Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #119430:51upheld Chase Geyser epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“… the organization of Freemasonry does not prohibit people from having their own dogma, it just doesn't take a position on so many of them. Now, has its own dogmas in the sense that you have to believe in a supreme being, there's ancient landmark kind of rules…”
Diogenes: He answers the self-reference challenge by restating his side's claim in a form that survives it — minimal dogmas of its own, no prohibition on members' private dogmas — rather than repeating the refuted absolute.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3's position had already begun conceding dogma exists (at 24:42); this line is consistent continuation of that concession, addressing Jay's challenge directly rather than dodging it. Rather than repeating the "no dogma" claim untouched by Jay's self-reference challenge, Chase restates the position in a form that concedes the point already made (there are a few dogmas, e.g., belief in a supreme being, landmark rules) while clarifying the scope of what Masonry does and doesn't require — a substantive engagement with the challenge rather than a deflection.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Rather than dismissing Dyer's self-referential challenge as mere semantics (as Terbibull just had), Geyser engages it directly, distinguishing the sense in which Masonry has minimal institutional dogma (belief in a supreme being, ancient landmarks) from the sense in which it leaves individual members free to hold their own further dogmas, giving a substantive answer to the question actually on the table.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's position throughout has been that Masonry has very few requirements and leaves theology to the individual; this line directly engages Jay's self-reference challenge by restating that position in a form that acknowledges minimal organizational dogma while distinguishing it from individual belief, rather than repeating an already-conceded absolute claim. This is a genuine direct answer: rather than dodging or repeating the "no dogma at all" claim already shown untenable, S3 restates his actual, more defensible position (minimal organizational dogma, no prohibition on private belief), engaging Jay's challenge on point.
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.