Appeal: misrepresentation
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12351:33:14upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“… you said the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry…”
Diogenes: Chase had said Satanism is incompatible with "the principles values of Masonry," and the substitution of "theology of masonry" imports the very concession Jay is trying to extract.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 has held throughout that Masonry's requirements are theological despite claims otherwise; this line advances that standing thesis, but does so by mis-quoting Chase's actual words rather than by fair argument from what Chase said. The verified transcript confirms Chase actually said Satanism's "philosophy or theology... is inherently incompatible with the principles values of Masonry" (34:53), not "the theology of masonry." Jay's recast at 93:11 — "you said the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry" — substitutes in the very term ("theology of masonry") that is centrally disputed, and Chase immediately and correctly objects to the substitution. This is a textbook case of stating the opponent said something the transcript shows they did not.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". In his opening statement (around 34:47) Chase said the theology of Satanism is incompatible with "the principles [and] values of Masonry," not with a "theology of masonry" — a distinction he has maintained throughout since he denies Masonry has a theology at all. Dyer here recasts that as Chase having said "the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry," attributing to him a claim he did not make; Chase immediately corrects the record moments later ("I didn't say the theology of freemasonry, I said the principles and values of Freemasonry").
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's standing thesis is that Masonry's claimed secularity conceals real theological content, and pressing that thesis is fair, but doing so by silently substituting "theology of masonry" for Chase's actual phrase "principles values of Masonry" is a departure into misattribution rather than a fair restatement of what Chase said. The transcript confirms Chase's actual words at 34:53 were that satanism's "philosophy or theology" is incompatible with the "principles values of Masonry" — never attributing "theology" to Masonry itself. Jay's recast at 93:11 as "the theology of a satanist is incompatible with the theology of masonry" imports exactly the concession (that Masonry has a theology) the whole exchange is fighting over, and Chase immediately catches and corrects it at 93:20.
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.