Appeal: concession
From Protestant vs. Orthodox: Scripture and Tradition (Gavin Ortlund + Stephen De Young).
- #15961:14:28overturned Stephen De Young epainos: concession (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“… clearly and and this is something I think we agree about. If something is a clear violation of scripture... idolatry comes and persists, but is a gross violation of the Torah. Right? And so, I mean, I think that's part of the core difference here is I think you see the veneration of icons as a gross violation of the scriptures that I do not.”
Diogenes: He grants that persistence in the church cannot sanctify what Scripture plainly forbids — conceding Scripture a veto over tradition — and relocates the disagreement to the substantive question of whether icon veneration is such a violation.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S3 declared at 11:53 that scripture has "pride of place" and stated again mid-debate ("I'm not trying to relativize scripture's authority in any way. We agree about that") — this line restates that same standing commitment, not a new concession forced by refutation. Concession requires granting a point after being shown wrong; here S3 is restating a position he has held consistently since his opening definition of holy tradition (scripture's priority, no violation of scripture), not yielding ground under refutation — Gavin had not shown him wrong on this point, and S3 immediately relocates to the substantive disagreement (whether icons violate scripture) which he denies.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Ortlund had pressed him on how he knows Nicaea II reflects the Spirit's guidance and Frankfurt does not, given that idolatry too persisted for long stretches in Israel's history. De Young answers directly by naming the actual criterion, conformity to Scripture, and correctly locates the real point of disagreement: not whether persistence-plus-scriptural-fidelity is the test (both agree it is), but whether icon veneration in fact violates Scripture, which is what the rest of the exchange goes on to dispute.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that scripture holds "pride of place" within holy tradition and that the Spirit's guidance operates within, not against, scripture's authority; this line is a restatement of that standing position, not a concession wrung from being shown wrong. A concession requires a real prior claim that is then abandoned under refutation, but De Young never held the contrary position. From his very first answer he stated "the scriptures have this paramount place" and that Orthodoxy has "a higher view of some other things," not a lower view of scripture — i.e., scripture's priority over tradition was already on the record, not something "shown wrong" here. This line simply restates that standing framework and narrows the live dispute to whether icon veneration actually violates scripture, the same disambiguating move he made at 11:53.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the speaker is judged against his own declared framework. S3's opening definition of holy tradition already put scripture in "pride of place" and expressly denied holding a "lower view of scripture" than the Protestant side (11:53); the quoted line at 74:28 merely restates that standing framework — Spirit-guided tradition operates within, not against, scripture's authority — while relocating the live dispute to whether icon veneration in fact violates scripture, which he denies. Nothing was "shown wrong" and yielded; judged against his own declared first principles, this is not a new concession but a restatement, as two of the three judges independently traced back to the record.
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.