Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12281:25:20upheld Chase Geyser epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 2 points.
“The only reason that Freemasonry requires a belief in a supreme being is so that when you take your oaths, there's reason to believe that you feel that you're held accountable to your supreme being.”
Diogenes: He supplies a functional account of the supreme-being requirement that explains it without any claim of theological equivalence, which is the sharpest answer yet to Jay's inference from "admits Muslims" to "teaches all gods are one."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S3's sustained position that Masonry makes no claim about which supreme being is true; this is a direct elaboration of that position in response to the specific challenge, not a departure. This directly answers Jay's charge that requiring belief in a supreme being amounts to claiming all gods are equivalent, by supplying a functional rationale (oath accountability) that explains the requirement without asserting theological equivalence — a substantive, on-point response to the specific challenge.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Geyser gives a clear functional premise for the supreme-being requirement — it exists solely so that oath-takers feel accountable to whatever higher power they personally believe in — leading to the conclusion that the requirement is a practical mechanism for enforcing oaths rather than a theological endorsement of any specific deity, directly addressing Dyer's repeated demand for what the requirement actually accomplishes.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3's position has consistently distinguished admitting people of various faiths from teaching that all deities are equivalent; this line directly answers Jay's inference by supplying the actual functional rationale for the supreme-being requirement (oath accountability), engaging the specific charge rather than deflecting. This is a genuine direct answer providing a substantive, on-point rationale that directly rebuts Jay's inference from admission of diverse religions to doctrinal equivalence, consistent with S3's stated position throughout.
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.