Appeal: misrepresentation
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #120446:54upheld Ryan Terbibull psogos: misrepresentation (+2)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull gave away 2 points.
“… which you did do when you pointed out that the name was Moles [Morals] and Dogma, you attempted to make the argument that this is Masonic…”
Diogenes: This is the third time he attributes to Jay the claim that Pike's words are Masonic dogma after Jay corrected it explicitly at 23:41 and again at 29:09, and Jay's actual argument was the self-referential one about the claim that Masonry has no dogmas.Herodotus (unknown): This is the only documented encounter between Jay Dyer and Ryan Terbibull anywhere I could find — the site's own log shows Terbibull with exactly one debate here (this Nashville "2 Christian Freemasons vs Jay Dyer" event), and web searches turned up no prior Dyer–Terbibull exchanges, tweets, or debates to establish a pattern of misrepresentation by Terbibull specifically. Jay Dyer's own extensive record (24 debates, 17 ad hominem and 15 misrepresentation faults upheld against him) is not evidence about Terbibull's conduct. Within this single debate the referee's complaint is internally documented (Dyer corrects the "Masonic dogma" framing at 23:41 and 29:09 before Terbibull repeats it at ~47:00), but that is a pattern within one debate, not an established cross-debate pattern for Terbibull; there is no outside history to corroborate or refute a repeat offender charge against him. Sources: https://jaysanalysis.com/heated-debate-2-christian-freemasons-vs-1-anti-freemason-christian-plus-review/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTZ-QS2mxGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zUpUPw1lLk
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's declared method is to deny that any Masonic author's words bind the craft as dogma; recasting Jay's self-referential critique as "Pike's words are Masonic dogma" serves that method rhetorically but, having been explicitly corrected twice already, this third repetition departs from accurately representing what Jay in fact argued at that point in the exchange. Jay's argument evolved from an initial appeal to the title "Morals and Dogma" as evidence of authority (19:29) to an explicit self-referential contradiction argument, and he corrected Ryan's "Pike's words = Masonic dogma" gloss twice on the record (23:41, 29:09). Ryan repeats that same corrected gloss a third time here, which is consistent with the pattern I already upheld as misrepresentation at 28:40 — repetition after correction is what turns an initial reasonable paraphrase into a persistent misstatement of the opponent's actual argument.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "straw man", on the same ledger as the callout. This repeats the same mischaracterization already flagged at 28:40: Dyer's actual argument was the self-referential paradox that declaring "no dogma" is itself dogmatic, not a claim that Pike's title alone proves his words are binding Masonic dogma. Terbibull again substitutes this narrower, easier-to-refute version ("you attempted to make the argument that this is Masonic") for the position Dyer had explicitly stated, prompting Dyer's immediate correction ("No... You missed the argument").
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared opening framing was that Jay would try to make individual authors like Pike "speak for freemasonry" as authorities; that framing does not entitle him to keep restating, after two explicit corrections, that Jay's specific argument was "Pike's words are Masonic dogma," so this line departs from accurate engagement into repeated misattribution. Jay explicitly disclaimed this exact framing twice on the record — at 23:41 ("I didn't argue that... Pike['s words are dogma]... I was doing a philosophical critique") and again at 29:09 ("It doesn't have anything to do with Albert Pike") — stating plainly that his point was the self-referential claim "there's no dogma" being itself dogmatic, not that Pike's personal words constitute binding Masonic dogma. Ryan's line here repeats the very characterization Jay disowned, attributing to him a position the transcript shows he denied holding, consistent with the same misrepresentation I upheld at 28:40.
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.