Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #119635:08upheld Chase Geyser epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“… regardless of the technical acceptance of somebody of that persuasion into the fraternity, in a practical manner would virtually never happen ... And I can't, I mean, I'm sure you could find obscure examples.”
Diogenes: He grants that the formal admission criterion may not by itself exclude Jay's counterexample and rests the exclusion on practice rather than doctrine, which is candid about the weakness Jay identified.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S3's ongoing pattern in this debate of conceding specific points (dogma exists, few dogmas) while maintaining the broader thesis that Masonry is compatible with Christianity; not a departure from his position, but an honest concession within it. Chase explicitly grants that satanists could technically/theoretically be admitted and that obscure examples might exist, rather than denying the counterexample outright, shifting his defense to practical/cultural exclusion — a candid concession of the specific weakness Jay identified in the formal "supreme being" criterion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Rather than insisting that a satanist could never possibly become a Mason, Geyser candidly concedes that "obscure examples" of satanists in clandestine, irregular lodges probably exist, granting the weaker point against his own "virtually never happen" claim instead of overstating his case.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's position has been that Masonry's belief requirement excludes bad actors through practical vetting; here, pressed on the theistic-satanist counterexample, he grants that obscure examples in irregular lodges could exist, conceding the formal criterion alone would not necessarily exclude them and shifting the defense to practice rather than doctrine. S3 explicitly grants "I'm sure you could find obscure examples," acknowledging the specific weakness in the formal admission criterion that Jay's counterexample exposed, which is a genuine, candid concession on that narrow 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.