Appeal: bare assertion
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #256010:40overturned Matt Slick psogos: bare assertion (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“I assert that I don't have to…”
Diogenes: Filed again from #2558, overturned as "dodge": Aristotle, Socrates and Plato named it "bare assertion". On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired word of God and the standard, and he has held that throughout. "I assert that I don't have to" fits that position and does not depart from it. A dodge needs a direct question put twice and still unanswered. Slick did answer. At 07:27 he gave providence (Ephesians 1:11). At 13:04 he gave the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit and John 10:27-28. He also named his objection to the demand itself: "I don't accept your requirement" and "it's a Roman Catholic argument." The Spirit answer ranks low, as a bare circle he admitted ("everybody's circular reasons"). But it was a ground offered, not a refusal. At 10:40 he is restating a stance he had already explained, which is not a repeated dodge.Herodotus (no): Outside sources show only that this Slick vs. Fr. Ananias debate on sola scriptura and the canon was hosted on Jay Dyer's channel. The only accounts are partisan Dyer-side summaries. I found no earlier Slick–Ananias encounters and no record of Slick refusing the canon question across debates. On this site Slick has no prior record, so there is no pattern. In the transcript, "I assert that I don't have to" restates his stated Reformed position. Slick had already answered with providence (Eph 1:11) and the Spirit's testimony (John 10:27-28), and he said the demand was a Roman Catholic argument. That makes it a position, not a bare assertion or a dodge. The history doesn't support a major severity. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/apologist-matt-slick-vs-fr-deacon-a85 https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/top-10-bad-arguments-for-protestantisms-c94
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired word of God and the standard, and he has held that throughout; "I assert that I don't have to" restates that stance and does not depart from it. Bare assertion needs a contested claim with nothing offered for it. The claim here is that he need not justify the canon, and Slick did offer grounds for it. At 07:27 he gave providence (Eph 1:11). At 08:41 he named his objection to the demand itself ("I don't accept your requirement"), and at 10:27 he called it a Roman Catholic argument. At 13:04 he gave the Spirit's inner testimony and John 10:27-28. The Spirit ground is a weak circle, but it is a ground, and the line restates a position he had already explained. He did not offer the claim as unsupported and then rely on it as established. The elements are not met.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. The line answers Ananias's "so you assert that I have to" by returning the assertion. It is not bare, since Slick had already given reasons for his stance: God's sovereign preservation of his word (Eph 1:11) at 07:27, and the shared 27-book agreement in the next breath. Whether those reasons suffice is a matter of how well he defends his starting premise. They are not nothing, and it is a toss-up whether the elements of bare assertion are met, so I call no fault.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening a very high view of Scripture as the inspired word of God and the standard, and he has held throughout that he need not justify the canon, knowing it by the Spirit's witness; "I assert that I don't have to" restates that position and does not depart from it. The line is a restatement of a declared starting premise, not a bare assertion. Slick had offered grounds before it (Eph 1:11 providence at 07:27) and gave more after (inner testimony and John 10:27-28 at 13:04). A first principle openly held is judged by how it is defended, and he did defend it, though only at a low rung. Since the line restates his position and a ground was offered, the bare-assertion label's elements are not met.
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.