Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25911:51:03upheld Jay Dyer psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“Matt, you're you're a loser, dude…”
Diogenes: Slick asked to be allowed to answer before being accused, and Jay replied "I don't need to because I've heard your stupid answer for twenty years" and then called him a loser. That is a personal insult standing in for any reply to the answer Slick was about to give.minor: The insult is clear and replaces engagement with a pending answer, but Jay had just made a short argument, that the dispute is about the means of the Spirit, and Slick had not yet spoken.
Herodotus (partly): I found no earlier Dyer–Slick debate. Dyer's claim to have "heard your stupid answer for twenty years" is therefore unverified. It may rest on Slick's long public record rather than on direct exchanges. The site records Dyer with 14 upheld ad hominem faults and 21 misrepresentations over 20 debates, so insult is a repeated pattern for him. In this debate he had already called Slick "a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard" and "in a cult" at the opening, before the "loser" remark. Slick provoked some of it, though. He jabbed that Dyer might be "demonically oppressed" and that he was "surprised he can drive a car", and he said he was "afraid" of Colossians 2. Fr. Ananias said that last remark hit him personally. Even so, Dyer's pattern and the cut-off of Slick's reply support the callout. The provocation and the unverified history are mitigating factors only. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/protestant-vs-orthodox-debate-is-8d8 https://jaydyer.substack.com/sitemap/2020
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer declared at the opening that the ecumenical synods are inspired and inerrant, known by the Holy Spirit and by accord with the saints and Scripture, and that Slick stands outside the Church's continuity; the called line is a bare insult that departs from argument. At 110:40 Slick had just asked to answer before being accused. Jay replied "I don't need to because I've heard your stupid answer for twenty years" and then called him "a loser, dude". That is a remark about the person standing in for any reply to the point, and the point (how the Spirit works through councils) does not rest on Slick's character. It also closed the exchange: Slick asked for the moderators to remove Jay. The provocation and the unverified history are mitigating, so I rate it major but not flagrant.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Matt asked to answer before being accused. Jay replied "I don't need to because I've heard your stupid answer for twenty years" and then called him a loser. This is a remark about the person, and it stands in place of an answer to the point. It is irrelevant to the canon and council question, and nothing in the record backs it. It also closes the exchange.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer declared at the opening that the ecumenical synods are inspired and inerrant, known through the Holy Spirit and their agreement with the saints and Scripture, and that Slick stands outside the Church's continuity. He has held that line, and the called insult adds nothing to it. Slick asked to answer before being accused. Dyer refused ("I don't need to because I've heard your stupid answer for twenty years") and called him "a loser, dude". That is a remark about the man standing in for a reply to the point, and Dyer never answered the point. The remark is irrelevant to the claim at issue, and it shut down the exchange. Slick's earlier jabs and the unverified history are mitigating, but the call fits the elements of ad hominem. The abuse is repeated, but it is still one remark, so major severity fits.
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.