Appeal: concession
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11341:55:26overturned Daniel Haqiqatjou epainos: concession (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“To be fair, Islam also has the death penalty for adultery, sorcery, and blasphemy.”
Diogenes: He grants the parallel feature of his own tradition unprompted, and argues comparatively from there instead of pretending the Islamic penal law has no such provisions.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2's standing approach throughout has been comparative ("to be fair" framing appears elsewhere too, e.g. on child marriage), consistently used to strengthen his own argument rather than retreat from a refuted claim. Daniel was not shown wrong on any specific prior claim here — this occurs within his own opening statement on the morality topic, offered proactively and unprompted to set up his comparative argument, not as an admission of error under refutation. This is intellectual honesty/candor in argument construction, not a concession in the technical sense of yielding a point after being shown wrong.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Rather than pretending only the Bible endorses harsh penalties, Daniel explicitly concedes that Islam also prescribes the death penalty for adultery, sorcery, and blasphemy, before making his comparative point about which tradition is "more" severe. This is an honest acknowledgment of a shared feature rather than a one-sided attack.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S2's declared morality-round strategy is a comparative "who is more consistent" argument between Islamic and biblical law; here he volunteers a parallel feature of Islamic law unprompted, as part of building that comparison, rather than because Sam or Jay had shown him wrong on a prior claim. A concession requires conceding a point after being shown wrong; here Daniel volunteers this fact himself as a rhetorical qualifier within his own comparative argument, not in response to any refutation, so it does not fit the concession definition.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: even if: granting the claim and showing the conclusion fails. The rubric itself distinguishes granting a claim for the sake of argument from a concession, which "gives the point up" after being shown wrong. Here Daniel was not shown wrong on any claim by Sam or Jay; within his own opening statement on the morality topic he volunteers, unprompted, that Islam also has capital penalties, precisely so he can argue "even if so, the Bible's penal and war provisions go further" — a comparative move, not a yielded point. That is the "even if" structure the manual expressly separates from a concession, so the label does not fit.
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.