Appeal: concession
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #15931:08:05overturned Gavin Ortlund epainos: concession (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I'm not trying to appeal to Frankfurt as a as infallible or wholesale agreement or that kind of thing... I'm not saying Nicea two is wrong because it was there was politics and violence involved or something like that. That that's true for lots of councils. That doesn't really determine it fully…”
Diogenes: He accepts De Young's correction on Frankfurt's Eucharistic adoration and withdraws any suggestion that political violence by itself invalidates a council, narrowing his claim to the seesaw of reception.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2 has held since early in the discussion (at 61:00) that political factors around a council's reception "doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong," so this later line is a restatement of that standing qualification rather than a concession freshly wrung from him by De Young's correction. Checking against the earlier exchange (61:00), Gavin had already said of the Frankfurt/Nicaea II political dimension "that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong" — so the quoted line restates a qualification he already held, rather than being a new concession extracted by being shown wrong. On Eucharistic adoration specifically, Gavin never directly concedes De Young's point about Frankfurt's flaw; he instead gives a general disclaimer that he isn't citing any historical figure or council (Augustine, Frankfurt) as a wholesale ally, which is a clarification of his method of argument, not an admission of prior error.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is Ortlund narrowing the scope of his own earlier remark about Frankfurt and Nicaea II's political violence, clarifying he isn't treating messy politics as itself disqualifying (which would be a genetic-style move) — he says as much elsewhere too ("that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong"), so it's a consistent hedge rather than a walked-back contradiction. It's housekeeping on his own claim rather than a new premise-conclusion argument, a fallacy, or an answer to a posed question, so there is nothing here to score on either ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 had just favorably invoked Frankfurt as a council where "the holy spirit's at work" in contrast to Nicaea II (65:52-65:59); after Father Steven notes Frankfurt also produced Eucharistic adoration (which Gavin would reject), Gavin narrows his prior claim to disclaim wholesale endorsement, which is a real, if modest, retreat from the stronger endorsement he had just given. Though phrased defensively rather than with an explicit "you're right," Gavin does narrow the scope of his prior favorable invocation of Frankfurt and drops the political-violence-invalidates-a-council line in direct response to Father Steven's specific counter-example, which is a legitimate if minor concession rather than a mere restatement.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: a restated objection is not a moved goalpost: the condition must be found in the record, set, met, then replaced. The record shows Ortlund already held this exact qualification before De Young's Frankfurt/Eucharistic-adoration correction: at [60:56]-[61:13], discussing the very same Frankfurt/Nicaea II political point, he said "that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong." The quoted line at [67:15] is a restatement of a position already on the record, not a fresh retreat wrung out by being shown wrong, so it does not meet the concession label's requirement of giving up a point under pressure.
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.