Appeal: self-contradiction
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12641:29:35overturned Ryan Terbibull psogos: self-contradiction (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“And whether it's a written rule or not, I'm not gonna let a guy in that thinks he's God.”
Diogenes: Nearly an hour earlier he had said the prohibition was institutional and explicit — "At least here like it's explicit that we say we don't allow satanists" — and now makes the same class of exclusion a matter of his own vote whether written or not, without acknowledging the shift.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2 has held since early in the debate (36:14 onward) that Masonic membership involves both explicit written landmarks and a separate, unwritten character-based vetting process via unanimous lodge vote; the 89:35 line is a direct application of that same standing two-tier framework, not a contradiction of it. These are not the same claim: at 36:09 Ryan was describing an explicit written prohibition specifically on satanists ("it's explicit that we say we don't allow satanists"), while at 89:35 he is addressing a different, novel hypothetical (a man who claims to be God himself) that nobody has an explicit rule for, and says he personally would vote him out based on character regardless. This is not a contradiction but a consistent application of the two-tier framework Ryan laid out as early as 36:14-37:17: some exclusions are explicit landmarks, others are handled through the unanimous-vote, character-based investigation process he described at length. Applying that same character-vetting logic to a new hypothetical is not a departure from an earlier claim, and Ryan never asserted that all exclusions must be written rules.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "concession". Pressed by Dyer's hypothetical (a member who believes he himself is the supreme being), Ryan answers honestly rather than dodging, but in doing so grants that exclusion from the lodge operates on more than the single stated "belief in a supreme being" dogma — it extends to unwritten judgments about who counts as an acceptable believer, which is the very point Dyer had been pressing throughout this stretch of the debate.
- Plato overturn: On the record: S2 has held since early in the debate (36:09, 60:28) that Masonic exclusion combines a few explicit written landmarks with discretionary, unanimous-vote character vetting; the called line names exactly that same distinction rather than departing from it. S2's standing position, articulated as early as 36:09-45 ("it's explicit that we say we don't allow satanists" alongside a description of interview/background-check/character vetting) and repeated at 60:28 ("there's more to it than that... base level requirements... then the lodge itself is doing its own investigation into your moral character"), has consistently held that exclusion operates on two tracks: explicit written landmarks and discretionary character-based vetting. The called line ("whether it's a written rule or not, I'm not gonna let a guy in that thinks he's God") is not a shift away from the earlier "explicit" satanist-ban claim; it addresses a different case (self-declared deity, not satanism) and explicitly names the very two-track distinction he had already drawn, rather than silently reversing it. No contradiction is shown; this is a restatement of a position already on the record, and indeed this same quote was separately and correctly credited as a "concession" (extending his framework under pressure) rather than an inconsistency.
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.