Appeal: bare assertion
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25962:13:44overturned Fr. Ananias psogos: bare assertion (+3)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Does not fit anything in history of the Christian church whatsoever…”
Diogenes: Asked for his reading of Colossians 2:14, Fr. Ananias said "all the fathers and the consensus" read the debt as paid to death and that Slick's penal substitutionary reading fits nothing in Christian history whatsoever. He quoted no father or text, and Chrysostom, whom the questioner raised, was not quoted.flagrant: It repeats the unsupported "ahistorical" claim from #2573, now as the substance of his answer on the passage, in universal terms, with no father or passage cited, and it carries the weight of his case against the Calvinist reading.
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at 06:02 that citing Scripture begs the question until canon and interpretation are justified, and has held it throughout; the called line restates his claim that Calvinism is ahistorical and does not depart from it. The claim that penal substitution fits nothing in Christian history is a contested universal, and he cited no father or text for it. But he had offered Vincent of Lerins and the mechanism of historical continuity earlier, and Slick never engaged those. Slick himself conceded that Chrysostom's view was beyond what he understood. So the line restates a held position that has some stated ground and does not stand as a bare assertion. Flagrant severity is not warranted, and it is a close call, so the call is overturned.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "bare assertion". Ananias makes a sweeping, contested universal claim about penal substitution and the whole history of the church. He names no father, text or council in support. Slick had contested the claim, saying fathers taught justification by faith alone. A consensus claim about Chrysostom's reading of the debt is the only specific cited, and it is not shown to cover penal substitution. He relies on "the consensus and continuity is on my side" as if it were established.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Fr. Ananias declared at the opening that citing Scripture begs the question until the canon and its interpretation are justified, and has held that framework objection throughout, including the claim that Calvinism is ahistorical; the called line restates that held claim rather than departing from it. The line restates the ahistoricity claim he has made since 14:33, and he did name Chrysostom and the consensus of the fathers at 93:09 and 132:xx. The claim is thin, but it is not wholly unsupported. It is also a restatement, not a new move. Because it is a toss-up whether every element is met, and flagrant severity is not justified, the call is overturned. I earlier overturned the similar calls at 14:28 and 44:23.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: A restatement is not a move. The line restates the ahistoricity claim Fr. Ananias has held since 14:33. He had already named Chrysostom, the consensus of the fathers, and Vincent of Lerins as his mechanism of historical continuity. Slick never engaged those. It is thin, but it is a held position with some stated ground, not a new move, and a bare assertion is not clearly shown.
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.