Appeal: bare assertion
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #257552:04overturned Matt Slick psogos: bare assertion (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“… councils made mistakes, Councils have gone against each other…”
Diogenes: Slick uses these historical claims to conclude "you can't go to the councils. They're not inspired", but he names no council, error or contradiction. "I could show you" is a promise, not evidence, and S3 had just asked how he knows the councils are not inspired.major: The claim is the ground for barring the councils, which is central to his case, and he relies on it as established, though it was a passing statement and not repeated.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard and that he is a five-point Calvinist, and he has held that throughout; claiming that councils err and contradict each other is consistent with that position and does not depart from it. The claim is contested and Slick names no specific council or error here. But the element of being "relied on afterwards as though established" is weak. He had earlier given a reason for denying inspiration (only Scripture is called inspired, 48:34), and he offers to show the fathers' contradictions and later points to CARM documentation (104:20). That is a mechanism named, so this is not nothing offered. Since it is close, the call is overturned.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "bare assertion". Slick makes a sweeping, contested claim that councils erred and contradicted each other. He names no council, canon or contradiction, only offers "I could show you". He then relies on it to say the councils cannot be used and "are not inspired", though Ananias and Jay say they are. The claim is relied on as though established.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard and that Calvinism can be defended from it. He has held since that Ananias must justify the councils and that Scripture is known by the Spirit's witness. The called line applies that position and does not depart from it. Slick's claim that councils made mistakes and contradicted each other is a contested claim, but it is not offered with nothing behind it. Earlier he gave the ground that only Scripture is called inspired (48:34). Here he also says "I could show you the church fathers" and later points to CARM documentation (104:20). Ananias himself conceded earlier that Slick rejects at least Constantinople's baptismal regeneration (18:10). The claim is thin, but the line also restates Slick's standing view that councils are not inspired. The elements of bare assertion are not clearly met, so I overturn.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. Slick's claim that councils erred and contradicted each other is thin, but it is not offered with nothing behind it. At 48:34 he gave the ground that only Scripture is called inspired. At 52:04 he said he could show the fathers contradicting each other, and at 104:20 he pointed to CARM documentation. Bare assertion needs nothing offered, so that element 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.