Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #256316:40upheld Matt Slick epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Matt Slick earned 2 points.
“Does not necessarily mean I affirm…”
Diogenes: S3 argued that because Slick had not said he rejects Constantinople he had "already given an affirmation". Slick correctly names this as an invalid inference: not rejecting is not affirming. Slick had actually said he would need to review the council before answering.major: The fallacy is real in what S3 said, and S3 used it to push Slick into a commitment he had not made, but it is a short exchange.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the standard, that he is a five-point Calvinist, and that he would welcome correction. He has held that throughout, and this line answers a point in the exchange without departing from it. Fr. Ananias said at 16:30 that because Slick "just said you didn't reject it, so you've already given an affirmation." That inference is invalid, since failing to reject something does not amount to affirming it. Slick named the fault in what was actually said ("Does not necessarily mean I affirm") and had already said he needed to review the council before answering. The fault is in the words, not in a summary of them. It is a small point, so I would rate it minor.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Ananias had inferred "you just said you didn't reject it, so you've already given an affirmation." That skips the middle ground of withholding judgment until he checks the council. Slick names exactly that gap, and the fault is in what Ananias actually said.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening a high view of Scripture as the standard, and said he may misunderstand Orthodoxy and invites correction. He has held since that he need not justify the canon. The called line corrects an inference made against him and does not depart from that. At 16:30 Fr. Ananias argued that because Slick had said he did not reject the councils, he had "already given an affirmation". At 16:32 Slick answers that not rejecting does not necessarily mean affirming. That names a real fault in what was actually said. At 16:20 he had already said he would have to review Constantinople before answering. The named fault is in the opponent's words, not in a summary of them. Slick makes the point plainly, and it affects the exchange, so major is fair.
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.