Appeal: concession
From Ryad TRIGGERS Miami Girls After Saying THIS... 2026-10-19 22:20.
- #26131:05:07overturned S26 epainos: concession (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Yes, it it does…”
Diogenes: Earlier she said "The past does not matter. It doesn't make you who you are today"; after S22 argued that "sexual history does define you," she grants in so many words that it does, and then argues only for making a good change.major: She gives up her stated thesis on the main question of this prompt in reply to the opposing argument, which clearly affects where the argument lands.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S26 declared nothing at the opening; she joined late, argued that relationships need compromise and that people can change, and said "The past does not matter," then clarified "That's not what I meant to say." The called line grants only part of S22's point and keeps her change-focused position. She did not give up her earlier claim in so many words. She had already said "That's not what I meant to say" and held that a past can change you for better or worse. "Yes, it it does" is a partial agreement that sexual history shapes how people see you, followed by her old point that people can change and be known by what they do now. It was also not a reply to an argument on the point she had made. The elements of a concession are not clearly met, so the call is overturned.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Earlier S26 said "The past does not matter. It doesn't make you who you are today." When S22 answers that "sexual history does define you," she gives the point up plainly. She then adds only that a person can change and be known for it, which is a new point and not a retraction. It is a small, honest concession and not a contradiction, because she had already said she misspoke.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S26 declared no thesis at the opening (S1 spoke there); she joined later and has held that people can change and that the past does not define them, and at 65:07 she says "Yes, it it does" while keeping her point that people should be known by their change. The "Yes, it it does" is a grudging nod to S22's remark that shame attaches to sexual history. She does not say her earlier claim was wrong. She had already said at 63:48 "That's not what I meant to say", and she goes on right away with the same view, that a person can change and should be known for the change. That is a restatement of her position, not a concession. The rubric requires an explicit giving-up of the earlier claim in reply to the argument, and it also requires that she not take it back. Both are doubtful here, and a toss-up goes to overturn.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. S26 had already said at 63:53 "That's not what I meant to say" about "the past does not matter", so the earlier claim was withdrawn before S22 spoke. "Yes, it it does" is a partial nod that she follows with her old point, that people can change and be known for the change. She does not say in so many words that her claim was wrong, so the concession is not shown.
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.