Appeal: steelman
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12221:10:14upheld Jay Dyer epainos: steelman (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“Now I know that there have been cases like the William Morgan affair where it was not interpreted as purely symbolic. Maybe you guys nowadays don't hold to that, so I don't wanna be unfair to you, a wood [I would] steel man your position.”
Diogenes: He grants his opponents the more favourable reading of the penal oaths — symbolic rather than literal — before pressing his objection, and says so explicitly.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S1's occasional charitable engagement seen elsewhere in the debate (e.g., his concession on James 5:12); this is a genuine steelman, not a departure from his critical stance but a fair-minded qualification of it. Jay explicitly grants his opponents the more favorable, symbolic reading of the penal oaths rather than holding them to the historically less charitable literal reading (William Morgan affair), and says so explicitly ("I don't wanna be unfair to you, I would steelman your position") — a clear instance of steelmanning before pressing a narrower objection.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "steelman". Before pressing his point about literal blood-oath penalties (citing the William Morgan affair as historical evidence), Dyer explicitly pauses to charitably allow that contemporary Masons may not hold to that older, more literal interpretation, saying he doesn't want to be unfair and wants to steelman their position before continuing the argument.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's opening declared Freemasonry's oaths problematic; here, before pressing that objection, he explicitly grants the more charitable, symbolic reading of the penal oaths rather than assuming the historically literal one (the William Morgan affair), stating his intent not to be unfair. This is a genuine steelman: S1 explicitly acknowledges and adopts the more favorable, charitable interpretation of the Masonic oaths before continuing his critique, naming his intent to avoid unfairness to the opposing position.
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.