Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #120142:24upheld Chase Geyser epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“Do you believe that Alcoholics Anonymous is incompatible with Christianity in the same way that you believe Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity?”
Diogenes: He tests Jay's principle against a parallel case — an association requiring belief in a generic higher power that Christians join freely — which is a legitimate probe of whether the stated criterion proves too much.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Consistent with S3's ongoing tactic of probing Jay's criterion via analogy (also seen with the Green Party/Libertarian Party questions later); but as a bare question it does not meet the definition of an explicit argument here, however legitimate the probing tactic may be. "Explicit argument" requires premises and a conclusion stated plainly; this line is a bare comparative question (no premises laid out, no conclusion drawn) rather than an argument spelled out — the parallel-case reasoning is only implicit in the question, and Chase does not himself state what it is supposed to prove.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Geyser tests the consistency of Dyer's stated principle — that requiring belief in a vague, generic "supreme being" makes an organization theologically incompatible with Christianity — by applying it to a parallel case, Alcoholics Anonymous, which imposes a similar generic "higher power" requirement. This is a legitimate universalizability challenge rather than mere rhetoric, and it forces Dyer to qualify his criterion in the exchange that follows.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's position holds that Freemasonry's minimal theistic requirement does not create the incompatibility Jay alleges; this question tests that principle by analogy to a parallel case (AA's higher-power requirement), which is a legitimate probe of whether Jay's stated criterion proves too much, consistent with S3's ongoing line of defense. Though phrased as a question, it embeds a clear premise-conclusion structure (if a generic-higher-power requirement made an organization incompatible with Christianity, AA would be too; since AA is not treated that way, the criterion proves too much), consistent with the standard applied to similar embedded-argument questions elsewhere in this debate.
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.