Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #119028:50upheld Ryan Terbibull epainos: concession (+2)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 2 points.
“Let us let us just concede Yeah. That there is the dogma in Freemasonry that you have to believe in a supreme being.”
Diogenes: He explicitly concedes a plank of his own opening position — that Masonry has no dogma — instead of defending it by redefinition.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's opening declared Masonry has "no dogma... no canon"; this line is a direct, acknowledged departure from that founding claim, a genuine concession rather than a restatement. The quote is an explicit, unambiguous concession using the word "concede" itself, granting that Masonry does have a dogma (belief in a supreme being) contrary to the "no dogma" claim from the opening statement, rather than redefining terms to escape it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Terbibull explicitly uses the word "concede" and grants that requiring belief in a supreme being counts as a dogma of Freemasonry, directly yielding the point Dyer had been pressing across the preceding exchange rather than continuing to dispute the label.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening declared Masonry "does not have dogmas," a claim already in tension after his and Chase's earlier admissions; here he explicitly uses the word "concede" to grant that belief in a supreme being counts as dogma, rather than continuing to redefine terms. This is an explicit, direct concession using the word "concede" itself, granting the specific plank of S2's opening position that Masonry has no dogma, which meets the concession criterion cleanly.
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.