Appeal: bare assertion
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #257344:23overturned Fr. Ananias psogos: bare assertion (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“And that's pretty easy for anybody to look at and find out…”
Diogenes: S3 has said since 14:28 that Calvinist doctrine and interpretation "don't match the history" of the early church, and now calls Slick out on it, yet he has cited no father, council, text or date. He leaves the checking to the listener.major: The claim is central to S3's whole case and was repeated several times without any evidence, though Slick has not yet challenged it directly.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at 06:02 that citing Scripture begs the question until canon and interpretation are justified, and has held that throughout; the called line restates his claim that Calvinism does not match early church history and does not depart from it. Within the same passage he offers a mechanism (Vincentian canon, "everywhere, always, by all", continuity with the apostles, councils, episcopate) and cites Chrysostom elsewhere. The line is a rhetorical closer on a claim that was argued, not a contested claim with nothing offered. At worst it is a restatement of a held position, so the bare assertion elements are not all met.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "bare assertion". Ananias asserts that Slick's doctrines don't match the consistent history of the church and that anyone can check this. He names no father, text or council, and Slick contested the claim (the fathers contradict one another; some taught faith alone). He then relies on it as settled. Calling the check easy does not supply the evidence.
- Plato overturn: 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 throughout; the called line restates his claim that Calvinism is ahistorical and does not depart from it. The line closes a passage in which he named a test (Vincent of Lerins, what was believed everywhere and always), claimed apostolic continuity, and cited Acts. Later he adds Chrysostom and the fathers on debt. Something was offered for the claim, so the "nothing offered" element is not met. Also, at 14:28 and 44:23 he restates a position held since the opening rather than making a new move. It is at best a toss-up, so the call is overturned.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. At 39:09 and 42:17 Ananias gave Vincent of Lerins as his test ("everywhere, in all places at all times"), and he claimed apostolic continuity and cited Acts. So the "nothing offered" element is missing. The line at 44:23 closes that passage. It restates the ahistorical charge he had held since 14:28 and does not make a new move.
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.