Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25851:16:25upheld Matt Slick psogos: ad hominem (+2) tempered from flagrant to major
The council upheld the call: Matt Slick gave away 2 points.
“I believe it's because he's afraid of the word of God because he's not regenerate [regenerate]…” quote corrected
Diogenes: Asked charitably why Fr. Ananias will not start with Scripture, Slick attributed it to fear and to his not being regenerate and serving "a false master". He ignored the stated reason, that the canon and its interpretation are the principle at issue.major: It is an open attack on motive and spiritual standing, with nothing in the debate to back it, repeated after the earlier Satan and hell remarks, and it replaces the reply to S3's stated reason.
Herodotus (no): I found no earlier encounter between Slick and Fr. Ananias. Their only recorded meeting is this debate, which Jay Dyer's Substack describes as a debate on sola scriptura and the canon. Slick has no record on this site, and Ananias has one debate. Within the debate, Ananias said plainly that he declined to argue from Scripture as a matter of method, because the canon and interpretation are the principle at issue. He also said Orthodox do cite Scripture, and he cited 1 Tim 3:15, John 21:25 and 1 Thess 2:15. Slick's charge that Ananias is "afraid" and "not regenerate" is therefore an unsupported attack on the man. It is not a pattern the history bears out. Context that tempers severity: Jay Dyer opened the debate with heavy abuse ("goblin, a demon, a boomer tard", "cult"), so the tone was already hostile. The moderator also invited Slick's answer ("be as charitable as possible"). Slick added "Maybe I'm wrong", which softens it only slightly. The only sources are Dyer's partisan summaries, with no independent account. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/apologist-matt-slick-vs-fr-deacon-a85 The bench graded it major (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had flagrant.
- Aristarchus (transcript) corrected: "regenerate" as heard is a plausible word, but "not regenerate" fits Slick's meaning ("not regenerated" is the usual form), so I flag nothing definite.
- Aristotle uphold: 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. The called line attributes Fr. Ananias's refusal to fear and unregeneracy, which is a remark about the man and not a departure from that stance. Substitution: Fr. Ananias had given a reason (the canon and interpretation are upstream), and Slick answered the question "why won't he go to Scripture?" with fear and unregeneracy instead of meeting that reason. Truth: nothing in the debate backs the charge, since Ananias cited 1 Tim 3:15, John 21:25 and 1 Thess 2:15 and explained his method. Aim: it closes the question by turning to the man's spiritual state ("I wanna expose it"). Relevance: his regeneracy does not bear on whether the canon question must be settled first. At least two of the three are met, so the call stands. Slick's "Maybe I'm wrong" and the moderator's invitation soften it, but the label fits. Severity should be major, not flagrant.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Ananias had given a stated reason for declining exegesis: the canon and the hermeneutic are in dispute, so the principle must be settled first. Slick, asked to be charitable, answers with a charge about Ananias's fear and his unregenerate state instead of that reason. His standard is that the claim does not rest on the person's motive or regeneration. Nothing in the debate backs the charge, and it closes the exchange by turning to the man.
- 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; he has held that throughout, and the called line (Ananias is afraid of God's word and unregenerate) applies his stated damnation claim to the man in place of answering the canon objection, which fits his held line but is still a personal attack. Substitution: Ananias had stated his reason (canon and interpretation are upstream) and Slick never answered it above the threshold, only repeating "go to Colossians". Relevance: whether Ananias is regenerate or afraid does not bear on whether the canon needs justifying. Aim: it closed the exchange, turning it to the person, and Slick said "I wanna expose it". Truth fails too: Ananias cited 1 Tim 3:15, John 21:25 and 1 Thess 2:15 and agreed to Colossians 2:14, so nothing backs the "afraid" charge. The moderator's invitation and Dyer's earlier abuse temper it, and "maybe I'm wrong" softens it a little. I'd put it at 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.