Appeal: concession
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #103542:14upheld Muslim Lantern epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Muslim Lantern earned 1 point.
“Like, Jesus says there's no one good but the father. He means ultimately good. Yes. There is no one perfect in his goodness except the father. We agree. There's no issues there. So that verse that Jesus says doesn't have an issue.”
Diogenes: He grants the opponent's reading of the parallel verse Jay adduced, giving up the easy tu quoque and narrowing the dispute to Mark 13:32 alone.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the opening that the Son is not fully co-equal with the Father, evidenced by subordination texts like Mark 13:32 and John 17:3; here he narrows rather than abandons that case by conceding the "goodness" parallel does not itself prove inequality, which is consistent with sharpening rather than departing from his standing argument. S2 explicitly grants that "no one good but the father" is compatible with Trinitarian reading ("We agree. There's no issues there"), abandoning the tu quoque he could have made and narrowing his case to Mark 13:32/knowledge specifically — a genuine concession on a discrete point rather than a restatement of his standing position.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Jay had argued that "no one is good but the father" is rhetorical exaggeration rather than a literal denial of the Son's goodness, and used this as an analogy for reading Mark 13:32 the same way. Here S2 explicitly grants that the goodness verse "doesn't have an issue" and means "ultimately good," accepting Jay's reading for that verse rather than disputing it, while distinguishing it from the knowledge claim (which he maintains cannot be softened the same way since omniscience is all-or-nothing) — a real concession on one point paired with a reasoned distinction on the other, not a blanket refusal.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S2's recorded objection since his opening has been that Mark 13:32 shows real inequality of knowledge between Son and Father, and in this same breath he reaffirms rather than retreats from that claim ("we also agree when he says he doesn't know that he doesn't know... you cannot be God and not know something"). A concession needs a real prior claim of the speaker's that is surrendered when shown wrong; S2 never argued that "no one good but the father" proved inequality, so agreeing with S0's reading of that separate verse gives up nothing he had staked out, and he immediately restates his actual, unmoved claim about Mark 13:32 in the very same turn.
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.