Appeal: framework objection
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25566:55upheld Fr. Ananias epainos: framework objection (+2)
The council upheld the call: Fr. Ananias earned 2 points.
“… to prove the canon, let alone the correct interpretation…”
Diogenes: S3 says the Protestant cannot use Scripture to prove its own canon or its correct interpretation, and that this must be settled before Scripture can be used against Orthodoxy. That names the presupposition he denies.major: It is a clear, properly formed objection, and Slick's whole case against Orthodoxy depends on it.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at 06:02 that citing Scripture begs the question until the canon and interpretation are justified, and he held that throughout, so this line does not depart from it. In the passage around 06:45–07:02 he says that without an established canon the Protestant cannot appeal to Scripture to prove the canon or the correct interpretation, and then return to say Orthodoxy does not fit Scripture. That names the presupposition he denies (Scripture's canonicity and interpretation are assumed). It also says what must be settled first: how Slick got his Scriptures. He keeps to this at 33:40 and 72:06, and he does not decline outright. He also defends his own framework by pointing to the Church, history and the councils. All three elements are present, so the call stands.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "framework objection". Fr. Ananias says Slick's appeal to Scripture presupposes what is in dispute. He names the presupposition he denies, which is that the canon and its interpretation are already settled. He says what must be settled first: how Protestants got their Scriptures. This is a framework objection, and he keeps to it through the debate.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at the opening that citing Scripture begs the question until the Protestant says how he got his canon and its interpretation, and he held that objection to the end; the called line is that same objection, not a departure. The line meets all three elements of a framework objection. (1) Slick's demand to argue from Scripture presupposes that Scripture, its canon and its interpretation are already settled. (2) Ananias names the presupposition he denies: that one can use Scripture to prove its own canon or its correct interpretation. (3) He says what must be settled first: the canonicity of Scripture has to be established before Scripture is appealed to against the Orthodox Church. He then defended this framework at length, so it is not a dodge.
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.