Ryan Terbibull · Philosopher
17 callouts
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 9:42upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
framework objection (+1)
“No man speaks for freemasonry. Freemasonry is not a religion. We don't have apostles. We don't have canon, you know. There's there there is no authority on freemasonry.”
Diogenes: Rather than merely refusing the quotations, he names the presupposition he denies — that Pike or Mackey speak authoritatively for the craft — and says what must be settled first: whether Masonry has any canon or teaching authority at all.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S2's opening and declared method held that no single Masonic writer speaks authoritatively for the craft; this line restates that opening thesis but is later qualified into "there are authorities, just not one man," which is a retreat rather than a defended framework objection. This line is part of S2's opening framing, asserted before any specific question or demand was on the table for him to redirect; a framework objection requires naming a presupposition in an opponent's actual question and saying what must be settled first, not simply asserting one's own thesis. Moreover, the claim ("no authority on freemasonry") is subsequently qualified/reversed by S2 himself once pressed (Grand Lodge as "supreme authority," ancient landmarks, dogmas), which shows this was a bare assertion rather than a reasoned objection that held up.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "self-contradiction". This opening claim that there is flatly "no authority on freemasonry" is later contradicted when, under Dyer's questioning, Terbibull himself affirms that "the Grand Lodge of Tennessee... is the supreme masonic authority for Tennessee," that there are "authorities that recognize and do not recognize certain lodges," and that Masonry has dogmas (belief in a supreme being, exclusion of atheists and satanists, ancient landmarks). Rather than acknowledging the reversal, he tries to recast the original blanket statement as having only meant "no one man" speaks for Masonry, though the quoted line plainly says "there is no authority on freemasonry" without that qualifier.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared method of record is "no Masonic writer (Pike, Mackey) speaks authoritatively for the craft"; this quote is the first statement of that very position, made directly in response to Jay's opening reliance on Pike and Mackey as representative sources, naming the presupposition (that these authors speak for Masonry) he denies. The line identifies the presupposition underlying Jay's citation-based method (that individual Masonic authors speak authoritatively for the craft) and denies it with reasons (no apostles, no canon); this is a defensible framework objection, though it could equally be scored as an explicit argument since it also states premises and a conclusion about Masonry's nature.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: a slip of the tongue is not a self-contradiction. The quoted line is Ryan's considered, reasoned response to Jay's opening method of citing Pike and Mackey as if they spoke for the craft — he names that presupposition and denies it with reasons (no apostles, no canon), which is a framework objection on its own terms. That he later, under pressure, concedes a governance structure and minimal dogmas creates tension with this line, but the rule holds that where a real contradiction stands, the speaker is held to the claim made first; the later admissions bear on a self-contradiction charge against the later statements, not on whether this earlier, deliberately-reasoned line qualifies as a framework objection when it was made.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 18:16upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“There's no scenario where my oath or my obligation or my love of the fraternity supersedes my belief in Christ or my love for my Christian brothers. I do believe in the trinity.”
Diogenes: This meets Jay's specific charge that Masonry creates a tiered strata in which uninitiated Christians are "profane" and only Masons are true Christians, by stating the ordering of loyalties and affirming the Nicene doctrine Jay said Masonry downplays.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's opening and consistent position was that Masonry does not override or replace a member's own Christian doctrine, and this line is a direct restatement/application of that position to the specific accusation just made, not a departure. Jay's opening charged that Masonry's initiate/profane structure implies non-Masonic Christians are excluded from a Gnostic-style true faith and that Masonry downplays the Trinity; S2 directly answers both prongs by stating the ordering of his loyalties (Christ over the lodge) and affirming Trinitarian belief, which is a genuine response to the specific charge rather than an evasion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". This directly answers Dyer's opening charge that Masonry's structure elevates initiated Masons above the "profane" (including non-Mason Christian clergy) and implicitly subordinates ordinary Christian commitment to the lodge; Terbibull states plainly that his fraternal obligation is subordinate to his Christian belief and love for fellow Christians, engaging the actual concern about hierarchy of loyalty rather than sidestepping it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening declared he holds personal Christian doctrine (trinity, Christ) separately from Masonic membership and treats Masonry as non-doctrinal; this line responds directly to Jay's opening charge that Masonry's inner/profane tiering makes non-Mason Christians second-class, and it is consistent with, not a departure from, S2's declared position. Although framed as a statement rather than literally posed as a question, Jay's opening explicitly charged that Masonic tiering renders non-initiated Christians "profane" and implicitly not true Christians; Ryan's line squarely rebuts that specific charge by stating the actual ordering of loyalties and affirming trinitarian belief, which is a fair reading of a direct answer to the point raised.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 20:26upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 2 points.
evidence (+2)
“The ancient accepted Scottish Rite uses the word dogma in its true sense of doctrine or teaching and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term. Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to be him to be untrue or unsound.”
Diogenes: Asked why Pike's book is titled "Morals and Dogma" if Masonry has no authorities, he answers from the text itself with a located citation (the preface, page 69) rather than restating his thesis.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's declared method was to rebut source-authority claims by showing Masonic writers are not binding authorities; this citation directly supports that method by showing the book itself disclaims dogmatic authority, and is consistent with, not a departure from, his opening position. S2 responds to Jay's specific challenge (why call it "Dogma" if there are no authorities) by quoting Pike's actual preface with a page citation, a checkable textual source distinct from bare assertion, which is a clear instance of evidence.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". In response to Dyer's challenge over the title "Morals and Dogma," Terbibull does not merely assert his interpretation but reads the actual preface text and cites the specific page (69) where Pike defines his own usage of "dogma," and later reinforces it by citing "Bridge to Light" page 3. This is a checkable textual citation offered as evidence rather than a bare claim.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's declared position holds Masonry has no binding dogma or authoritative teachers; this line supports that position with a specific, checkable citation (Pike's preface, page 69) responding directly to Jay's challenge about the book's title, rather than a bare repetition of the thesis. The speaker quotes a located, checkable primary source (Pike's preface with page number) to answer Jay's specific challenge about why the book is titled "Morals and Dogma," which is a genuine instance of citing evidence rather than merely asserting a conclusion.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 26:45upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
concession (+1)
“There is a system of governments within Freemasonry. There are authorities. The Grand Lodge of Tennessee.”
Diogenes: Caught between his flat opening claim and his own description of Grand Lodge supremacy, he concedes institutional authority exists rather than obscuring the point, restricting his thesis to "no one man is an authority."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's opening flatly declared "there is no authority on freemasonry"; this line is a genuine concession departing from that blanket claim, conceding institutional authority while narrowing the claim to "no one man.". Rather than deflecting when confronted with his own description of the Grand Lodge as supreme, S2 openly grants "There are authorities," an honest concession distinguishable from doubling down; that the underlying inconsistency (blanket "no authority" claim narrowed under pressure) might separately support a sophist charge does not prevent crediting the forthright admission itself.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Pressed on the tension between his opening claim of "no authorities" and his description of the Grand Lodge, Terbibull here directly admits "There are authorities," naming the Grand Lodge of Tennessee as the governing body — a concession that walks back the flat opening denial of any authority in Freemasonry.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 opened by declaring "there is no authority on freemasonry"; here, rather than obscuring the tension between that claim and his own description of Grand Lodge supremacy, he directly concedes "There are authorities," narrowing his thesis to individual writers only. This is a genuine concession: faced with the contradiction between his flat opening claim and his own account of the Grand Lodge's supreme status, S2 grants the existence of institutional authority rather than deflecting, meeting the concession criterion.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 28:50upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 2 points.
concession (+2)
“Let us let us just concede Yeah. That there is the dogma in Freemasonry that you have to believe in a supreme being.”
Diogenes: He explicitly concedes a plank of his own opening position — that Masonry has no dogma — instead of defending it by redefinition.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2's opening declared Masonry has "no dogma... no canon"; this line is a direct, acknowledged departure from that founding claim, a genuine concession rather than a restatement. The quote is an explicit, unambiguous concession using the word "concede" itself, granting that Masonry does have a dogma (belief in a supreme being) contrary to the "no dogma" claim from the opening statement, rather than redefining terms to escape it.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". Terbibull explicitly uses the word "concede" and grants that requiring belief in a supreme being counts as a dogma of Freemasonry, directly yielding the point Dyer had been pressing across the preceding exchange rather than continuing to dispute the label.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening declared Masonry "does not have dogmas," a claim already in tension after his and Chase's earlier admissions; here he explicitly uses the word "concede" to grant that belief in a supreme being counts as dogma, rather than continuing to redefine terms. This is an explicit, direct concession using the word "concede" itself, granting the specific plank of S2's opening position that Masonry has no dogma, which meets the concession criterion cleanly.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 36:09upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“At least here like it's explicit that we say we don't allow satanists. ... We've not allowed well, I've we've only had one ever apply for membership in the lodge and he did not get in.”
Diogenes: Asked for the actual rule rather than the practical outcome, he names an explicit jurisdictional prohibition and gives a concrete case from his own lodge.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S2's ongoing position that Masonry has specific membership requirements beyond generic theism; this is a direct, responsive continuation, not a departure. DJ's specific question was whether there is an actual rule violated or merely a voting outcome; Ryan directly answers by identifying an explicit prohibition and a concrete real case from his own lodge, addressing the question asked rather than deflecting to generalities.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. In answer to DJ's direct question about whether there is an actual rule barring satanists, Terbibull cites a specific, checkable instance rather than a vague generality: his own lodge explicitly excludes satanists, and he recalls one concrete applicant who was in fact turned away on that basis.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's position has been that Masonry's few explicit requirements combine with practical vetting to exclude bad actors; here, in response to the moderator's direct clarifying question about whether an actual rule (versus mere member preference) would bar a satanist, Ryan names an explicit jurisdictional rule and a concrete real case, directly answering the question asked. The moderator asked specifically whether there was "a principle in which they're violating" versus mere member preference, and Ryan answers directly with an explicit rule and a checkable concrete example from his own lodge, meeting the direct answer criterion.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 1:00:28upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 2 points.
evidence (+2)
“I said the simple version was a belief in supreme being and then I said there's more to it than that and then we can get into it later. There's no attempt to hide or it's it's a simplification for the matter of debate.”
Diogenes: His appeal to the record is accurate and checkable — at 10:32 he did say "you simply have to be, believe in a supreme being ... we'll dig into that further, I'll save that for later" — which defeats the charge that the qualifications were sprung later to rescue a sales pitch.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S2's opening framing that Masonry's requirements go beyond a single simple belief; citing his own earlier flagged qualification is not a departure but a defense of that same position with checkable evidence. The transcript confirms S2's opening statement did include exactly this qualification ("we'll dig into that further, I'll save that for later"), so his appeal to the debate record here is accurate and checkable, distinguishing a bare claim from verifiable evidence and rebutting the "moving the goalposts" charge on its own terms.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Terbibull directly answers Dyer's "moving the goalposts" accusation, and the record actually backs him up: in his opening statement he had already flagged "I'll save that for later" right after stating the belief-in-supreme-being requirement, so elaborating further here is not introducing a new, previously undisclosed condition but following through on a stated intention to simplify for time.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's position has been that Masonry has few requirements beyond belief in a supreme being, elaborated as the debate progresses; this line accurately points back to his own earlier statement in the debate (at 10:07-10:32) that he would "dig into that further" and "save that for later," which is a checkable fact defeating Jay's charge that the qualifications were sprung in later to rescue an inconsistent sales pitch. The claim is checkable against the transcript itself, which confirms Ryan did flag at the outset that further qualifications would come later, so citing this record is a legitimate evidentiary rebuttal to the "moving the goalposts" accusation rather than a bare assertion.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 1:03:20upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“… we teach the four carnal [cardinal] virtues. Four to do, prudence, temperance and justice.”
Diogenes: Asked repeatedly what the moral content of the craft actually is, he names it specifically — the cardinal virtues and the liberal arts — instead of retreating again to what Masonry is not.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S2's declared position that Masonry has real moral/philosophical teachings drawn from various traditions; this is a direct substantiation of that claim, not a departure. Pressed repeatedly on what actual moral content the craft teaches, Ryan directly names specifics (the cardinal virtues) rather than continuing to answer in the negative ("what Masonry is not"), addressing the question actually asked.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Pressed on what moral/philosophical teachings Masonry actually uses to "make good men better," Terbibull gives a specific, concrete answer — the four cardinal virtues (prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice) — rather than continuing to speak only in generalities.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's position has held that Masonry teaches moral and philosophical content drawn from various traditions; pressed repeatedly for the specific content, he names the cardinal virtues concretely rather than retreating to negative claims about what Masonry is not. This is a genuine direct answer, naming specific moral content (the cardinal virtues) in response to Jay's repeated demand for the substance of Masonic teaching, rather than deflecting.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 1:06:46upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 1 point.
direct answer (+1)
“… my understanding is that this is in reference to frivolous malicious oath taking ... It's not incompatible with a serious or solemn oath of the vows that I took to my wife when we were married.”
Diogenes: He answers the James 5:12 challenge with a stated reading of the text and a distinction between frivolous swearing and solemn vows, supported by parallel cases (marriage, military, oaths of office).- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Consistent with S2's ongoing willingness to engage substantively with scriptural challenges throughout the debate; not a departure from his position. DJ asked directly how Ryan interprets James 5:12 in light of Masonic oath-taking; Ryan gives a substantive textual reading (frivolous vs. solemn oaths) with supporting parallels (marriage, Hebrews on Melchizedek's priesthood), directly addressing the question rather than deflecting.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Terbibull lays out a clear interpretive argument on James 5:12: the prohibition is against frivolous, deceptive invocation of God's name, not against solemn oaths as such; he supports this with the parallel of Jesus's "let your yes be yes," the example of marriage vows, and a citation to Hebrews 7 on the priestly oath of Melchizedek, building premises toward the conclusion that solemn Masonic oaths are not the kind of oath James condemns.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 has consistently defended Masonic oath-taking as compatible with Christian practice; this line directly answers the moderator's question about James 5:12 by offering a textual interpretation and a substantive distinction (frivolous vs. solemn oaths), supported by parallel cases, consistent with his position. This is a genuine direct answer to the question posed, offering a specific interpretive distinction and supporting examples rather than deflecting the challenge.
- Jay Dyer vs 2 Freemason Christians at 1:13:00upheld
The council upheld the call: Ryan Terbibull earned 2 points.
concession (+2)
“It has elements of Kabbalah Okay. In some some…”
Diogenes: Asked directly whether the lodge's symbolism is based on Kabbalah, he grants the element rather than denying it, conceding ground on one of Jay's opening charges.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: This is a real departure from any implicit denial of Kabbalistic influence and a direct concession to one of S1's opening charges, not a mere restatement of S2's position. Directly asked whether Masonic symbolism is based on Kabbalah, Ryan grants the point ("It has elements of Kabbalah... in some parts") rather than denying it, a genuine concession on a charge central to Jay's opening statement.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "concession". In direct response to Dyer's question about whether parts of Masonry are based on Kabbalah, Terbibull concedes that some parts of Masonry do have elements of Kabbalah, rather than denying it or retreating to "it's just symbolism."
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's position has been that Masonry draws on and borrows elements from various religious/philosophical traditions without adopting them as doctrine; asked directly whether lodge symbolism is based on Kabbalah, he grants "It has elements of Kabbalah... in some parts of Masonry" rather than denying the connection outright, consistent with but also conceding ground on this specific point Jay raised in his opening. This is a genuine, direct concession of the specific factual point Jay pressed (Kabbalistic influence on lodge symbolism), granted rather than denied, even though qualified to "some parts."