Appeal: concession
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #89732:25upheld CB Robertson epainos: concession (+2)
The council upheld the call: CB Robertson earned 2 points.
“… you're also correct that my my arguments in in my book and with the the moral disontological argument and and the litmus [linguistic] argument are directed towards Christianity broadly, not not to Orthodoxy in particular.”
Diogenes: CB grants Jay's central procedural objection — that the arguments were not aimed at the position his opponent actually holds — instead of pretending they were.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened with two arguments framed against "Christianity" broadly (the disontological dilemma and the language argument) without distinguishing Orthodoxy; this line is S1 conceding, upon Jay's objection, that the arguments were not tailored to Orthodoxy specifically, a genuine concession rather than a restatement of his original scope. Jay's opening rebuttal explicitly objected that CB's two arguments addressed generic Christianity rather than the Orthodox position actually on the floor (the natural-law/revelation distinction, Logos as person not concept); CB here directly grants that objection rather than defending the original scope. This is a clean instance of conceding a point when shown wrong.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Jay had opened by objecting that CB's presentation showed no engagement with Orthodoxy specifically (citing C.S. Lewis, generic Protestant-flavored readings of Genesis 22, etc.). Here CB explicitly grants that his prepared disontological and language arguments target Christianity broadly rather than Orthodoxy in particular, which is a genuine concession of the scope-mismatch Jay had identified.
- Plato uphold: On the record: CB opened with two arguments framed against "Christianity" broadly (the disontological dilemma and the language argument); Jay's opening rebuttal insisted these must address Orthodoxy specifically, and here CB directly grants that his arguments were not aimed at Orthodoxy in particular — a real concession to a real prior objection, not a restatement of his own position. Jay's opening reply explicitly demanded that any argument against his position address Orthodoxy's actual distinctions (natural law vs. positive revelation, etc.), and CB here concedes his arguments were aimed at Christianity broadly rather than Orthodoxy — a genuine concession on a point actually contested, going to the heart of whether his case even engages Jay's held position.
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.