Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12481:58:34upheld Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“The point of the argument is not that you support widow burning, it's that the ethics are arbitrary.”
Diogenes: Rather than let a hostile version of his argument stand, he states what the example was actually for — the arbitrariness of the moral standard, not an imputation that Masons endorse sati.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 has held throughout that Masonry's moral standard is arbitrary because it accommodates incompatible religious ethical systems; this line restates and defends that same standing point against a mischaracterization rather than departing from it. Jay is not asking a question here — he is correcting Ryan's mischaracterization of his own prior argument (that citing widow-burning meant Masons endorse it), restating what the argument was actually for. "Clarification" specifically means asking for a definition rather than assuming one; this is closer to catching a straw man of his own position, which is a legitimate move but a different label.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". When Ryan suggested Jay's earlier reference to widow-burning implied Jay thought Masons endorse it, Jay corrects the record and restates his actual point precisely: the concern is not that Masonry condones any specific practice but that pooling ethics from religions with no shared external standard makes the fraternity's "good men better" claim arbitrary, which is consistent with the standard-of-the-good argument he had developed earlier (around 62-65 minutes).
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held throughout that Masonry's ethics are arbitrary/relativistic because it accommodates radically different moral systems without a governing standard; this line restates that same standing thesis against a mischaracterization of it, rather than introducing anything new. Ryan had characterized a prior Jay argument as implying Masons must "accept" the practice of widow-burning; Jay corrects the record by restating what his own argument was actually for — illustrating the arbitrariness of the moral standard, not attributing endorsement of sati to Masons. This keeps the argument on the actual point in dispute rather than letting a distorted version of his claim stand unaddressed.
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.