Appeal: misrepresentation
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12501:59:25upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 2 points.
“You messed up and said religions. ... You tripped up and and undid all of your first hour of argument. ... You refuted your whole first hour with that statement right there.”
Diogenes: Ryan stated openly in his opening at 10:07 that "we pull from a lot of different religions," so presenting it to the room as an accidental slip that destroys his own case misdescribes the record, as Ryan protests ("I've said that").- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 has held throughout that Masonry's "not a religion" framing collapses on scrutiny; that standing thesis is being advanced here, but by mischaracterizing a consistent, previously-stated position as a sudden self-refuting gaffe rather than by fair argument from what was actually and consistently said. The transcript confirms Ryan's opening statement (10:07) already said "we pull from a lot of different religions," and Ryan protests in the moment ("I've I've said that") that this is nothing new. Jay's framing — "you messed up," "you tripped up," "you refuted your whole first hour" — presents this as a fresh, case-destroying slip, when the record shows it was Ryan's consistent, openly stated position throughout (Masonry draws ethics/philosophy comparatively from religions without adopting their theology as its own), not a contradiction of anything said earlier.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Dyer treats Ryan's statement "we pull from a lot of different religions" as a fresh, damaging slip that "undoes" his entire case, but Ryan said essentially this same thing in his opening statement at 10:07 ("Morals and Dogma... is basically a book in comparative religion... we pull from a lot of different religions"), which was always part of his consistent position that Masonry borrows philosophy from religions without itself being a religion. Treating a restated, already-established position as a novel self-contradiction misrepresents what the record shows Ryan actually maintained throughout.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1's declared method is to press internal inconsistency in Masonry's self-description as merely secular/philosophical; that method is legitimate, but claiming this specific statement was a fresh trip-up contradicting the "first hour" departs from the record, since the same statement was already on the table from the opening and Ryan says so on the spot. The verifier confirms Ryan's opening at 10:07 already stated "we pull from a lot of different religions," and Ryan protests in the moment ("I've said that") that this is not a fresh slip. Jay's framing — that Ryan "tripped up," "messed up," and thereby "undid" and "refuted" his entire first hour — misdescribes the record by presenting an already-stated position as a novel, case-destroying contradiction, which is a misrepresentation of what had actually been said and when.
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.