Appeal: misrepresentation
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #256935:50overturned Matt Slick psogos: misrepresentation (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“… how does he know the councils are correct? He can't answer…”
Diogenes: S3 had answered this question a few minutes earlier: through the Holy Spirit, with "the church of the apostles and their disciples", the episcopate they established, and a match with history. Slick told the moderators that S3 "can't answer."major: The record plainly shows an answer was given, and Slick used the claim to press the moderators and shape the audience's view.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard, that he is a five-point Calvinist, and that he would welcome correction; he has held that throughout, and "He can't answer" is his complaint that Ananias's answer was circular, which is consistent with his stance. Misrepresentation requires that the transcript shows the opponent did not say or hold what is attributed. Slick did not claim Ananias said nothing; "can't answer" is a disputed judgment that the Holy Spirit answer was inadequate (he called it question-begging at 37:24 and 40:45). That is a characterization of adequacy, not a misstatement of what was said. Close, so overturned.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Fr. Ananias had answered this at 30:36 and 36:11: the Holy Spirit, with continuity with the apostles, the episcopate and the early church as the mechanism. That is a mechanism named and checkable, not a bare circle. Slick may think the answer fails, but "he can't answer" tells the listeners that no answer was given, and the record shows otherwise.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening a very high view of Scripture as the standard and that he can defend Calvinism from it. He has held throughout that Ananias must justify the councils and that Scripture needs no external justification. The called line, "He can't answer," fits that challenge but misdescribes the record. Slick said Ananias "can't answer", which is a characterization of an answer he rejects, not a report of what Ananias said. Ananias had answered (the Holy Spirit, apostolic continuity, history), and Slick had already called that answer question-begging at 37:24, so he was disputing its adequacy. Misrepresentation needs the transcript to show the opponent did not say or hold something. Here the claim is that no answer was given, and that is at best an exaggeration. It is a close call, and close calls are overturned.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. Slick's "He can't answer" at 35:50 came after he had already called Ananias's Holy Spirit answer question-begging (37:24, 40:45 and earlier at 0:15 in his own questioning). It is a judgment that the answer fails, not a claim that Ananias said or held something he did not. The record does not show a misattribution of what Ananias said, so an element of misrepresentation is missing.
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.