Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25901:47:03upheld Matt Slick psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Matt Slick gave away 1 point.
“I'm surprised he can drive a car…”
Diogenes: After charging that S3 "violated so many rules of debate and so many rules of logic", Slick named no rule or error and added a jibe at S3's competence ("I'm surprised he can drive a car"), which he admitted was "a bit of a shot".minor: It is a clear personal insult that stands in for specifying the faults alleged, and it was made in the closing after the moderator asked for no character attacks, though it was short and Slick called it a joke.
Herodotus (partly): I found no earlier exchange between Slick and Fr. Ananias. The only sources are Jay Dyer's Substack pages about this same debate, and they are partisan. The site's records show Slick and Ananias with no prior debates (Ananias has one, this one), so there is no pattern of personal attacks to confirm or deny. The transcript does bear out the callout. Slick said Ananias "violated so many rules of debate and so many rules of logic" and named none. He then said "I'm surprised he can drive a car" and called it "a bit of a shot." Mitigating context: Jay Dyer, who is on the opposing side, had earlier called Slick a "goblin, a demon, a boomer tard," a "loser," and "effeminate." Ananias had also mimicked Dyer's insults, and Slick complained about being muted. Slick's jibe was aimed at Ananias, who had not insulted him. Ananias said he is handicapped and cannot drive, and Slick answered with "I have Asperger's." That points to an unintended hit, not a deliberate one. The ad hominem stands, but "major" seems high given the provocation and the lack of intent. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/apologist-matt-slick-vs-fr-deacon-a85 The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Slick declared at the opening that Scripture is the inspired standard, that he is a five-point Calvinist, and that he welcomes correction; he has held that throughout, and the jibe about driving a car is a personal remark that departs from arguing that position. Slick said Ananias violated "so many rules of debate and so many rules of logic" and named none, so no point was answered. He then jibed at Ananias's competence ("I'm surprised he can drive a car") and admitted it was "a bit of a shot." The remark is about the person, and Ananias's ability to drive has nothing to do with the claim on the table. It also turned the exchange to the person: Ananias objected to it. The record gives no sign the jibe was meant to wound; Ananias's being unable to drive looks like a coincidence. The earlier provocation from Dyer also counts for something. So the label stands, but at minor severity, not major.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". After a claim that Ananias broke the rules of logic, with no instance given, Slick adds a jab at his competence that has nothing to do with the canon or the councils. Slick calls it "a bit of a shot." Nothing in the debate backs it, and it turned the exchange to Ananias's person (he said he is handicapped and takes it as an insult). It is a closing barb and not a substitute for a pending answer, so this is a minor instance.
- 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 can defend Calvinism from Scripture; he has held that line, and the called jibe is a personal remark that departs from argument. Slick charged Ananias with violating many rules of logic and named none, then added a jab at his competence, which he called "a bit of a shot." That stands in place of an answer and is irrelevant to the points at issue. It ends the closing on the person, not the argument. It was not intended to hit a disability, since Slick did not know of it, and it was provoked by Dyer's abuse. Minor severity fits better than major.
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.