Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15171:44:05overturned Pedro epainos: concession (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I would not say outright every tradition in the Orthodox Church is evil and, you know, contradicts the word of God.”
Diogenes: Given an opening to double down on the "traditions of men" framing, he grants that Orthodox Christology is sound and refuses to condemn Orthodox tradition wholesale, narrowing his claim to what he can defend.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Pedro's opening and sustained position was that traditions in general (not Orthodoxy specifically) must be tested against scripture; he never made and is not here retracting any claim that Orthodox tradition is "evil," so there is no earlier claim being reversed under pressure. This exchange occurs in response to a viewer super-chat (Gooster) challenging Pedro generically, not to any specific argument Jay made in the debate proper showing Pedro wrong on a claim about Orthodox tradition being "evil." Pedro himself notes he "never actually brought up anything of the Orthodox Church" during the debate, meaning there was no prior claim of his being reversed here — his answer is a restatement of the modest, non-committal stance he held throughout (he never called Orthodox tradition evil to begin with), not a concession forced by refutation.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is Pedro expressing personal humility about not having fully studied Orthodoxy before judging its traditions wholesale; it neither answers a specific argument on the table, concedes a refuted point, nor commits any named fault — it's simply an honest aside, so there is nothing here worth scoring on either ledger.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Pedro's declared framework since the opening is that any tradition, Orthodox included, is measured against scripture rather than accepted or rejected wholesale; this line is consistent with, not a departure or retreat from, that standing position. A concession requires a real prior claim retracted after being shown wrong. Pedro never asserted in the debate that "every tradition in the Orthodox Church is evil"; his framework throughout was to test any tradition (of any group) against scripture, and moments before this very line he had already said he is "not combative about the identity of Christ" in Orthodoxy — the same non-hostile stance, not a walk-back. This is an answer to an audience super-chat question restating a position he already held, not a concession wrung from refutation.
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.