Appeal: concession
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #8821:47:37upheld Trent Horn epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Trent Horn earned 1 point.
“Okay. Well, then I'm sorry. I I misspoke. I'm talking about the specific section where he's talking to those who are worshiping the the altar of the unknown.”
Diogenes: Corrected on what he had claimed about Paul's Areopagus speech, he withdraws the overstatement and narrows the claim rather than disputing the correction.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Trent has shown a pattern throughout the debate of correcting small overstatements when caught (e.g., the essence-existence slip on actus purus), and this line continues that pattern: shown that his claim that Paul "doesn't mention Jesus" was too broad, he narrows it to the specific Areopagus passage rather than defending the overstatement. The transcript shows Jay correcting Trent's overstated claim about Paul's speech, and Trent immediately concedes he misspoke and narrows his claim accordingly, which is a genuine concession rather than a restatement of an unchanged position.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". When Jay pointed out that Trent's earlier claim about Paul not going into Christ or the Old Testament wasn't accurate for the passage as a whole, Trent admits he misspoke and narrows his claim to the specific section addressing the altar to the unknown god, rather than insisting on the broader claim he had made.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Trent's standing argument is that natural theology and common-ground reasoning (as in the Areopagus speech) coexist with gospel proclamation; this is a minor self-correction of an overstated aside about that same passage, not a retreat from his overall thesis. Jay caught Trent overstating that Paul "doesn't mention Jesus" and stays on "common ground" in Acts 17, when in fact Paul goes on to preach Christ and the resurrection later in the same speech; Trent immediately acknowledges the overstatement and narrows his claim to the specific unknown-god portion rather than defending the broader claim.
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.