Appeal: dodge
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #119129:23upheld Ryan Terbibull psogos: dodge (+1)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull gave away 1 point.
“I guess again, we're we're just arguing words.”
Diogenes: Jay put the self-referential question — "is it a dogma that there are no dogmas?" — twice in plain terms and expressly said it was philosophical and not about Pike; calling it a quarrel over words is a refusal rather than an answer.Herodotus (unknown): There is no prior history between Jay Dyer and Ryan Terbibull to draw on: the site records only this one Nashville debate for Terbibull (Philosopher 21, Sophist 0), and web searches turn up no earlier or separate Dyer-Terbibull encounter — the various YouTube titles that surface ("Can You Be a Christian AND a Freemason?", "Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians," reaction clips like "LUNATIC Freemason CRASHES OUT On Jay Dyer") all appear to be cuts/commentary on this same single debate, not a separate one. Since this is a first and only meeting, the callout must be judged solely on the transcript in front of the council; there is no pattern of prior dodging by Terbibull (or prior clashes with Dyer specifically) that would aggravate or mitigate this single "arguing over words" remark. Note also that Jay Dyer's own site record shows a heavy ad hominem/misrepresentation history (17 and 15 upheld faults respectively across 24 debates), which is irrelevant to assessing Terbibull's conduct but may be relevant context for the council if Dyer's framing of the exchange is separately contested. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uITooqIYXGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTZ-QS2mxGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zUpUPw1lLk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-smeFL3Sbw https://jaysanalysis.com/heated-debate-2-christian-freemasons-vs-1-anti-freemason-christian-plus-review/
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2 opened by denying Masonry has dogma/authorities and has since been walked through qualifying concessions on that claim; "arguing words" is a frustrated aside within that ongoing concession process, not a standalone refusal, since the team (via Chase) answers the self-referential challenge moments later. Jay's self-referential "dogma of no dogma" question was pressed on the team repeatedly, but the record shows it did get a substantive response within the same continuous exchange: seconds after Ryan's "arguing words" remark, Chase answers directly — "There is no dogma in Freemasonry that individual members cannot have their own dogma" — a distinguo addressing the very paradox Jay raised, which Jay then argues with rather than complaining went unanswered. Since the question was in fact taken up and answered in the floor of this team debate, the "still not answered" element the dodge label requires is missing from the record.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". Dyer's self-referential question — is it dogma in Masonry that there is no dogma? — was put to Terbibull first at 23:56 ("I'm asking you, is it dogmatic that there's no dogma in masonry?") and then repeated almost verbatim at 29:07-29:20; both times Terbibull declines to answer it and instead dismisses it as "just arguing words," leaving the actual logical point unaddressed until Chase, not Ryan, later attempts a response.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared method was that no single author or claim binds Masonry and that its few requirements are open to individual interpretation; that stance can explain resistance to treating Pike's wording as authoritative, but it does not license waving off a direct question about self-referential consistency as "just arguing words," so the line is a genuine departure into evasion rather than a restatement of his position. Jay poses the same self-referential question twice, almost verbatim ("is it a dogma that there are no dogmas?" then "Is it a dogma that there's no dogmas?"), and explicitly flags it as philosophical rather than about Pike specifically; Ryan's reply — "I guess again, we're we're just arguing words" — declines to answer yes or no and is not a framework objection (he names no presupposition he denies and states nothing that must be settled first), so it meets the dodge test. The conversation then pivots to the satanism example without the self-reference question ever being squarely answered by Ryan or anyone else, confirming the question was left hanging rather than merely delayed.
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.