Paula

Actually, I would classify Slick’s objection to the “possibility” argument is not so much a straw man as a case of guilt by association. He is trying to equate your case with that of the atheists’ Flying Spaghetti Monster, where if an idea is to be believed just because it is possible, then any idea, no matter how absurd, is to be given the same weight. But the atheists err in committing the fallacy of exclusion, where pertinent data is removed from the syllogism to lead to a false conclusion.
Likewise, Slick errs in implying that your argument has only possibility on its side. He dismisses the other facts you bring in, such as the use of didasko for false teaching, the general context of false teaching, the grammar of she/they, Eve’s deception, etc. as unimportant, yet they give much more than mere possibility, but strong probability. And, as you pointed out, he commits the very thing he accuses you of in arguing for the right of primogeniture as having any bearing on the discussion in question.
The question for Slick is then, Exactly what does it take to go from possibility to strong probability? If we use the same standards he uses for the right of primogeniture, then certainly he must also allow your argument as being very strong. But if he wants to dismiss your argument as on the level of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then his own argument must be dismissed as well. He can’t have it both ways. He is using a double standard.