Appeal: ad hominem
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25921:55:14overturned Matt Slick psogos: ad hominem (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“… he sounds like he might be demonically oppressed…”
Diogenes: Replying to Jay Dyer's point that the dispute is about the means the Spirit uses, and to the clip he played, Slick said Jay "sounds like he might be demonically oppressed" and gave no answer to the point.minor: A clear attack on a person that replaces an answer, repeating Slick's earlier turns to Satan and hell, but it is one remark in the Q&A and Jay is not a formal debater.
Herodotus (partly): I found no earlier Slick–Dyer debate in public sources. The one search I ran turned up only an unclear mention of a "Slick vs. Deacon Ananias" item, and nothing on prior Slick–Dyer exchanges. The transcript itself shows the context. Dyer opened the exchange with "cult," "goblin, a demon, a boomer tard," and later called Slick "a loser" and "dishonest." Slick's remark that Dyer "sounds like he might be demonically oppressed" came right after the "demon" jibe, so it was a retaliatory ad hominem. It was still an insult and did not answer Dyer's point. Dyer's record here (ad hominem x14) and his provocation call for tempering. The site has no record for Slick. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/sitemap/2020 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 Calvinism is what it teaches, and that Orthodox synergism damns; he has held that throughout, and imputing demonic oppression to Dyer is a remark about the person that departs from arguing that position. At 115:14 Dyer had just called Slick "a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard" and "a cult," and Slick answered with "he sounds like he might be demonically oppressed." That remark is about the person. It stands in place of any answer to the point Dyer's side had on the table, which was how the councils are known. Whether the Spirit's means are the councils or Scripture is not touched by the remark. Truth fails because nothing in the debate backs it. Relevance fails because the claim does not rest on Dyer's spiritual state. Aim is met because Slick moved on to the next question. Provocation and the earlier insults mitigate the fault, but they don't answer the point, so the call stands. I uphold it at minor, not major.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is a hedged retort to Jay's abuse ("goblin, a demon, a boomer tard"). It replaces no argument Matt owed. The live question had been put, Jay had answered it, and the exchange had already turned to insults. It is a jab in kind, not a move against the point on the table, so nothing worth calling is left.
- 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 remark is a personal jab at Dyer, not a move in that argument. The remark answers none of Dyer's point about the means the Spirit uses and only turns to the person. It was provoked by Dyer's "goblin, a demon" insult, so the severity should be lower, at minor.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: an element of the label is missing from the record. Slick had already answered Dyer's claim at 114:51 by saying "you're just making an assumption that all the saints agree". Dyer then dropped the argument and called him "a goblin, a demon, a boomer tard". The remark at 115:14 answers that abuse in kind. It replaces no answer Slick owed, so the substitution element is missing.
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.