Appeal: homologia
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #118524:42upheld Jay Dyer against Chase Geyser agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1.2 points.
“So there is dogma in freemasonry?”
Diogenes: Having pressed for a definition of dogma, Jay extracts from Chase the admission that belief in God is a non-negotiable requirement, which concedes that Masonry does after all impose at least one unquestionable belief — against the side's founding claim that it has no canon or dogma.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that Masonry's claim to be dogma-free is false and internally incoherent; this exchange is a direct vindication of that standing line via a forced admission from S3, not a departure from either side's position. Jay's opening and sustained method was to press internal incoherence in the "no dogma, no canon" self-description Ryan/Chase gave at the opening. Here that pressure produces a genuine, explicit grant from Chase: "If you would define the necessitation of the belief in God as dogma, then yes, according to that definition that would be dogma" — a real concession that dogma exists, directly against the founding claim of "no dogma... no canon." That is homologia: the opponent grants the point under questioning, not a mere restatement or dodge.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Dyer does not merely assert his conclusion; he draws it directly from Chase's own preceding words ("I don't believe that there are any beliefs other than the existence of God that you can't question in freemasonry"), which by Dyer's own soon-stated definition of dogma (a belief you can't question) already entails dogma exists. The question crisply exposes that entailment and is what elicits Chase's explicit concession moments later, so it is a fair, well-aimed piece of dialectic rather than a word game.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's opening and standing position was that Masonry has no doctrinal canon and should be judged by member practice rather than outside claims; here, under direct definitional pressure from Jay, he explicitly grants the point ("if you would define... then yes... that would be dogma"), which is a real departure into concession rather than a restatement of his position. This is a genuine forced concession: Jay pins down a definition of dogma (something that gets you excluded / cannot be disputed), and Chase directly grants that under that definition, the belief-in-God requirement counts as dogma — a real admission against S2/S3's founding "no dogma, no authorities" framing, made in live cross-examination rather than volunteered as elaboration.
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.