Appeal: framework objection
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #121758:57upheld Jay Dyer epainos: framework objection (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“Your question is a false analogy comparing it to the Masonic society, which I do not accept and do not grant is a non theological society. Your argument is premised on that…”
Diogenes: Rather than simply declining the Green Party and Libertarian comparisons, he names the presupposition they smuggle in — that Masonry is non-theological — which is precisely the point in dispute.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S1's sustained thesis throughout the debate that Masonry is theological despite claims otherwise; this line applies that same standing objection to a new analogy, not a departure from it. Chase's Green Party/Libertarian Party analogy presupposes that Masonry is a non-theological, purely secular association; Jay explicitly names and rejects that presupposition ("which I do not accept and do not grant is a non theological society"), identifying exactly the premise in dispute rather than merely declining the comparison — a genuine framework objection.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "framework objection". Dyer identifies that Geyser's Green Party/Libertarian Party comparison smuggles in the very premise under dispute — that Freemasonry is a non-theological, purely secular society like a political party — and refuses to accept the analogy on those terms, naming the presupposition he denies (that Masonry lacks theological content) rather than simply declining to answer.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's declared position throughout has been that Masonry is theological despite claims otherwise; this line names the exact presupposition embedded in Chase's Green Party/Libertarian Party analogy (that Masonry is non-theological like a political party) and states why that must be settled first, consistent with his ongoing argument. This is a genuine framework objection: rather than merely rejecting the analogy, S1 identifies the specific presupposition it depends on (that Masonry is non-theological) and states that this is precisely the point in dispute, which the debate's own record supports as contested.
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.