Appeal: homologia
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #257756:35overturned Fr. Ananias against Matt Slick agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“You are not in a position to say that it's God's word, and you go…”
Diogenes: S3 has said throughout that Slick cannot call Scripture God's word without circular reasoning, and that the canon and its interpretation must be justified first. Pressed on it, Slick conceded: "It's begging the question. You better believe it's begging the question", ground his own case against Orthodoxy depends on. S3 then added that "Mormons make all the same arguments that you do", showing what the concession costs.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at 06:02 that citing Scripture begs the question until canon and interpretation are justified, and held that throughout; the called line restates that stance and does not depart from it. The quoted line at 56:35 ("You are not in a position to say that it's God's word, and you go") is Fr. Ananias repeating his standing objection. Slick answers "Yes I am... it's begging the question" in the same breath, but he does so as a defiant aside, not a concession. He has said all along that everyone reasons circularly and that the Spirit's inner witness grounds his knowledge of Scripture, so the remark grants nothing new. He did not concede that his case rests on a fallacy. Ananias's Mormon line follows, but it is an analogy and not the tying of a concession to Slick's thesis. A homologia needs a real forced concession, so no decisive move is shown, and the quote may not even be Ananias's.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "framework objection", on the same ledger as the callout. Ananias declines to argue exegesis because Slick's appeal to "God's word" presupposes the canon and its interpretation, which is the point in dispute. He names the presupposition he denies and says the justification of the principle must be settled first, and he has held this consistently since the opening. Slick's only answer has been the Spirit's inner witness, which is below the threshold, so the objection is not a dodge.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at the opening that citing Scripture begs the question until the Protestant says how he got his canon and its interpretation, and he held that objection to the end; the called line restates it and does not depart from it. The called line, "You are not in a position to say that it's God's word, and you go", only restates the objection Ananias had held since the opening. At 56:38 Slick says "Yes I am... It's begging the question. You better believe it's begging the question." That is a defiant retort, not a concession. In context Slick is saying the Mormon question-begging charge applies equally to him, and he goes straight on to argue that Mormon doctrine is not true. He does not grant that his own position fails. The words attributed to Slick are also part of a transcript that is garbled and run together, so the speaker is uncertain. No concession was forced, so the homologia does not stand.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. Fr. Ananias had pressed from 06:02 onward that Slick cannot cite Scripture without first justifying the canon, and the line at 56:35 only repeats that objection. Slick's "It's begging the question" at 56:44 is a defiant retort. He had already said at 13:04 that everyone reasons circularly, and he never granted that his case fails, so no concession was forced.
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.