Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #128735:58overturned Mike Lowry epainos: concession (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“… you just correctly laid out the system by which we can look at the direct connection all the way back to the early church in Orthodoxy, let's say. And some others might disagree with you, but I don't. I don't have any reason to.”
Diogenes: Mike grants Jay's historical continuity claim outright instead of contesting ground he cannot hold, and relocates his objection to a specific point — Paul's reshaping of the message — which is the honest way to narrow a dispute.The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Mike's declared position from the opening is that the Urantia Book is genuine revelation and that the gospel of fatherhood/brotherhood was later distorted by a well-intentioned Pauline error; this line does not depart from that but restates its precise boundary (agreeing to the historical mechanism while locating his objection specifically at Paul). Mike's opening framework already held that the historical/apostolic chain is real but that Paul introduced a "well-intentioned error" onto it — so granting that Jay "correctly laid out the system" of apostolic continuity is not a concession wrung from being shown wrong, it is a restatement of the very distinction Mike stated from the outset (continuity of institution vs. corruption of doctrine via Paul). No point of Mike's own that was actually in dispute is retracted here; he simply agrees to an uncontested premise before pivoting to his standing objection about Paul, which he had already flagged in his opening narrative.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Mike explicitly grants that Jay's account of apostolic succession and the historical line running from the apostles through the early church into Orthodoxy is correctly laid out, saying he has no reason to disagree with it; he then pivots to a distinct objection about Paul rather than disputing the succession mechanism itself. This is a genuine concession on the point actually put to him, not merely rhetorical throat-clearing, since he keeps the concession's scope (the mechanism) separate from his later, narrower complaint (Pauline content).
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike's opening and consistent position was that the early gospel of the kingdom/brotherhood is genuine but Paul's atonement theology is a later, well-intentioned error; he never contested the historical mechanics of apostolic succession itself, so agreeing to that mechanism here is not a reversal of any prior claim. A concession requires a real prior claim shown wrong; Mike never asserted a rival account of historical apostolic succession, so granting that Jay "correctly laid out the system" simply narrows the discussion to his standing objection (Paul's alteration of the message) rather than abandoning a position he had held. This reads better as a direct answer to Jay's earlier question ("don't you think we need to go back to those people?") than as a concession.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. Mike's opening statement (00:38-13:33) already staked out the position that apostolic historical continuity is real but that Paul introduced a "well-intentioned error" onto it, shifting the message from the kingdom-brotherhood gospel to atonement doctrine; the quoted line simply applies that same standing distinction, granting the uncontested mechanism while pivoting to his already-declared objection about Paul. Judged against that framework, nothing is retracted or shown wrong here, so it is not a concession but a restatement of a boundary drawn before the exchange began.
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.