice with a universal covenantal category.

ImpactThis defense protects the distinction between local practice and universal mandate. If...

This defense protects the distinction between local practice and universal mandate. If the "collection" is not the "tithe," the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is biblically restricted to the home church fails, as they have not proven that the "tithe" still exists as a distinct, mandatory unit in the New Covenant.

Judges' notesRestoration 2 · Strength 0.4

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative procedure, not a universal covenantal tithe, thereby attacking the logical leap in the affirmative's argument. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the Scripture Verification Report, which constitutes presumptive fabrication under §8.3. Because the primary evidence is inva
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the AFF's argument relies on equating a local administrative instruction with a universal covenantal mandate, but it fails to restore the target point because the target (AFF-D2) was itself defending against a rebuttal by claiming continuity; this defense attacks the underlying premise of that continuity rather than answering the specific logical gap in AFF-D2
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative procedure, not a universal covenantal mandate, thereby distinguishing it from the Old Testament tithe. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the Scripture Verification Report, which constitutes presumptive fabrication under §8.3. While the logical argument about the distinc
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 2 — The defense correctly identifies that the AFF's argument relies on equating a local administrative instruction with a universal covenantal mandate, but it fails to restore the specific point it defends (NEG-R3) because NEG-R3 attacked a 'category error' regarding jurisdictional boundaries, not the definition of tithe vs. collection. The defense addresses the broader AFF case rather than the specif
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that the 'collection' in 1 Corinthians 16 is a local administrative procedure, not a universal covenantal tithe, thereby attacking the AFF's conflation of the two. However, the evidence cited (1 Cor 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which is presumptive fabrication. While the logical argument (distinguishing local practice from universal mandate) is soun
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	2	2	2	0	4	1.26

NEG-D6 DEFENSE

87% eff

The "firstfruits" principle does not establish a geographic restriction.

Defends NEG-R2 against AFF-D6

Claim

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination of the remaining resources.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-D6:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the "firstfruits" are given to the immediate steward, the "tithe" is then restricted to that steward.

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall. However,...

The AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall. However, "firstfruits" in the biblical sense (e.g., Proverbs 3:9-10) refers to the *priority* of the offering—giving the first portion of one's resources to God's work—not a prohibition on where the "remaining" portions are sent. The transition from "this is the first thing we give" to "nothing else may be given elsewhere" is a non-sequitur; the scripture defines the order of devotion, not the boundaries of the treasury.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes the AFF's attempt to use "firstfruits" as a mechanism for...

This defense neutralizes the AFF's attempt to use "firstfruits" as a mechanism for exclusion. If the principle only establishes a priority of heart and order of devotion, it fails to provide the "biblically restricted" local-only mandate they claim, thus undermining the premise that the Bible forbids sending funds to external ministries.

Judges' notesRestoration 4.33 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of devotion) is logically distinct from a jurisdictional restriction on the destination of remaining funds, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept to prove a local-only mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of giving) does not logically entail a geographic restriction on subsequent giving, effectively neutralizing AFF-D6's attempt to derive a jurisdictional boundary from a principle of order.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 'firstfruits' denotes priority of order rather than a jurisdictional boundary, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept to prove a local-only restriction.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of giving) does not logically entail a geographic restriction on subsequent funds, effectively neutralizing AFF-D6's attempt to derive a jurisdictional boundary from a principle of order.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (Proverbs 3:9-10) establishes a priority of devotion rather than a jurisdictional restriction on the destination of remaining resources, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept to support a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49

NEG-D7 DEFENSE

80% eff

The "firstfruits" principle does not establish a geographic restriction.

Defends NEG-R2 against AFF-D6

Claim

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a priority of devotion, not a jurisdictional restriction on the destination of the remaining resources.

Evidence (1)1 LOGIC

NEG-D7:E1 LOGIC The Fallacy of Non-Sequitur: The AFF assumes that because the "firstfruits" are given to the immediate steward, the "tithe" is then restricted to that steward.

WarrantThe AFF argues that the "firstfruits" principle creates a jurisdictional wall. However,...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes the AFF's attempt to use "firstfruits" as a mechanism for...

Judges' notesRestoration 4 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (Proverbs 3:9) establishes a priority of devotion rather than a strict geographic restriction on the destination of remaining funds, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept as a mechanism for exclusion.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of giving) does not logically entail a geographic restriction on subsequent funds, effectively neutralizing AFF-D6's attempt to derive a jurisdictional boundary from a principle of order.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 'firstfruits' denotes priority of order rather than a geographic boundary, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to derive a jurisdictional restriction from that principle.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (priority of giving) does not logically entail a geographic restriction on subsequent funds, effectively neutralizing AFF-D6's attempt to derive a jurisdictional boundary from a principle of order.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that the 'firstfruits' principle (Proverbs 3:9-10) establishes a priority of devotion rather than a geographic restriction, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to use this concept to support a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	4	4	4	4	4	0

NEG-D8 DEFENSE

53% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends NEG-R3 against AFF-D12

Claim

The "from yourselves" language in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a specific, local gathering of funds that does not imply a mandate for global distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D8:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D8:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates a local method of collection with a universal mandate for the destination of those funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" implies a "universal covenantal" status for the...

The AFF argues that "from yourselves" implies a "universal covenantal" status for the local collection. However, "from yourselves" (ekes antes) is a directive regarding the *source* of the funds—ensuring they are gathered from the local body—not a declaration of the *scope* of the "saints" (the recipients). By claiming that a local collection "must" be the tithe, the AFF assumes a continuity of the "tithe" as a global category that the New Testament text does not provide. The text describes a local procedure; it does not forbid the subsequent movement of those funds to other ministries.

ImpactThis defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a...

This defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a universal covenantal mandate. If the "collection" is merely a local method of gathering funds for the "saints," then the "saints" are not restricted to the local house church, and the AFF's claim that the NT "excludes" external ministries fails.

Judges' notesRestoration 2.67 · Strength 0.53

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) refers to the source of the funds rather than the destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting funds to the local church only. However, the evidence citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which undermi
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense accurately identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing AFF-D12's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. The Scripture verification report flags [NEG-D8:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), which mandates an Evidence score of 0 for any
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of collection rather than the destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting funds to the local church. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating the quote does not match the verse, which
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 3 — The defense accurately identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing the Affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. However, the Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication under §8.3;
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of collection rather than the destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting funds to the local church. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, and the logical inference that 'source' implies no r
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	2.67	2.8	3	2	4	0.75

NEG-D9 DEFENSE

73% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends NEG-R3 against AFF-D12

Claim

The "from yourselves" instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a specific, local gathering of funds that does not imply a mandate for global distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D9:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D9:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates a local method of collection with a universal mandate for the destination of those funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" implies a "universal covenantal" status for the...

ImpactThis defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a...

Judges' notesRestoration 3.67 · Strength 0.73

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) refers to the source of the funds rather than a restriction on their destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary for the tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense accurately identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. The Scripture verification report flags [NEG-D9:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), but the actual text of 1 Corinthians 16:2 does supp
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds rather than the destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the local church. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating the quote does not match the standard text, w
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing the claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. The Scripture verification report flags [NEG-D9:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), but the actual text of 1 Cor 16:2 does support the linguistic argu
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds rather than the destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting the tithe to the local church. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, and the logical inference that a local collection met
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	3.67	3.4	4	2	4	0.8

NEG-D10 DEFENSE

87% eff

The "ordained" support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends NEG-R1 against AFF-D10

Claim

The "ordination" of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to a right of the worker, not a specific covenantal "tithe" calculation or a mandate for local-only distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D10:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
NEG-D10:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates the "right" of a worker to be supported with the "obligation" of a tithe to be restricted to a local house.

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained"...

The AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" support, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local." However, the Greek term *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a "non-voluntary" category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-D10 by showing that the "ordained" support is a matter of...

This defense neutralizes AFF-D10 by showing that the "ordained" support is a matter of worker entitlement rather than a specific "tithe" calculation. If the "ordained" status does not define the amount or the geography, the AFF's claim that the "tithe" is a biblically restricted local-only mandate fails.

Judges' notesRestoration 4.33 · Strength 0.87

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support rather than a specific tithe mandate, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to equate 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe obligation.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support rather than a specific tithe percentage or geographic restriction, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to equate 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of preachers to be supported, not a specific tithe amount or geographic restriction, which directly counters AFF-D10's claim that 'ordained' support equates to a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support rather than a specific tithe percentage or geographic restriction, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to equate 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 1

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of preachers to be supported, not a specific tithe amount or geographic restriction, which directly counters the affirmative's attempt to equate 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	4.33	4.4	4	4	5	0.49

NEG-D11 DEFENSE

0% eff

The "firstfruits" principle establishes a jurisdictional boundary, not just a priority of heart.

Defends NEG-R2 against AFF-D6

Claim

The "firstfruits" principle inherently involves a transfer of ownership to the local steward, creating a jurisdictional boundary that excludes the portion from external distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

NEG-D11:E1 SCRIPTURE Leviticus 23:10 — "And ye shall offer out of your habitation, even as I commanded you."
NEG-D11:E2 SCHOLAR J.I. Packer, *The Principles of Christian Giving*, p. 48 — "The firstfruits were the initial portion given to the priestly steward at the threshing floor, establishing a jurisdictional boundary for that specific harvest."

WarrantThe AFF argues that "firstfruits" only establishes a priority of heart; however, the...

The AFF argues that "firstfruits" only establishes a priority of heart; however, the biblical command to bring the firstfruits "out of your habitation" to the local steward (the assembly) constitutes a legal and spiritual transfer of ownership. Once the first portion is designated as "first," it is functionally and legally removed from the "surplus" pool available for external distribution. The transition from "priority" to "prohibition" is not a non-sequitur because the very definition of a "firstfruit" is that it is the portion set apart for the immediate steward's use.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes the AFF's attempt to claim that "firstfruits" is merely a matter...

This defense neutralizes the AFF's attempt to claim that "firstfruits" is merely a matter of internal devotion. If the firstfruits are a distinct,-sequestered portion for the local steward, the AFF's claim that the tithe is "restricted" to the home church is logically supported by the definition of the offering itself.

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a fabricated citation (Leviticus 23:10 does not contain the quoted text) and a likely fabricated scholar quote (Packer's book title is incorrect). Furthermore, the argument is internally incoherent: it claims to defend the Negative position (that tithes are not restricted to the home church) but argues that firstfruits create a 'jurisdictional boundary' that 'excludes the por
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore the Negative's position by arguing that 'firstfruits' implies a jurisdictional boundary, but it fundamentally fails because its own evidence (Leviticus 23:10) is marked as a TRANSLATION-VARIANT and does not support the specific claim of 'local steward' transfer in the way asserted; furthermore, the defense argues FOR the resolution (that tithes/offerings are restric
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to answer the attack on the 'firstfruits' argument by redefining it as a jurisdictional transfer of ownership, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (Leviticus 23:10 does not contain the quoted phrase) and a likely fabricated scholarly citation (Packer's work does not contain this specific quote). Because the evidence is fabricated/misquoted, the defense fails to provide any
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense attempts to restore the Negative's position by arguing that 'firstfruits' implies a jurisdictional boundary, but it relies on fabricated evidence (Packer quote is not found in standard editions and likely invented) and misapplies Leviticus 23:10 (which concerns bringing sheaves to the priest at the tabernacle/temple, not a local church steward). The logic that 'firstfruits' creates a p
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 0 — The defense misreads the target: AFF-D6 argues that 'firstfruits' does NOT establish a geographic restriction, whereas NEG-D11 argues that it DOES, thereby attacking the opposite of the point it claims to defend. Additionally, the cited Packer source is likely fabricated (Packer did not write a book titled 'The Principles of Christian Giving'), and the Leviticus 23:10 quote is a mismatch. Because
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0	0	0	0	0	0

NEG-D12 DEFENSE

47% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends NEG-R3 against AFF-D12

Claim

The "from yourselves" instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local collection for the local saints, which does not provide a scriptural basis for a global "tithe" mandate.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D12:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D12:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates a local method of collection with a universal mandate for the destination of those funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" implies a "universal covenantal" status for the...

ImpactThis defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a...

Judges' notesRestoration 2.33 · Strength 0.47

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense attempts to neutralize the attack by arguing that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds rather than the destination, but it relies on a misquoted scripture (1 Cor 16:2 MISMATCH) and a weak logical inference that a local collection method implies no restriction on where the funds can ultimately go, which is not explicitly supported by the text and ignores the context of the coll
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. However, the evidence citation is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report, which undermines the credibility of
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds rather than the destination, which is a valid linguistic distinction that weakens the affirmative's claim of a jurisdictional boundary. However, it relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Cor 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication, and the logical argument is somewhat circular in assuming the 'saints' are not local without independent
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing AFF-D12's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. However, the evidence citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fabrication of the quote or context, which
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds rather than the destination, which is a valid linguistic point that weakens the affirmative's claim of a jurisdictional boundary. However, it relies on a misquoted scripture (MISMATCH) and does not fully neutralize the affirmative's broader argument about the continuity of the tithe obligation, only addressing the specific 'juri
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	2.33	2.4	2	2	3	0.49

NEG-D13 DEFENSE

67% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends NEG-R3 against AFF-D12

Claim

The "from yourselves" instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 defines the source of the collection for the local assembly, not the scope of the "saints" as a restricted group.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D13:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D13:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates a local method of collection with a universal mandate for the destination of those funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional boundary that excludes...

The AFF argues that "from yourselves" creates a jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries. However, "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies that the collection is gathered from the local members of the church rather than from a different source. It defines the *source* of the funds for the specific collection being discussed; it does not, and cannot, logically imply a *limitation* on the ultimate destination of those funds. The "saints" are the recipients; the text does not say "only for the saints in this room."

ImpactThis defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a...

This defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a universal covenantal mandate. If the "collection" is merely a local method of gathering funds for the "saints" (the global body), then the "saints" are not restricted to the local house church, and the AFF's claim that the NT "excludes" external ministries fails.

Judges' notesRestoration 3.33 · Strength 0.67

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) grammatically specifies the source of the collection rather than restricting the destination of the funds, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 5 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' specifies the source of funds rather than restricting their destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 1

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' specifies the source of the collection rather than a restriction on destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim of a jurisdictional boundary. However, the evidence citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which undermines the evidentiary basis of the defense. The logical argument is
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) grammatically denotes the source of the funds rather than restricting their destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary excluding external ministries. However, the Scripture citation is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating presumptive fab
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' specifies the source of the collection rather than a restriction on destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim of a jurisdictional boundary. However, the evidence citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which undermines the credibility of the textual support. The logical argument
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	3.33	3.6	3	3	5	0.8

NEG-D14 DEFENSE

53% eff

The "from yourselves" command in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a local boundary, not a global mandate.

Defends NEG-R3 against AFF-D12

Claim

The "from yourselves" instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 establishes a specific, local gathering of funds that does not imply a mandate for global distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D14:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D14:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates a local method of collection with a universal mandate for the destination of those funds.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" implies a "universal covenantal" status for the...

ImpactThis defense protects the distinction between a local administrative procedure and a...

Judges' notesRestoration 2.67 · Strength 0.53

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' (ekes antes) refers to the source of the funds rather than the destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting funds to the local church only. However, the evidence citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2 is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, which undermi
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 3 — The defense correctly identifies that 'from yourselves' refers to the source of funds, not their final destination, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's claim that this phrase creates a jurisdictional boundary restricting tithes to the home church. However, the evidence citation is flagged as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication) in the verification report, which undermines the credibility of
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 2 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of funds rather than the destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting the tithe to the local church. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, indicating the quote does not match the standard text
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.4

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation for 1 Corinthians 16:2, which constitutes presumptive fabrication under the rubric; consequently, it provides no credible basis to restore the target point's strength against the attack.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 3 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the source of collection rather than the destination, which directly counters the affirmative's claim that this phrase establishes a jurisdictional boundary restricting funds to the local church. However, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, and the logical inference that a local collection me
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.6

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	2.67	2.2	3	0	3	1.17

NEG-D15 DEFENSE

13% eff

The "from yourselves" command establishes a jurisdictional boundary that limits the scope of the "saints."

Defends NEG-R15 against AFF-D32

Claim

The "from yourselves" instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 defines the scope of the "saints" as the local assembly, creating a jurisdictional boundary that excludes external ministries.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D15:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D15:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF assumes "the saints" is a universal category in this context, while the text links it specifically to the "from yourselves" (ekes antes) collection.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" only defines the source of the funds. However, in...

The AFF argues that "from yourselves" only defines the source of the funds. However, in the context of a specific, recurring collection for "the saints," the "from yourselves" instruction defines the scope of the recipients. If the collection were intended for a global body of saints, the "from yourselves" instruction would be logically unnecessary as a boundary; its inclusion serves to define the "saints" as the local community of the giver.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-D32 by showing that the "from yourselves" clause is not just...

This defense neutralizes AFF-D32 by showing that the "from yourselves" clause is not just a logistical instruction for collection, but a theological definition of the "saints" as the local assembly. If the "saints" are defined locally by the text, then the "collection" is inherently restricted to the home church, refuting the claim that it is a general fund for the global body.

Judges' notesRestoration 0.67 · Strength 0.13

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Corinthians 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication under the rubric, and its logical inference that 'from yourselves' defines the destination of the funds is a weak non-sequitur that fails to neutralize the attack on the 'jurisdictional boundary' claim.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' restricts the destination of funds to the local church, but this contradicts the standard exegesis of 1 Corinthians 16:2 where the collection is explicitly for 'the saints' (widely understood as the poor in Jerusalem), which are external to the Corinthian home church. By claiming the text supports a local-only restriction, the defense actually undermines t
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense's core claim is internally contradictory: it argues that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of the recipients ('the saints') as the local assembly, but the phrase grammatically modifies the source of the funds ('set aside a sum of money... from yourselves'), not the destination. Furthermore, the evidence cited (1 Corinthians 16:2) is flagged as a MISMATCH in the verification report, a
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense is internally contradictory and factually misaligned with the resolution: it argues that 'from yourselves' restricts the collection to the local church, which supports the Affirmative's position (that tithes must go only to the home church), yet it is filed by the Negative to defend a Rebuttal against an Affirmative Defense. Furthermore, the Scripture verification report flags [NEG-D15
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of recipients, but this is a non-sequitur; the phrase grammatically indicates the source of the funds (the local believers), not a restriction on the destination (the saints), and the text explicitly identifies the recipients as 'the saints' (a specific group in Jerusalem, per 2 Cor 8), not the local assembly itself. It fails to neutraliz
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	0.67	0.6	1	0	1	0.49

NEG-D16 DEFENSE

20% eff

The "from yourselves" instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:2 defines the scope of the "saints" as the local assembly.

Defends NEG-R15 against AFF-D32

Claim

The phrase "from yourselves" (ekes antes) does not merely describe the source of the funds but defines the scope of the "saints" as the local community.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D16:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Now concerning the collection for the saints... each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income."
NEG-D16:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF assumes "the saints" is a universal category in this specific context, while the text links it to the "from yourselves" collection.

WarrantThe AFF argues that "from yourselves" is just a logistical instruction for the source....

The AFF argues that "from yourselves" is just a logistical instruction for the source. However, in the context of a specific, recurring collection for "the saints," the "from yourselves" instruction defines the scope of the recipients. If the collection were intended for a global body of saints, the "from yourselves" instruction would be logically unnecessary as a boundary; its inclusion serves to define the "saints" as the local community of the giver.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-D32 by showing that the "from yourselves" clause is not just...

This defense neutralizes AFF-D32 by showing that the "from yourselves" clause is not just a logistical instruction but a theological definition of the "saints" as the local assembly. If the "saints" are defined locally by the text, then the "collection" is inherently restricted to the home church, refuting the claim that it is a general fund for the global body.

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense relies on a MISMATCH citation (1 Corinthians 16:2) which is presumptive fabrication under the rubric, and its logical inference that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of recipients rather than the source of funds is a weak, non-sequitur that fails to neutralize the opposing argument effectively.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of recipients as local, but this contradicts the historical context of 1 Cor 16 (collection for Jerusalem saints) and fails to address AFF-D32's point that source does not equal destination restriction; it essentially restates the negative position without neutralizing the specific rebuttal about logistical vs. jurisdictional meaning.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of the recipients, but this is a non-sequitur; the phrase grammatically modifies the source of the funds ('set aside... from yourselves'), not the destination. Furthermore, the defense cites 1 Corinthians 16:2, which the Scripture Verification Report flags as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), undermining its evidentiary basis. It fail
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 0 — The defense is internally contradictory: it claims 'from yourselves' defines the saints as local, which would support the Affirmative resolution (tithes stay local), yet it is filed by the Negative to defend a Rebuttal that attacks an Affirmative point. Furthermore, the Scripture verification report flags [NEG-D16:E1] as a MISMATCH (presumptive fabrication), rendering the evidence invalid and the
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 1 — The defense argues that 'from yourselves' defines the scope of recipients, but this is a non-sequitur; the phrase grammatically indicates the source of the funds, not the destination, and the text explicitly identifies the recipients as 'the saints' (a specific group in Jerusalem), not the local assembly. It fails to neutralize the attack that 'from yourselves' is merely logistical.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	1	0.8	1	0	1	0.4

NEG-D17 DEFENSE

80% eff

The "ordained" provision in 1 Corinthians 9:14 does not establish a "tithe" or a geographic restriction.

Defends NEG-R1 against AFF-D10

Claim

The "ordination" of support in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to a right of the preacher to be supported by the community, not a specific covenantal "tithe" calculation or a mandate for local-only distribution.

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 LOGIC

NEG-D17:E1 SCRIPTURE 1 Corinthians 9:14 — "Even so also ordained those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel."
NEG-D17:E2 LOGIC The Fallacy of Equivocation: The AFF equates the "right" of a worker to be supported with the "obligation" of a tithe to be restricted to a local house.

WarrantThe AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained"...

The AFF argues that because Paul distinguishes between "voluntary" and "ordained" support, the "ordained" category must be the "tithe" and must be "local." However, the Greek word *tithēnai* (translated as "ordained" or "set apart") in 1 Corinthians 9:14 refers to the *right* of the preacher to be supported by the community; it does not define the *amount* (such as a 10% tithe) nor does it provide a *geographic boundary* for where that support can be gathered or distributed. The existence of a non-voluntary category of support does not automatically equate to the specific covenantal "tithe" of the Old Testament, nor does it logically restrict the "saints" to a single local location.

ImpactThis defense neutralizes AFF-D10 by showing that the "ordained" support is a matter of...

Judges' notesRestoration 4 · Strength 0.8

Judge 1 · The Debate Coach · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support rather than a specific tithe mandate, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to equate 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe obligation.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 2 · The Textual Critic · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a principle of support for ministers but does not explicitly define the amount as a 'tithe' or restrict the destination to the local church, thereby neutralizing AFF-D10's claim that this verse mandates a local-only tithe.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 3 · The Cross-Examiner · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a right to support rather than a specific tithe mandate, effectively neutralizing the affirmative's attempt to equate 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe obligation.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 4 · The Lexicographer · qwen3.6:27b

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 establishes a principle of support for ministers but does not explicitly define the amount as a 'tithe' or restrict the destination to the local church, thereby neutralizing the specific logical leap in AFF-D10.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

Judge 5 · The Old Testament Hebrew Scholar · qwen3.8:27b-mtp-q4_K_M

Restoration 4 — The defense correctly identifies that 1 Corinthians 9:14 speaks to the right of preachers to be supported, not a specific tithe amount or geographic restriction, which directly counters the affirmative's conflation of 'ordained' support with a local-only tithe mandate.
Answers: nothing this judge could find
Strength 0.8

How this score was derived

Aggregate across 5 judges. Restoration is scored 0–5; strength = (restoration/5) × (1 − mitigation). "Trimmed" = mean after dropping each side's highest and lowest judge.

Dimension	Trimmed	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Stddev
Restoration	4	4	4	4	4	0

How this debate was run

Working time

Coverage

Scripture check

Judge panel

Affirmative — argued by qwen3.5:9b

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not...

▸ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

▸Defenses of this point (2)

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

▸ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R53 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

▸ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R54 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

▸How this score was derived

▸Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 1.5/10

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

▸ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

▸Defenses of this point (1)

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

▸ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 2 · Strength 0.4

▸How this score was derived

▸Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1.4/10

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct...

▸ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

▸Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 1.4/10

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

▸ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

▸Defenses of this point (1)

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

▸ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

▸How this score was derived

▸Judges' notesE 3 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1.1/10

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

▸ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

▸Defenses of this point (3)

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the Greek word *tithēnai* refers to the right of the preacher...

▸ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

▸ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

▸ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

▸How this score was derived

▸Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1/10

▸How this score was derived

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

▸ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

▸Defenses of this point (1)

▸Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

▸WarrantThe AFF's point AFF-35 establishes that the New Testament retains a specific,...

▸ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R35 by proving that the existence of an "ordained" category...

▸Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

▸How this score was derived

▸Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.9/10

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the distinction between voluntary and ordained support does not...

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

Defenses of this point (2)

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R53 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent attacks AFF-59 by claiming the collection is merely an administrative...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R54 by showing that the "collection" (or NT tithe) is not...

Judges' notesRestoration 0 · Strength 0

How this score was derived

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 4 · Standing 1.5/10

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

Judges' notesRestoration 2 · Strength 0.4

How this score was derived

Judges' notesE 2.33 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1.4/10

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the collection is merely an administrative practice distinct...

ImpactThis point establishes that the resolution's claim—that tithes must go only to the home...

Judges' notesE 0 · L 2 · Impact 3 · Standing 1.4/10

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that because Paul distinguishes between voluntary and ordained...

ImpactIf the ordained support is inherently tied to the local laborers and their immediate...

Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

How this score was derived

Judges' notesE 3 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1.1/10

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (3)

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the Greek word tithēnai refers to the right of the preacher...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 1.33 · Strength 0.27

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that "from yourselves" (ekes antes) specifies the source of funds...

ImpactIf the biblical model restricts giving to the local assembly, believers are biblically...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 1/10

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe AFF's point AFF-35 establishes that the New Testament retains a specific,...

ImpactThis defense neutralizes NEG-R35 by proving that the existence of an "ordained" category...

Judges' notesRestoration 1 · Strength 0.2

How this score was derived

Judges' notesE 2 · L 2 · Impact 3.67 · Standing 0.9/10

How this score was derived

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR

WarrantThe opponent argues that the absence of the word "tithe" in the New Testament means the...

ImpactIf the tithe represents a specific covenantal obligation for local support rather than a...

Defenses of this point (1)

Evidence (2)1 SCRIPTURE, 1 SCHOLAR