Appeal: concession
From Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians.
- #12821:29:35upheld Ryan Terbibull epainos: concession (+1)
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
“And whether it's a written rule or not, I'm not gonna let a guy in that thinks he's God.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. After repeatedly maintaining that Masonry's only requirement is a generic "belief in a supreme being," Ryan here directly answers Jay's persistent hypothetical (a self-professed god seeking membership) by admitting that, written rule or not, such a person would be excluded — granting that the fraternity's practical, character-based exclusions go beyond the single stated dogma. This is an honest concession to the point Jay had been pressing for several exchanges, which Jay then immediately builds on ("that proves my point").- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Ryan opened by saying Masonry has "no authorities... no apostles... no canon," is "not a religion," and requires only belief in a supreme being; under sustained questioning he consistently qualified this from very early on (satanists excluded, atheists excluded, character investigated), so this line is a continuation of that qualified position, not a fresh concession. Ryan's standing position, from his opening onward, was never simply "belief in a supreme being is the only requirement" full stop — he had already, well before this line, granted that satanists ("well I thought you had to be a monotheist... they would not be allowed"), atheists, and other categories would not be admitted, and that admission runs through investigation of "moral character." So this line is not a concession wrung from him after being shown wrong; it is a restatement of a position he had already stated repeatedly. What it clearly is, though, is a direct, unevasive answer to Jay's specific hypothetical ("if I am the supreme being, can I become a Mason?") — Ryan does not dodge it, he answers it plainly. That fits "direct answer" better than "concession," since nothing here is conceded that Ryan had denied moments or hours earlier.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Pressed by Jay's hypothetical ("if I am the supreme being, can I become a Mason?"), Ryan gives a direct, honest answer rather than dodging, but in doing so he concedes that exclusion operates on unwritten, substantive theological grounds beyond the single formal requirement he had earlier insisted on ("belief in a supreme being" as the lone dogma). This admission is exactly what Jay leverages next ("Thank you, so you have theological requirements... that exclude all these other positions"), showing it functioned as a real concession to the point on the table rather than an evasion.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 opened by insisting Masonry has no authorities, apostles, or dogma beyond bare theism, and has since been forced, exchange by exchange, to admit further landmarks and character-based exclusions; this line continues that retreat by directly and honestly answering Jay's God-claimant hypothetical rather than dodging it. Ryan's opening framework was "no man speaks for freemasonry" / no dogmas beyond a nebulous "supreme being" requirement. Over the debate he had already begun qualifying this (citing "landmarks" like age, sanity, gender, moral-character review), so the quoted line is consistent with a trajectory he had been on for some time rather than a bolt from the blue. Still, in direct response to Jay's specific hypothetical ("if I am the supreme being, can I become a Mason?") Ryan gives a straightforward, honest answer that grants the fraternity's exclusions extend beyond the single stated creedal minimum — a genuine concession to the live point Jay was pressing, not an evasion or redefinition.
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.