Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs Styx Debate Abortion – Pro-Life vs Government Overreach.
- #141911:41upheld Styxhexenhammer666 epainos: concession (+2)
The council upheld the call: Styxhexenhammer666 earned 2 points.
“I'm exactly the averse [inverse] on that, and I admit the contradiction. It is very funny of me, to have those views…”
Diogenes: Having just charged his opponent with inconsistency, he immediately admits the mirror-image inconsistency in his own position instead of hiding it, then names the principle he thinks resolves it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S0 opened as pro-choice, pro-federal-defunding, and grounded everything in distrust of state authority over private/medical decisions; the called line is him conceding a self-noticed tension (holding views that are the "inverse" of Jay's combination) rather than abandoning that core distrust-of-government stance, which he immediately restates right after the quoted line. S0's opening and sustained line is "the state shouldn't decide" regardless of consistency between his views on abortion and the death penalty; here, after pointing out an apparent inconsistency in Jay's pro-life/pro-death-penalty combination, S0 turns the mirror on himself, explicitly says "I admit the contradiction," and offers his resolving principle (distrust of state power) rather than retreating from his position. This is a genuine textual concession of an apparent inconsistency in his own stated views, not a restatement dressed up — the words "I admit the contradiction" are unambiguous.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". S0 openly flags that holding pro-choice (state should not decide abortion) together with opposition to the death penalty (state should not decide execution) can look like a funny inversion of Jay's pro-life/pro-death-penalty combo, and admits the apparent tension rather than hiding it. He then immediately resolves it by restating the single principle that has run through his whole argument since 00:08 - the state should never be trusted with life-and-death medical or penal decisions - so the 'contradiction' is acknowledged and answered, not left hanging or later disavowed.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S0 opened and held throughout that government/state authority over life-and-death medical decisions should be minimized regardless of the substantive morality of abortion or execution; this line does not depart from that but momentarily flags, then folds back into, that same standing principle. S0's framework throughout is "the state should not decide life-and-death medical/penal questions; that is the central, load-bearing principle, not any claim that his own paired views on abortion and the death penalty are independently coherent on pain-of-death grounds." Having just pointed out that Jay's pro-death-penalty/anti-abortion combination looks inconsistent, S0 immediately owns that his own inverse combination (pro-choice/anti-death-penalty) invites the same charge — "I'm exactly the averse on that, and I admit the contradiction" — before resolving it by restating his one running axiom: the state shouldn't be trusted to make the killing-or-not decision either way. This is an honest acknowledgment of an apparent tension in his own view rather than a hidden or denied one, which is the spirit of a concession even though he does not change his ultimate position; the impact is small since he defuses it in the same breath via his standing principle, so I'd call it minor rather than major.
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.