Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #118624:48upheld Chase Geyser epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“If you would define the necessitation of the belief in God as dogma, then yes, according to that definition that would be dogma.”
Diogenes: Rather than shifting terms to protect the "no dogma" claim, he grants the point once the definition is on the table.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3's opening position (with S2) was that Masonry has no dogma or canon; this concession is a real, acknowledged departure from that claim under Jay's questioning, not merely a restatement of his position. Chase directly grants the point once given a definition of dogma, rather than deflecting; the transcript shows he does not later retract this admission (he goes on to concede "very few dogmas" rather than denying dogma exists at all), so this is a genuine, sustained concession.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Rather than deflecting, Geyser directly concedes that under Dyer's proposed definition of dogma (a belief that cannot be questioned), the requirement to believe in a supreme being would qualify as a dogma of Freemasonry, conditionally granting the point Dyer was pressing for.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's opening position was that Masonry is a fraternity without doctrinal canon, judged by what members do rather than outside claims; here, when the definition of "dogma" is pinned down, S3 grants the point rather than deflecting, which is a genuine concession consistent with an honest response to being shown the term applies. This is a direct, real concession: once Jay's definition of dogma is on the table, Chase explicitly grants that the belief-in-God requirement qualifies, rather than redefining terms to escape the point, satisfying the concession criterion.
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.