Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12341:33:21upheld Chase Geyser epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“I didn't say the theology of freemasonry, I said the principles and values of Freemasonry, not the theology of…”
Diogenes: The correction is accurate to the record — at 35:02 he said Satanism is incompatible with "the principles values of Masonry" — and the substituted word was the very thing in dispute.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3 has consistently distinguished Masonry's "principles and values" from any claimed "theology" throughout the debate, and this correction restates and defends that same distinction against Jay's misquote rather than introducing anything new. The transcript confirms Chase's original wording at 35:02 was "the philosophy or theology of Satanism... incompatible with the principles values of Masonry" — he never called it "the theology of Masonry." Jay's later paraphrase substituted "theology of masonry" for what Chase actually said, and this substitution fed directly into Jay's dogma/contradiction argument, so catching it here is a real and relevant correction, not merely quibbling over word choice.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Earlier (around 34:42) Chase had said the philosophy/theology of Satanism is incompatible with the "principles and values" of Masonry, not that Masonry itself has a theology; Jay had just restated this as "you said the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry." Chase's line here correctly pushes back on that shift in wording, insisting on the distinction he had actually drawn, which is an accurate clarification rather than a new position.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held throughout that Masonry is a non-theological, principles-based fraternity rather than a rival theology, and this correction defends that exact framing against Jay's reformulation, rather than introducing anything new. The record confirms Chase's original statement at ~34:41 was that Satanism's theology is incompatible with "the principles values of Masonry," not "the theology of Masonry." When Jay reframes this moments earlier as Chase having conceded "the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry," Chase accurately catches the substitution of the very term in dispute, which is a legitimate spotting of a misrepresentation/straw-manning of his stated 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.