Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #120242:30upheld Jay Dyer epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“It depends on how far Alcoholics Anonymous would try to enforce their principles of generic theism. So it really depends.”
Diogenes: Pressed on an awkward parallel case, he gives the criterion his objection actually turns on — degree of enforced generic theism — rather than refusing the comparison.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S1's sustained critique that "generic theism" claims are the crux of his incompatibility argument; this answer applies that same standard to the AA case rather than departing from it. Rather than refusing the comparison as inapplicable, Jay directly answers by stating the actual criterion his objection depends on (degree of enforced generic theism), engaging substantively with the parallel case rather than dodging it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Rather than dismissing Geyser's Alcoholics Anonymous parallel or refusing to engage, Dyer answers directly and gives a distinguishing criterion: AA's "higher power" language is left maximally vague with no accompanying theological exposition, whereas the Masonic source he is quoting (Pike) explicitly frames its higher-power discussion within an extended theological chapter on the divine name and Kabbalah, which he argues is a materially different case.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's declared framework is that generic theism enforced as membership criterion is theologically significant; this line directly answers Chase's AA analogy by stating the actual criterion his objection turns on, rather than deflecting the comparison. This is a genuine direct answer to the AA question just posed, articulating the operative principle (degree of enforced generic theism) rather than refusing to engage with the parallel case.
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.