Appeal: concession
From Debate! Pagan vs. Orthodox: Logos, Language & Metaphysics - Jay Dyer Vs CB Robertson.
- #9271:58:45overturned CB Robertson epainos: concession (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“I want to apologize not just to you, but also to your audience for for coming here. Not unprepared so much as misprepared…”
Diogenes: CB concedes defeat on the central question openly and without excuses or face-saving reinterpretation, which is the honest close to a case he could not sustain.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 opened as the challenger presenting two arguments against Christianity and sustained them through the debate; here, after failing to supply an account of logic/universals under S0's repeated questioning, he explicitly and openly admits fault and inability to meet the challenge rather than reinterpreting or deflecting. This is a direct, unhedged admission that he was shown wrong / could not sustain his position on the epistemic point pressed throughout the debate, which is exactly what the concession label requires; it is consistent with (not a departure from) his general good-faith, self-effacing conduct in the debate.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is commentary about the debate encounter itself (apologizing for coming "misprepared" for the format) rather than an argument on the live question; the substantive concession was already made in the immediately preceding line, so this follow-up is meta-talk about the exchange and scores on neither ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: CB held, since the opening, an intuition-based epistemology he never systematized; here he abandons any pretense of having met Jay's repeated demand for an account of logic/universals, openly conceding rather than salvaging the position, which is consistent with (not a departure from) the trajectory of his position collapsing under cross-examination. This line directly follows CB's explicit admission "I can't address that to your satisfaction" and openly owns the failure as his own fault ("that was my fault... I did use the word debate naively") rather than reframing the loss as illegitimate or the method as invalid; that reframing only comes later in his closing remarks. Taken here, it is a genuine, unhedged concession of defeat on the central epistemic demand Jay had pressed all debate, distinct in kind from (though co-located with) the duel moment already recorded.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: use, not mention: describing a fault is not committing it. The quoted line is CB apologizing for bringing the wrong conversational mode to a "debate" and for coming "misprepared" for the format — commentary about the encounter itself, not a move on the live epistemic question. The real concession on the substance was already made one line earlier ("I can't address that to your satisfaction"), which is not what the callout quotes; talk about the format of the debate scores on neither ledger unless it advances the live question, which this does not.
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.