Appeal: aporia
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #121356:56overturned Jay Dyer against Chase Geyser agonisma: aporia (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“What is the standard by which you judge and know what makes something better or good? What's the value judgment there?”
Diogenes: Against the craft's own slogan of making good men better, Jay asks for the standard of "good" and Chase answers "I don't know that it's explicit ... there's certainly a culture that's relative," a dead end on a central plank which he then leaves by turning to counter-questions.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S1 has held throughout that Masonry's ethical claims are groundless/relativistic, and this question is a consistent continuation of that standing charge; but S3's answer is a partial, contested response followed by redirection, not the admission-of-no-answer that aporia requires. Chase's response — "I don't know that it's explicit... there's certainly a culture that's relative. But it's not arguing for relativism" — is a hedge, not a concession of having no answer; he immediately pushes back against the relativism characterization and pivots to counter-questions (Lutheranism, Green Party) rather than going silent or admitting defeat. The same "standard of good" question recurs later with Ryan (the four cardinal virtues exchange at ~63:20-65:10) without ever being decisively resolved, showing this is an ongoing unsettled thread across the debate rather than a single dead-end moment.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than assuming what "making good men better" means or asserting that Masonry lacks any ethical standard, Dyer asks the Masons to state the metaphysical/ethical foundation for their claim, which is a fair request for definition that Chase then engages ("that's a good question... there's certainly a culture that's relative").
- Plato overturn: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that Masonry should be judged by what members actually pursue/do rather than by codified claims, and his hedge-then-pivot here is a continuation of that framework rather than a collapse into "I have no answer," so no decisive move landed. Chase does not admit he has no answer: he offers a substantive response ("there's certainly a culture that's relative... but it's not arguing for relativism... it's arguing for everybody pursuing the best version of themselves") and then goes on the offensive with a counter-question about Lutheranism. That is redirection under pressure, not the admitted dead end aporia requires; the rubric is explicit that continuing to argue and pivot, rather than conceding no answer, does not qualify.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: do not complete the argument for the speaker. Chase's actual words are not a dead end admitted: "I don't know that it's explicit... there's certainly a culture that's relative. But it's not arguing for relativism... it's arguing for everybody pursuing the best version of themselves" is a hedged but substantive answer that explicitly rejects the relativism charge, immediately followed by his own counter-question pivot to Lutheranism/Green Party/Libertarian Party rather than silence or concession. Calling this aporia supplies the "admits he has no answer" that the catalogue requires from outside what Chase himself said or did; two of the three judges independently locate this same gap in the record, so the fault is the referee completing the concession for the speaker rather than finding it in his words.
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.