Appeal: special pleading
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #257450:12overturned Matt Slick psogos: special pleading (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“How do we know we have authority? Because we said so. That's begging the question, not acceptable…”
Diogenes: Slick rules self-attesting authority out for the councils, yet at 13:06 he admitted his own ground for Scripture is circular ("everybody's circular reasons"), the Spirit's inner testimony. He gave no difference between the two circles beyond asserting Scripture is inspired, and he went on to bar S3 from the councils ("you can't go to the councils").major: The double standard is clear on the record and decides which grounds count in the debate's central dispute, though Slick did name Scripture's inspiration as a difference, which S3 contests.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired word of God and the standard, and that he can defend Calvinism from it. He has held that throughout, and the called line applies his stated method to the councils without departing from it. Slick does name a difference at 50:18 and after. He says the councils are not inspired and have contradicted each other, and that Scripture is inspired and agreed by both sides. He also says the Spirit's witness is a mechanism for Scripture, and he has stated a check for the councils (comparison with Scripture). Whether that difference holds is argued, not faulted, so the third element of special pleading is not met. He also admitted at 13:06 that his ground is circular, so he is not exempting himself in secret. At best this is a fair internal-critique point against Ananias's own appeal to the Spirit. It is not special pleading.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation", on the same ledger as the callout. Ananias had already named a checkable mechanism beyond the councils' self-claim: continuity with the apostles, the episcopate, the Acts precedent, and the historical record. Slick reduces this to "because we said so" and calls it begging the question. That is the bare-circle reduction the rubric calls misrepresentation, and it matches my ruling at 37:24.
- 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 has held throughout that Scripture is known by the Spirit's witness while the councils must be tested against it; the called line applies that same position and does not depart from it. Special pleading needs a standard applied to the opponent and exempted for his own like case, with no difference named. Slick did name a difference. He holds that Scripture is inspired and known by the Spirit's testimony, and that the councils are not inspired and can err, so they are checked against Scripture. He also did not say that circularity itself is the fault. His complaint is that the councils were being asked to vouch for themselves, and he had already admitted "everybody's circular reasons" at 13:06. Whether his difference holds is a matter to argue, not a fault of reasoning. Elsewhere the same ground was found to be a circle, but a circle of that kind is a bare assertion at best. The elements of special pleading are not met cleanly, and a close call goes to overturn.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. Special pleading needs Slick to exempt his own like case with no relevant difference named. He did name one: Scripture is inspired and agreed by both sides, while the councils are not inspired, have erred and contradicted each other, and must be checked against Scripture. He had also already admitted "everybody's circular reasons" at 13:06, so he did not hide his own circle. Whether the difference holds is argued, not faulted.
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.