Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12361:35:09upheld Chase Geyser epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“I see what you're saying and I and I understand your point. You're right.”
Diogenes: He grants Jay's quantifier-shift point — that all religions believing in "a god" does not make it the same god — before drawing his own distinction from it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3 has held throughout that "supreme being" is generic and that Masonry never claims all gods are the same; conceding the logical form of Jay's quantifier-shift point is compatible with, not a departure from, that standing position, and he immediately restates his position afterward. Chase explicitly agrees with the validity of Jay's quantifier-shift illustration ("I see what you're saying... You're right") before pivoting to his own distinction; this is a genuine, specific concession on the logical point even though it does not concede the broader debate, which is consistent with how minor concessions typically function.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Chase explicitly grants that Jay's point is correct (that requiring belief in "a supreme being" does not entail everyone means the same being, paralleling Jay's mother/quantifier-shift analogy) before going on to argue that this narrower concession does not by itself establish incompatibility, since Masonry still makes no claim about which supreme being is true. This is a genuine concession of a specific sub-point rather than an evasion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that Masonry makes no claim about which supreme being is true, and conceding the narrow logical point about non-identical referents is consistent with, and indeed supports, that standing position rather than contradicting it. The transcript shows Chase explicitly granting Jay's "quantifier-shift" logical point (that all having "a god" doesn't imply the same god) with "I see what you're saying... You're right," before pivoting to argue that this doesn't hurt his position because Masonry doesn't claim sameness of the supreme being. This is a genuine concession of a specific logical point, used honestly to build his own distinct response rather than being silently walked back.
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.