Appeal: escape between the horns
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #120548:29overturned Jay Dyer against Chase Geyser agonisma: escape between the horns (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“Exactly. That's the point Chase. It's a contradiction. I'm arguing you guys contradict yourself. That's what you do in debates as you point out logical contradictions.”
Diogenes: Chase pressed a dilemma — you cannot charge Masonry with both having dogmas and being relativist — and Jay escapes it by locating the inconsistency in their position rather than in his own charge, after which Chase drops the objection.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1 has held throughout that Masonry's own self-description is internally contradictory (claiming both no-dogma/relativism and enforced doctrinal requirements); this line restates that standing charge and clarifies a misreading of it rather than executing a decisive dilemma-escape against Chase. Chase's "dilemma" here was not really two forced options that both lose for Jay; it was a claim that Jay himself simultaneously asserts two incompatible things (Masonry has dogma / Masonry is relativist). Jay's reply simply clarifies whose contradiction is being alleged — Masonry's self-description, not Jay's own two claims — which is a fair clarification of his standing argument, not a dilemma being defeated by a discovered third option. Critically, Chase does not go quiet, concede, or show aporia afterward: at 48:37 he pivots to a legitimate and undefeated challenge ("tie it directly to... incompatible with Christianity"), and continues arguing vigorously, scoring several of his own points, for the rest of a very long debate — the hallmark of a real duel landing (blush, aporia, forced concession) is absent.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Chase had just posed what looked like a challenge to Dyer's own consistency (how can Masonry be charged with both having dogmas and advocating relativism?). Dyer directly clarifies that this is precisely his thesis — that Masonry itself holds both positions simultaneously (a "no dogma" sales pitch alongside actual required beliefs, and Pike's relativist language alongside enforced exclusions) — rather than dodging or reframing the challenge; the closing aside about "what you do in debates" is brief commentary riding alongside the answer already given, not a substitute for it.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that Masonry's claims of minimal "generic theism" combined with Pike's professed relativism about truth are internally incoherent; here he reasserts that standing thesis in response to Chase's charge, but Chase does not concede, fall silent, or retreat — he immediately presses a further, distinct challenge ("tie it directly to... incompatible with Christianity"), showing the exchange continuing rather than landing. Chase's "dilemma" was really a charge that Jay's own case is self-contradictory, and Jay's reply simply redirects the contradiction back onto Masonry's literature — a plausible peritrope-style move, but the record shows Chase neither concedes nor withdraws; he pivots to a stronger, unanswered demand for relevance, so no third option was found to defeat a genuine two-horned trap and no clear capitulation or blush occurred — this is ordinary dialectic, not a decisive duel-ending blow.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. The quoted line supplies no third option that dissolves Chase's charge — Jay simply reasserts his standing claim that Masonry's own literature is self-contradictory ("I'm arguing you guys contradict yourself"), which is the same argument he'd been running since the "dogma that there's no dogma" exchange. Calling this "escape between the horns" requires the judge to supply the missing mechanism of escape himself, which the record does not contain. That this was no decisive blow is confirmed immediately after: at 48:37 Chase does not concede or go quiet but presses a fresh, undefeated demand ("can you tie it directly to... incompatible with Christianity?"), and the two continue trading points for the rest of the debate — the opposite of aporia, blush, or homologia.
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.