Appeal: concession
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10091:41:23upheld Base Catholic epainos: concession (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Base Catholic earned 1 point.
“Yeah. I don't think I could give you a specific So so you don't know? Well well, yeah, would say sure. I don't know. I'm willing to admit that.”
Diogenes: Pressed on whether his key distinction predates the Latin scholastics, the caller admits outright that he cannot show it, instead of bluffing.The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held the Thomist/Garrigou-Lagrange line on relations of opposition and the principium quo/quod distinction since his opening question; this admission is a narrow concession about the distinction's patristic pedigree, not an abandonment of his framework. Base Catholic opened by defending the Thomistic principium quo/quod account and has maintained it throughout; here, pressed on whether the distinction he relies on predates the Latin scholastics, he candidly admits he cannot source it rather than bluffing or deflecting. That is a genuine concession of a specific point under pressure, which is a philosopher-ledger virtue, but it is a narrow admission (about historical pedigree of one distinction), not a collapse of his whole case, so major overstates its weight.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Pressed by Jay Dyer on whether the principium quo remotum/proximum distinction predates Aquinas or appears in the Cappadocians, Base Catholic directly admits "I don't know. I'm willing to admit that" rather than bluffing or deflecting. This is an honest concession of a specific historical/textual point when challenged.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 opened by defending the Filioque via Thomist relations-of-opposition and the principium quo/quod distinction; when Dyer pressed whether that distinction existed before the Latin Middle Ages, S2 admitted he could not show it, which is a real (if narrow) concession on a sub-point rather than the whole thesis. The quote is a direct, unhedged admission of not knowing something after being pressed twice ("does it exist?... Where is that in the Cappadocians?"), which is a genuine concession rather than a dodge or bluff; however it concedes only the patristic pedigree of one scholastic distinction, not the Filioque argument itself, so minor fits better than major.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.