Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #257858:58upheld Matt Slick psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from flagrant to minor
The council upheld the call: Matt Slick gave away 1 point.
“Satan would not want me to use God's word against…”
Diogenes: Instead of answering S3's point that Slick cannot affirm Scripture as God's word without a justified canon, Slick said "Who else would say something like that?... Satan", casting S3 as doing Satan's work. S3 had not said Scripture should never be used against Mormons; he said Slick was not in a position to affirm it.minor: Calling an opponent's position Satan's work is a blatant attack on the person that takes the place of the answer, ends the exchange on the point, and rests on a distortion of what S3 said.
Herodotus (partly): I found no earlier exchange between Slick and Fr. Ananias beyond this debate. It was listed on Jay Dyer's Substack as Ananias against Slick on sola scriptura and the canon, and the site shows Slick with no prior record. The transcript itself supports the callout. Slick asked whether he should use Scripture against Mormons, Ananias said no because Slick cannot affirm it as God's word, and Slick answered "Who else would say something like that?... Satan." That attributes Satan's motive to Ananias instead of answering his canon point. In Slick's favour, he had just been pressed for a long stretch and had said earlier that he is open to correction. Ananias's "no" was also blunt and could be read as a sweeping claim, and Slick framed his reply as a reaction to that. Because the record is thin, I'd treat the remark as a real but heat-of-the-moment ad hominem, not a habitual one. "Flagrant" may be a little high. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/apologist-matt-slick-vs-fr-deacon-a85 The bench graded it major (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had flagrant.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard and that Calvinism is what it teaches. He has held that throughout. The called line, which casts Fr. Ananias as doing Satan's work, departs from his argued method by attacking the person. Slick answered Ananias's canon point by saying "Who else would say something like that?... Satan", and he pressed it again at 59:10 with "How do you know you're not the wicked one?". That substitutes an unsupported charge of demonic motive for an answer, and it turns the exchange to the person. Ananias's blunt "No" gave some provocation, and Slick was reacting to it, so the fault is real but mitigated. Upheld at major severity, not flagrant.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Ananias had declined to go to exegesis until the canon and framework were settled. Slick does not answer that. He says only someone Satan-like would object to using Scripture against a Mormon, which ties his opponent to Satan and closes the exchange on the person. Ananias's refusal rests on a stated principle, not on his character, and Slick had offered no answer to it above the threshold, so the remark substitutes for one.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening a very high view of Scripture as the inspired standard and that he can defend Calvinism from it, and he has held that he need not justify the canon; the called line, casting Ananias as doing Satan's work, is a personal remark that goes beyond that position. Ananias had answered "No" to whether Slick should use Scripture against a Mormon, because Slick had not justified Scripture as God's word. Slick did not answer that canon point. He replied "Who else would say something like that?... Satan", which treats Ananias as Satan's agent. That substitutes for an answer, the attack on motive is irrelevant to the canon claim, and nothing in the debate backs it. It also closes the exchange: it moves to Ananias's character and Slick keeps pressing the same demand. Slick had earlier answered the canon challenge with the Spirit's witness, but that does not meet the point Ananias made here. The charge is real but a heat-of-the-moment lapse, so I rate it major, not flagrant.
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.