Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12441:52:01upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… your own Catholic church dog dogmatizes and mandates that you can't be a free mason in the canon law. So you would be against Roman Catholic canon law being a mason, but you would not be against Roman Catholic canon law by being in a corporation.”
Diogenes: He breaks the parallel from inside the questioner's own commitments, showing that the tradition the questioner professes already draws the very distinction the question denies.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1's opening statement explicitly cited Roman Catholic canon law and Ratzinger's CDF statement as evidence that Masonry is officially condemned across historic Christian bodies; this argument is a direct, consistent application of that same opening claim, not a new position. Jay draws an explicit argument from a stated premise (the questioner's own Roman Catholic canon law forbids Masonry but does not forbid corporate employment) to a conclusion (the analogy fails from within the questioner's own commitments), which is premises and conclusion plainly stated.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Addressing a self-identified Roman Catholic questioner, Jay lays out a clear argument on the questioner's own terms: Catholic canon law explicitly forbids Freemasonry membership (a claim he grounded earlier with the 1983 CDF declaration) but says nothing against ordinary secular employment; therefore the two cases are not equivalent for a Catholic. This directly answers the implied analogy using the questioner's own recognized authority rather than a generic assertion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held since his opening statement that Catholic canon law itself (reaffirmed by the CDF in the early 1980s) treats Masonic membership as incompatible with Catholicism; this argument is a direct application of that standing point, not a new position. Jay uses a premise established in his own opening (Catholic canon law explicitly forbids Freemasonry) together with the plain fact that canon law contains no comparable prohibition on ordinary secular employment, to conclude that the analogy the questioner (a professed Catholic) is drawing does not hold within the questioner's own tradition. This has a clear premise-to-conclusion structure and directly engages the specific parallel raised.
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.