Appeal: misrepresentation
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #119228:40upheld Ryan Terbibull psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull gave away 1 point.
“I believe your argument was that the words of Albert Pike were dogma based off of your definition of dogma.”
Diogenes: Jay had already corrected this attribution once at 23:41 ("I didn't argue that") and stated his point was the self-referential contradiction, so restating it as his argument misdescribes what was said.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's declared method rests on denying that any Masonic writer's words bind the craft as dogma, and he has repeatedly recast Jay's more abstract self-contradiction argument into that "Pike's words = dogma" frame even after Jay corrected it, which is a real, recurring misattribution rather than a single innocent misunderstanding. Jay's actual stated argument, given repeatedly (at 23:41 and reaffirmed at 48:00, "I didn't argue that his words are dogma... that's a straw man"), was a self-referential contradiction claim: that it is "dogmatic in masonry that there's no dogma," not that "Albert Pike's words are dogma." Ryan's restatement collapses these into the very framing Jay had already disclaimed, and the transcript shows Jay immediately rejecting it again as a straw man right after this line — a repeated pattern of misattributing Jay's position rather than a one-off ambiguity.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "straw man", on the same ledger as the callout. Dyer's actual argument, stated moments earlier, was a self-referential logical critique: that declaring "there is no dogma" is itself a dogma, a subjectivist/relativist contradiction — not a claim about whether Pike's specific words count as dogma. Terbibull recasts it as "your argument was that the words of Albert Pike were dogma based off your definition," a weaker, different claim; Dyer immediately rejects this recharacterization and, several exchanges later, names it outright ("Yeah, that's a straw man dude. I didn't argue that his words are dogma"), which the transcript bears out.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared position has been that no individual writer's words constitute binding Masonic dogma, defended by distinguishing Pike's personal opinions from Masonic teaching; here he restates Jay's argument as being that "the words of Albert Pike were dogma," a framing Jay had already explicitly disclaimed at 23:41 ("I didn't argue that... I was doing a philosophical critique") in favor of a self-referential contradiction claim. The transcript shows Jay had already corrected this exact attribution once, explaining his point was the self-contradiction of "dogmatically" holding there is no dogma, not that Pike's specific words were themselves dogma; Ryan's restatement nonetheless attributes to Jay the very claim he disclaimed, which fits misrepresentation even absent bad faith, and the immediate "Again, you misunderstood the argument" confirms the transcript does not bear the reading Ryan gives it.
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.