Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25821:11:38overturned Matt Slick psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Well, you're obviously on your way to hell. That's for sure…”
Diogenes: Answering S3's point that Slick's experience cannot make Scripture God's word, and that Orthodox experience is equally real, Slick pronounced S3 damned and went back to "Let's go to scripture", without answering the parity point.minor: It is clear and replaces the reply to S3's parity point, but it is also Slick's declared thesis about Orthodox salvation, which keeps it below flagrant.
Herodotus (partly): I found no earlier debate between Slick and Fr. Ananias. The site's own records show Slick with no prior debates and Ananias with one. A search turned up only a Matt Slick Live episode (Dec 2025) mentioning an encounter with Eastern Orthodox people, with no names or details. Within this debate, the ad hominem charge largely holds. At 0:05 Slick had already said all who hold Orthodox soteriology "will end up being damned", so the "hell" line applies his stated doctrine and is not a new outburst. He also backed it with "because of scripture", so it is a theological judgment, not pure insult. It still dodged Ananias's parity point. Severity should be tempered because Slick was provoked: Jay Dyer opened by calling him "a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard" and "in a cult". Slick also said at 76:34 that Ananias was "not regenerate" and "serving a false master". Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/an-orthodox-theory-of-knowledge-fr-2d7
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard, that Calvinism is what it teaches, and that Orthodox synergism damns; he has held that throughout, and the called line applies that stated doctrine to Fr. Ananias. The remark applies Slick's declared doctrine that synergism damns and is tied to Scripture ("because of scripture"), so it is not a bare personal slur. Relevance and truth are not both shown to fail, so the ad hominem elements are at best a toss-up. It does leave Ananias's parity point unanswered, which fits dodge better.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a blunt retort to being told his experience is "spiritual delusion," but it only restates the position Slick declared in his opening, that holding Orthodox soteriology damns. He ties it to Scripture ("how do I know? Because of scripture") and returns to the Colossians offer, so it is not a bare personal attack replacing an answer. His ground for the Spirit's witness had already been given, and the elements for ad hominem or any other fault are not clearly met.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening a very high view of Scripture as the inspired standard, that Orthodox synergism damns, and that he need not justify the canon; the called line applies that stated damnation doctrine and returns to "let's go to scripture", so it does not depart from his position. Ananias had just pressed the parity point: Slick's experience cannot make Scripture God's word, and Orthodox experience is equally real. Slick answered with "you're obviously on your way to hell" and did not address the parity. That is a remark about the person standing in for an answer. Slick had earlier given the canon an answer based on the Spirit's witness, but that answer was at the bare-circle rung. The remark is relevant to Slick's stated doctrine and was backed with "because of scripture", so the Relevance and Truth elements are weak. The Aim element is met: it closed the exchange and turned to the person. That makes two of the three, which is enough. The label is therefore upheld, at lower severity given the provocation and the fact that it restates his opening position.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. At 5:26 Slick had already said all who hold Orthodox synergism will be damned. At 71:38 he applied that stated doctrine and tied it to Scripture ("how do I know? Because of scripture"). Relevance and truth are therefore not both shown to fail, so the two-of-three test is not met. Aim alone (he closed the exchange) is not enough. Ananias's unanswered parity point would fit a dodge, not an ad hominem.
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.