Appeal: concession
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10161:52:03overturned Base Catholic epainos: concession (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I've adopted I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm. I'll I'll argue from whatever standpoint you want, from whatever paradigm you want. I just wanna have a conversation about the filial [filioque]…” quote corrected
Diogenes: Rather than defend the axiom he had just been shown could not support itself, he gives the ground away entirely and offers to reason from his opponent's starting point — the most concessive move available to him.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2 opened as a Thomist wanting to discuss the Filioque via Garrigou-Lagrange's account of relations of opposition, and never abandoned that substantive position; the called line is his attempt to bypass Jay's paradigm-level demand via an explicitly named internal-critique strategy, not a retraction of Thomism. S2 opened as a committed Thomist defending the Filioque via Garrigou-Lagrange and held that position throughout. When Jay pressed the peripatetic-axiom challenge, S2's offer to "argue from whatever standpoint you want" is not a sincere admission that his own view is false; S2 himself explicitly frames it moments later as an internal-critique tactic ("I'm willing to take on your worldview to show you through internal critique that the fathers... actually disagree with you") and explicitly denies conceding that Thomism is built on the disputed axiom ("I never said it was built on that"). A concession requires conceding a point when shown wrong and standing by it; here the speaker's own words characterize the move as a dialectical strategy, not a surrender, and he does not thereafter abandon Thomism or the Filioque. Jay's insistence that this amounts to "admitting your paradigm is wrong" is his characterization, not S2's own stated position, so the concession element is unmet on the record.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "begging the question". Jay had raised a framework objection: he denies that texts (patristic or otherwise) can be read "theory-neutrally," and pressed S2 twice to justify the peripatetic axiom underlying his Thomism before any object-level Filioque argument could proceed. Rather than answering that challenge, S2 says he'll "adopt the Jay Dyer paradigm" and grant anything just so he can get back to "a conversation about the filioque" — i.e., he keeps demanding to return to his original terms (quoting Latin scholastic distinctions and church-father proof-texts) without ever actually engaging or refuting Jay's stated presupposition that such texts are paradigm-laden; this is the dodging/question-begging pattern the rubric describes for a speaker who presses original terms after a framework objection has been raised against them.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S2 declared at the outset that he wanted to discuss the Filioque as a Thomist and held to that goal throughout, repeatedly trying to redirect back to the object-level question even while nominally granting Jay's paradigm for argument's sake; the called line is a strategic/arguendo move to satisfy Jay's framework demand, not an abandonment of his opening position. S2's opening and consistent aim, stated from his very first words ("I was hoping to maybe have a conversation about the Filioque"), was to discuss the Filioque itself; he never asserted that Thomism's first principles were independently provable in a way that was then refuted. The quoted line is S2 offering, arguendo, to argue from Jay's paradigm so the conversation could return to the object-level question he called in to ask — and S2 himself later explicitly names this as an "internal critique" strategy ("I'm willing to take on your worldview to show you through internal critique that the fathers... actually disagree with you"), which is a recognized dialectical tactic, not an admission of defeat. Notably, Jay's own narration immediately after ("he won't admit that there isn't an argument for first principles... I'm not going to concede that the church fathers are theory neutral") shows Jay himself did not read this as a genuine concession, and S2 keeps trying to get back to quoting the Fathers rather than abandoning his position — the opposite of "giving the ground away entirely."
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.