Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12471:56:58upheld Chase Geyser epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Chase Geyser earned 1 point.
“Mean, in the context of a lodge, think probably the answer is yes.”
Diogenes: Asked directly whether he is fraternally yoked with Hindus, he grants it rather than evading, and then argues the analogy with a biological brother instead of denying the fact.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that Masonry is a fraternity that unites men of different faiths; answering "yes" to being fraternally yoked with Hindus is consistent with, not a retraction of, that standing position. Chase answers a direct yes/no question honestly rather than evading it, which is commendable, but there is no prior claim of his being reversed here — he had not previously denied fraternal association with Hindus, so nothing is "conceded" as wrong; this is simply a forthright direct answer to a pointed question.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Pressed directly with "Are you brotherhood yoked with Hindus?", Chase gives a plain, honest "yes" rather than deflecting or qualifying it away, consistent with the distinction he had just drawn between fraternal brotherhood and communion-level spiritual union.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S3 has held since the opening that Masonry is a civic fraternity whose bonds are not of a religious/sacramental character; conceding the fact of fraternal association with Hindus is consistent with that framework since he immediately argues the fact does not carry the theological weight Jay assigns it. Pressed directly on whether he is "brotherhood yoked" with Hindus in the lodge, Chase grants the fact plainly ("probably the answer is yes") rather than deny or deflect it, and only then builds a further distinction (fraternal vs. biological/spiritual yoking) on top of the granted fact. Granting the specific factual point Jay was pressing for, rather than resisting it, is a genuine concession even though he goes on to contest its theological significance.
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.