Appeal: homologia
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #118726:22upheld Jay Dyer against Ryan Terbibull agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1.2 points.
“You said that they're no authorities. Now there's a supreme authority. ... Well, are there no authorities or are there authorities?”
Diogenes: Ryan's central framework objection was that "there is no authority on freemasonry"; pressed on his own description of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee as supreme, he grants "There is a system of governments within Freemasonry. There are authorities," narrowing the objection to individual writers only.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 opened by flatly declaring Masonry has "no apostles... no canon... there is no authority on freemasonry," a broad claim he has not formally withdrawn; this line is a genuine, explicit departure from that blanket declaration rather than a mere restatement of it. Ryan's opening declared, in immediate sequence, "No man speaks for freemasonry... We don't have apostles. We don't have canon... there is no authority on freemasonry." At 26:22-26:52, pressed specifically on this blanket claim, Ryan states in his own words: "There is a system of governments within Freemasonry. There are authorities. The Grand Lodge of Tennessee." That is a clean, explicit grant of the very proposition his opening denied outright. The subsequent attempt by Ryan/Chase to salvage the position with a two-senses-of-authority distinction is a real distinguo, but it arrives only after the grant is already on the record in Ryan's own words, and does not retract it — he never says "I take that back" or "no, there are no authorities in that sense," he simply narrows going forward. A concession, once made in plain terms, is not undone by a later qualification unless the speaker withdraws the concession itself, which he does not do here.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Dyer plainly states the contradiction: Terbibull's opening claimed "no authorities," yet moments earlier described the Grand Lodge of Tennessee as "the supreme masonic authority." Dyer states the premises and draws the conclusion directly ("So there are authorities and there are things that will get you unrecognized"), and this pressure is what elicits Terbibull's subsequent concession that "There are authorities" and later that requiring belief in a supreme being counts as dogma — so the point is substantive, not merely semantic, consistent with how this same thread was read elsewhere in the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening and declared method flatly asserted "no man speaks for freemasonry... there's no authority on freemasonry"; pressed on his own description of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee as "the supreme masonic authority," he is forced into the plural admission "There is a system of governments within Freemasonry. There are authorities. The Grand Lodge of Tennessee" — a direct retraction of the opening's blanket denial, even though Chase immediately reaches for a two-senses distinguo to limit the damage. The quote is a genuine forced grant of the specific proposition ("there is no authority") that S2's opening staked out in those very words; that this is the same underlying capitulation already logged elsewhere as "concession" does not disqualify it as the debate's decisive turn on the point, since concession and homologia are the same event viewed at different scales, and Chase's follow-up distinguo is a rearguard reframing that comes after, not before, the grant.
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.