Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12321:30:11upheld Chase Geyser epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“I think we should define this difference between official written requirements of what it means to be a part of an organization, and then the culture that is created as a conglomeration or a combination of the people who are actually a part of that organization.”
Diogenes: He separates the institution's formal doctrine from the aggregate preferences of its members, which is the distinction Jay's argument has been running together all evening.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that Masonry should be judged by what members actually do/profess rather than by outside interpretation of texts like Pike's; this distinction between official doctrine and aggregate culture is a natural extension of that standing position, not a departure. Chase does draw a real and relevant distinction (official written requirements vs. aggregate member culture) that responds to Jay's running conflation of the two, so the underlying philosopher point is earned. But "clarification" specifically means asking for a definition instead of assuming one; here Chase asserts his own distinction rather than posing a question, so the better fit is "explicit argument" (he lays out the categories as premises for his subsequent point).
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Chase draws a needed distinction between Masonry's official written requirements (belief in a supreme being) and the informal culture/practical outcomes produced by individual members voting on admission, which is the equivocal point Jay had been running together when he treated any exclusion (of satanists, of self-declared gods) as proof of hidden official dogma. Naming this distinction before continuing is a legitimate clarifying move, even though Jay later disputes whether it rescues Chase's position.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that Masonry should be judged by what members actually do/profess rather than outside interpretation, and this line is consistent with that stance, offering a distinction meant to preserve his position rather than a genuine departure or a true request for clarification. Chase's move here is not literally a request for a definition (the rubric's "clarification" is asking the opponent to clarify), but rather Chase asserting his own distinction between written policy and aggregate member culture as a premise to rebut Jay's running claim that exclusionary practices amount to formal theological dogma. That is better described as stating a premise for an argument than as asking a clarifying question, though the distinction itself is a real analytic move worth crediting at minor weight — noting also that it sits in tension with Ryan's own earlier concession that barring satanists is "explicit" policy, which weakens how decisive the distinction actually is.
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.