Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25530:42upheld Jay Dyer psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard…”
Diogenes: When S0 questioned the assumption that all the saints agree, S1 answered with "You are in a cult" and name-calling instead of showing the agreement, so the exchange turned to the person.minor: The insults are clear and replace the answer, and they end the exchange on the point. S1 had already offered a checkable mechanism, which keeps this below flagrant.
Herodotus (partly): I found no earlier Dyer–Slick debate, so there is no prior history between those two. On this site, Dyer has 20 debates with upheld faults that include ad hominem x14 and misrepresentation x21, so insults from him are a recurring pattern. Slick has no record here. In the transcript, Slick only began to question whether all the saints agree. Dyer's "cult" and "goblin, demon, boomer tard" lines were not provoked by anything abusive from Slick. The ad hominem label is well supported. The pattern is Dyer's own, not a feud with Slick. His earlier meetings with Mnestheus and Fr. Ananias do not bear on this exchange. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/sitemap/2020
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer declared at the opening that ecumenical councils are inspired and inerrant, known by the Holy Spirit and agreement with the saints and scripture, and he held that in the replay at 114:26. The called line is name-calling that departs from any argument. Matt challenged whether all the saints agree, and Dyer did give a brief answer ("They do. I can go read them"). But the quoted line, "You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard", is a pure personal insult. It makes no argument, it is irrelevant to the claim, no quote or instance in the debate backs it, and it turned the exchange to the person. That meets the substitution, relevance, truth and aim elements. The earlier "cult" and "sectarian" remarks have some argumentative content, but this line has none. Major is fitting because the remark was repeated (replayed at 115:04) and ended the exchange.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Matt had just asked "How do you know?" for the second time. Jay gave a circular answer ("Holy Spirit leads us"; the councils are known by agreeing with other councils). He then replaced further answer with abuse of Matt's character ("goblin, a demon, a boomer tard"). The insults have no bearing on whether the councils are inerrant, nothing in the debate backs them, and they close off the exchange by turning it to the person. Opponent present, so it is on the floor.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer (S1) declared at the opening that the ecumenical synods are inspired and inerrant, known through the Holy Spirit and agreement with the saints and scripture. He has held that line since, and has held a consistently abusive stance toward Slick. The called insult does not depart from it. Slick challenged whether all the saints agree. Dyer answered with "You are in a cult" and "a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard," which are remarks about the person and do not show the agreement. The claim does not rest on Slick's character, nothing in the record backs the insults, and the exchange turned to the person instead of the point. His partial argument ("I can go read them," "no continuity with history") keeps this at major rather than flagrant.
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.