Appeal: concession
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #10281:05:25overturned Jay Dyer epainos: concession (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Now, yes, I admit that these aren't the most essential verses, you see.”
Diogenes: With no opponent left to force it, he volunteers that the variation he has been documenting concerns marginal books, and repeats the giveback at 70:17 ("there's not a whole lot of differentiation or variation on the gospels"), conceding the weakest part of his own case.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S0 has argued throughout for tradition and church authority as necessary supplements to scripture in fixing the canon; by 65:25 S1 had already been removed from the space and Big Mike had also signed off, leaving S0 delivering a solo walkthrough of Lee McDonald's canon lists with no interlocutor on the floor. The rubric holds that a monologue delivered with no opponent present to answer or be answered is not judged on either ledger, and a "concession" specifically requires being shown wrong by an opponent; here the referee's own reasoning concedes there was "no opponent left to force it," which means the floor condition and the concession's own definition are both unmet.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Jay openly acknowledges that some of the disputed books (Ruth, Judges, etc.) among the church-father canon lists are not doctrinally weighty, conceding a real limitation in the force of his own evidence rather than glossing over it, before explaining why the variation still matters against the sola scriptura framework's demand for a fixed, final canon.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S0 has held the canon-variation argument since he first raised it against S1 mid-debate; this later solo recap to the audience, made after S1 left, is commentary/monologue rather than a live exchange, so no concession point can attach to it. By 65:25 S1 (Indiana) has already been disconnected from the space (S0 remarks "Mike, unmute" and Mike/S3 confirms "did Indiana get booted? Yep" around 59:00), and after Mike also signs off S0 is speaking alone, walking through Lee McDonald's book for the audience. This is a monologue with no opponent on the floor to answer or be conceded to, so under the floor principle it is not judged as debate reasoning at all.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the floor: no opponent present. By the time of the quoted line, Indiana Brunner had already been removed from the space (confirmed at [59:00-59:05], "did Indiana get booted? Yep"), and Big Mike had also signed off by [61:44]-[61:59], leaving Jay Dyer delivering a solo walkthrough of Lee McDonald's canon lists to the audience with no opponent on the floor to answer or be conceded to. A concession requires being shown wrong by an interlocutor in the exchange; a monologue delivered after the opponent has left is not judged on either ledger regardless of its content.
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.