Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15362:11:19overturned Pedro epainos: concession (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I I think I would have to just review the tape and and write it down and try and come up with an answer for you.”
Diogenes: Rather than manufacture another evasion, he admits outright that he has no answer to the epistemic question and will have to go away and work one out — the honest close to a line he could not sustain.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Pedro's opening and sustained position was that the canon/epistemic question resolves to God's sovereign will; when repeatedly pressed on the epistemic source of that claim he never renounces or corrects the position, he only postpones answering it, so this is a deferral consistent with continued evasion rather than a concession that his framework was wrong. A concession requires admitting that the opponent's point is correct, but Pedro never agrees that Jay's circularity/begging-the-question charge is right; he only defers, saying he needs to "review the tape" and "come up with an answer" later, and the debate simply moves to the next super-chat without the epistemic question (repeatedly put by Jay from ~129:39 onward) ever being answered. That pattern — a direct question pressed several times and left unresolved — is the definition of a dodge, not an admission of error; contrast this with Pedro's genuine concession earlier at 100:47 ("he got me there... I may have misspoken") where he explicitly agreed he was wrong.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "dodge". Jay had asked, in numerous rephrasings over the preceding exchange, what the source is for the content of Pedro's beliefs (God's personhood, the Trinity, God's will) once general revelation is shown to collapse back into scriptural content, and Pedro never gives that epistemic answer, instead cycling through "general revelation," "special revelation," and appeals to sovereignty. Here he finally admits outright that he cannot answer and would need to "review the tape" later, confirming that a direct question asked repeatedly went unanswered.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pedro's position of record was that his epistemic grounding traces to God's sovereign will/general revelation; this line is a departure from repeating that circular answer, admitting instead that he currently has no answer to the specific epistemic challenge — a real, if minor, concession rather than a restatement. Pedro has held since the opening that the canon and the will of God are known through sovereign decree and appeals to scripture itself, and throughout the final cross-examination Jay repeatedly pressed him on the specific epistemic question of where that content comes from prior to scripture, which Pedro answered only by circling back to scripture or providence. Here, after being pressed "how many times do I have to state that for you," Pedro drops the circular answer and admits outright he has no answer ready and must go review it — a genuine, if modest, concession that he cannot presently sustain the position under the specific pressure applied, distinct from his earlier deflections.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: a dodge needs a question asked twice. From ~129:39 onward Jay presses one specific epistemic question — the source of the content behind Pedro's claims about God's personhood and will — repeatedly, culminating in "how many times do I have to state that for you?" Pedro never says the opponent is right or that his circular answer fails; he only replies that he'll "review the tape... and come up with an answer for you" later, which is a deferral of a question asked (and re-asked) multiple times, not an admission of error. That is the textbook case the dodge rule describes, not a concession, which requires conceding the point rather than postponing it.
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.