Appeal: concession
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #5681:01overturned Indiana Brunner epainos: concession (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I came on here to publicly apologize. I'm humbly admitting that I was wrong. I misrepresented our conversation.”
Diogenes: Asked directly where the accusation came from, he concedes the charge outright rather than deflecting.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened this segment not with a debate thesis but by coming to apologize for misrepresenting his prior conversation with S0; that stated purpose is exactly what this line delivers, and he holds to it (repeating the apology, explaining his emotional state, and not walking it back) through the rest of the segment. S0 directly asked "where did I do anything like what you accused me of?" and S1 answered by admitting outright that he misrepresented and exaggerated the exchange — a textbook concession, not a deflection. Severity major is defensible since it is a full, unhedged admission of the very charge in question, though one could argue minor since it concerns conduct rather than a substantive debate point.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a personal apology about an earlier tweet/private conversation misrepresentation, not a claim within the live debate over relics, the Eucharist, or the canon. It is commentary about a past dispute between the speakers rather than argument on the question at hand, so per the rubric it scores on neither ledger even though it is candid and creditable behavior.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 opened by publicly apologizing for having earlier accused S0 of misconduct; this line is the concession itself, fully consistent with (indeed constitutive of) that opening stance, not a departure from anything held since. S0 directly asked where he had done anything to justify S1's public accusation; S1 responded with a full, unhedged admission that he had misrepresented and exaggerated the exchange. This is a genuine concession to a real prior claim (S1's own deleted tweet/accusation), not a restatement or deflection, and it is squarely on the floor since S0 is present and the words answer his question.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: use, not mention: describing a fault is not committing it. The rubric provides that commentary about a past dispute between the speakers, as opposed to the live debate question, "is not argument and scores on neither ledger, unless the speaker turns it into a move against the live question." S1's opening apology is exactly this: he is addressing a prior deleted tweet and private conversation, not any claim about relics, the Eucharist, or the canon that forms the actual debate. Because S0's question ("where did I do anything like what you accused me of?") and S1's answer both concern this off-topic social-media dispute rather than the substantive question on the floor, and the exchange is never turned into a move against the live topic, it cannot be scored as a philosopher point.
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.