Appeal: concession
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #5748:58overturned Jay Dyer epainos: concession (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“… the power would not have gone out of him had the woman not had faith. You're right about that.”
Diogenes: He grants the true half of his opponent's suggestion, that faith is necessary, before showing why it does not exclude his own view.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S0's synergy answer moments earlier (08:35) already asserted that the miracle depended on the recipient's faith ("he won't [act] if they don't have faith"); this line simply restates that same point rather than conceding something new or damaging under pressure. A concession requires granting a point when shown wrong, but S0 had already built faith's necessity into his synergy thesis just before this line, so "you're right about that" is a restatement of his own already-held position rather than a genuine concession.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Dyer explicitly grants Brunner's point that faith was operative in the healing ("the power would not have gone out of him had the woman not had faith. You're right about that"), rather than simply asserting his synergy view without acknowledging the opponent's contribution to it. This is an honest concession folded into his own more nuanced both/and position.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay's stated framework here is synergy—both faith and object matter—so acknowledging that faith was necessary for this miracle is not surrendering a point he held to be false but simply restating the "faith" half of the synergy position he had just introduced. A concession requires being shown wrong on a prior claim; Jay was never arguing faith was irrelevant, so granting faith's necessity is consistent with, not a retreat from, his synergy framework stated moments earlier.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: even if: granting the claim and showing the conclusion fails. At 08:35 Jay had already built faith's necessity into his synergy thesis before Indiana's question was even asked, so "you're right about that" is not a point given up under pressure — he immediately continues "But we can know some of the doctrines..." to show the object still matters, i.e. he grants the sub-point and shows it doesn't defeat his conclusion. That is the textbook shape of "even if," which the manual explicitly distinguishes from a concession ("giving the point up"); since he never gives up the disputed claim that objects carry power, the "concession" label doesn't fit 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.