Appeal: homologia
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #256418:10upheld Fr. Ananias against Matt Slick agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Fr. Ananias earned 1.2 points.
“Then you deny constant... Constantinople…”
Diogenes: S3 asked whether Slick accepts baptismal regeneration, then said that means he denies Constantinople 381, and Slick answered "then that part of it, I certainly reject". This is a concession that he does not follow the councils in full, which S3 had asserted before and Slick had disputed, and it bears on S3's claim that Calvinism is ahistorical.- 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 has held that throughout; the called line pressing Slick on Constantinople fits that position and does not depart from it. Slick had objected at 15:31 that he did not reject the councils. At 18:00 Ananias asked about baptismal regeneration. Slick said he denies it. Ananias then said "Then you deny Constantinople". Slick answered "If that's what they teach, then that part of it, I certainly reject". That is a forced concession, though a conditional one. It does not rest any ground of Slick's own thesis, and Ananias only partly tied it to his ahistoricity claim ("this is prior to scripture"). That fits a one-point homologia.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Ananias draws a quick inference from Slick's denial of baptismal regeneration to rejection of Constantinople. He never states the missing premise, that the council teaches baptismal regeneration. Slick answers conditionally ("if that's what they teach"). The move is a probing question, not a derivation fully made, and it is not a clear fault either. The record does not support a call.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at the opening that citing Scripture begs the question until the canon and its interpretation are justified, and he has held that framework objection and the claim that Calvinism is ahistorical throughout; the called line fits that and does not depart from it. Slick had objected at 15:36 to being accused of rejecting the councils. Ananias then asked about baptismal regeneration and said "Then you deny Constantinople." Slick conceded at 18:15: "If that's what they teach, then that part of it, I certainly reject." That is a forced concession, and it supports Ananias's claim that Calvinism departs from the councils. Ananias did tie it to the thesis, saying "this is prior to scripture. So you say you have a principle prior to scripture." But Slick conditioned the concession with "if that's what they teach" and rejected the "prior to scripture" framing, so it is only a one-point homologia.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: every element of the label is found in the record. Slick had objected at 15:31 that he did not reject the councils. At 18:10 Ananias said "Then you deny Constantinople", and Slick answered "If that's what they teach, then that part of it, I certainly reject." The opponent granted the point, though conditionally, and it supports Ananias's claim that Calvinism is ahistorical. The record doesn't show that Ananias tied the concession to a ground Slick's own thesis depends on, so it is a one-point homologia.
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.