Appeal: concession
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #89944:00upheld CB Robertson epainos: concession (+2)
The council upheld the call: CB Robertson earned 2 points.
“I'm glad you've given a name to the to basically summarize my critique of of Logos as it presented itself to me in in Greek heroism. And if it if that doesn't apply to Orthodox Christianity, then no power to you.”
Diogenes: CB withdraws his second argument against his opponent's actual position, accepting that the word-concept objection defeats it as applied to Orthodoxy, and moves on rather than defending it further.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1's second opening thesis was that the Logos concept is naive per the later-Wittgenstein critique; this line shows S1 conceding that critique doesn't reach the Orthodox doctrine of Logos as Jay has explained it, a real concession rather than a mere restatement of the original claim. This is a genuine concession: CB explicitly withdraws his Logos/language critique as applied to Orthodoxy specifically, after Jay's word-concept-fallacy rebuttal, rather than continuing to insist it applies.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". After Jay explained that Orthodox "Logos" refers to the personal second person of God (drawn from Hebrew wisdom literature) rather than a Hellenic linguistic/literary concept, CB explicitly grants that his Homer/Wittgenstein-based critique of Logos may simply not apply to Orthodox Christianity as Jay has defined it, which is a genuine concession that his prepared argument missed its target.
- Plato uphold: On the record: CB opened treating Logos as fundamentally a linguistic/language concept (drawing on Homer, Wittgenstein) and used that to argue immortality-through-the-word and the Logos concept are naive; after Jay explained Orthodoxy's Logos as the personal second person of God via Hebrew wisdom literature rather than Hellenic language philosophy, CB here explicitly withdraws his critique as applied to Orthodoxy. This is a genuine concession: CB had built his second argument on identifying Logos with a linguistic mode of speech, and after Jay's distinction (Logos as person, not utterance) plus the intervening exchange on hypostasis and personhood, CB explicitly grants that his critique does not touch Jay's actual (Orthodox) position — a real prior claim conceded in light of a specific rebuttal, not a mere restatement of his own framework.
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.