The
nature of debate and its philosophical origins:
The roots of modern debate, especially the kind that weaves
in ethics, epistemology, and ontology, goes straight back to ancient
Greece.
Socrates receives the credit for the real breakthrough: he
turned argument into a tool for truth-seeking, not just winning an argument.
His method involved questioning everything aimed at exposing contradiction, basically
epistemology in action. He didn’t care about "sides"; he cared about
what *is*. That’s why Plato, his student, wrote it all down and made dialogue
the backbone of philosophy.
Aristotle took it further. He systematized rhetoric, how to
persuade ethically, while grounding using syllogisms ((an instance of a form of
reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether valid or not) from two given
or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the
conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion,
fallacies)) and ontology (what exists, what doesn’t). His use of “Rhetoric” is
still the playbook: ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), logos (reason).
Without him, debate stays street-corner yelling or like 99% of the responses to
my social media posts, lol.
Added to these tools comes the modern version from both the
Renaissance and Enlightenment folks. Philosophers such as Locke, Hume, and Kant
brought empiricism and skepticism into the mix. They asked: "How do we “know”
what we know?" As a result, debate was no longer merely about gods or kings,
rather it investigates evidence, doubt, and moral reasoning.
Therefore, Socrates invented the spirit, Aristotle the
structure, and the Enlightenment gave it teeth. But if you want the single
name? Aristotle. He’s the one who made debate a science, not a sport.
Why the
Monty Python sketch on the “Argument Clinic” applies to the lamentable lack of
reasoned discourse on social media
The *Monty Python* “Argument Clinic” sketch (sometimes
called “buying a debate”) is both silly and funny for several classic “Python-style”
reasons. So, here’s what makes it work:
1. It mocks overly formal, bureaucratic systems
The idea that you can *purchase* an argument—like buying a
bus ticket—is already absurd. The sketch exaggerates how institutions can turn
even the most human, spontaneous things (like disagreements) into rigid,
transactional services.
2. Constant subversion of expectations
The customer wants “a proper argument”, but instead gets:
* Mere contradiction
* Abuse
* An endless
redirect through offices
This back-and-forth frustration is funny because it plays
with the audience’s expectations of what an argument “should” be.
3. Wordplay and logical silliness
The humour relies heavily on treating language in an overly
literal way.
For example:
“An argument is just a series of statements intended to
establish a proposition.”
“No, it isn’t.”
“Yes, it is!”
The circular logic is intentionally childish yet delivered
in a very serious tone—that contrast is key to what makes it funny.
4. Deadpan delivery of absurdity
Both characters treat the ridiculous situation with complete
seriousness. A quirky reality I see echoed repeatedly on my social media feed. This
straight-faced approach amplifies the absurd nature of the scenario which is a
*Monty Python* signature.
5. Relatable parody of real arguments
Part of the joke is that many real-life arguments “do” devolve
into contradiction rather than reasoning. The sketch
exaggerates this truth in a way audiences immediately recognise. Moreover, they
recognize it because of the number of times in one’s life you are confronted
with idiotic retort rather than reasoned response.
6. Escalation into nonsense
The customer keeps pushing for something reasonable, but the
dialogue becomes increasingly surreal. The momentum of nonsense keeps building,
which is a common Python comedic tactic.
An example
from experience which is only one of many:
Yesterday in the light of recent revelations from the Epstein
Files and the obvious harm that gender affirming care is actually causing our
children, I noted that the original experiments of transexualizing children
were conducted by none other that Dr. Joseph Mengele. This has resulted in making
today’s multi-billion dollar industry the direct progenitor of Mengele’s heinous
experiments. I pointed out that Epstein and many with whom he was associated
stood to benefit financially from the “gender industrial complex”, were
themselves paedophiles, moreover that Cultural Marxist Gender Theory is a
carefully constructed Neo-Marxist ideology whose aim is to destroy normativity.
My interlocutor responded with among many other remarks with the following, that
I owed a debt of gratitude to Canada and therefore ought not to complain about
my government despite its association with such vile ideological nonsense which
is harming children. Then he went on to state how much happier I was when I was
booking music and playing harmonica. As to the first point my love of country
causes me to defend peace, order and good government not Neo-Marxist
ideological possession. This man was unable to disassociate my love of country from
my concern that my government has become ideologically captured. Secondly, when
you are entertaining a crowd, it is your job to appear happy since the audience
doesn’t attend to be confronted by a depressed nihilist. My happiness therefore
had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. After all are you happy that children
are being driven mad to the point where they murder their own mother then go to
their school to kill their classmates? He was utterly incapable of recognizing
these sad realities as stated facts. This makes me wonder what sexual fantasies
occupy the minds of people who heartily approve of altering the sexual nature
of a child? Such people invariably display an abnormal interest in deviant sexuality.
How to Sharpen
Your Rhetoric: The Three Core Pillars
Aristotle’s classic trio is still the best framework:
1. Ethos — Credibility
People listen to you if they trust you. To build ethos:
* Show you’ve done
your homework — define terms clearly, cite reliable information.
* Acknowledge
uncertainty where appropriate.
* Treat your
opponent’s position fairly before criticising it — this makes you look more
reasonable.
2. Logos — Reasoning
This is where structure matters. Strong arguments usually
follow a clear logical path:
* State your claim
plainly.
* Give reasons that
support that claim.
* Provide evidence
or examples for each reason.
* Anticipate and
address likely objections.
# Avoid:
* Vague
generalisations
* Jumping to
conclusions
* Emotional
overreach
3. Pathos — Emotional Intelligence
This doesn’t mean being theatrical; it means connecting with
the audience’s values and concerns.
* Use relatable
analogies or stories.
* Frame ideas in
terms of what your audience cares about.
* Show empathy —
even when disagreeing.
Key Techniques to Strengthen Your Argumentation
Use precise definitions: Many arguments go wrong
because people are debating different definitions. Clarifying terms early
prevents confusion and strengthens your position.
Ask sharp questions: If someone’s argument is fuzzy,
targeted questions can gently expose weak points:
* “What evidence leads you to that conclusion?”
* “How would this idea work in practice?”
* “Does this follow from your earlier point?”
Use strategic techniques, not aggressive ones.
Use analogies to make abstract points tangible
Analogies help people *see* your point instead of merely
understanding it intellectually.
But keep them tight — strained analogies backfire.
Control structure rather than winning moments
A well-structured argument often beats a flashy
counterpunch.
Keep circling back to your main point: “This is why X
remains the stronger position.”
Stay calm; emotional steadiness is persuasive
Losing composure weakens ethos. Calm delivery signals
confidence and clarity.
Concede small points strategically
Concessions show honesty and often strengthens your larger
position: “I agree that X is a concern; however, it doesn’t outweigh Y.”
Exercises
to Improve Rhetorical Skill:
1. The 30‑second argument
Practise summarising your position in half a minute. This sharpens clarity and prevents rambling.
2. Devil’s advocate
Argue the opposite of what you believe.
This forces you to understand the structure of both sides —
a huge boost to your rhetorical precision.
3. Rewrite messy arguments
Take a sloppy opinion piece or social media rant and rewrite
it as a crisp argument.
This builds discipline.
For example:
* Improve rhetoric
for workplace discussions
* Prepare for formal
debates
* Strengthen
persuasive writing
* Learn to dismantle
flawed arguments politely
Postmodernism has made the precise use of language needed to
debate impossible since it posits that language is a tool of oppression and
power. It asserts that words do not actually mean what the dictionary says they
mean. I know, this sounds incredible, which is why normal people find it so impossible
to comprehend where their ideological opponents are coming from or even find it
hard to understand what they have said since they appear to contradict themselves.
Hence my allusion to the Monty Python skit. If you cannot reason with another
using effective rhetoric without insulting them to get your point across then it
is no wonder that we have been captured by what Evolutionary Psychologist Dr.
Gad Saad has called suicidal empathy. Here is the overview from his new book Suicidal
Empathy: Dying to be Kind https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/suicidal-empathy-dying-to-be-kind/9780063446533.html
“The bestselling author of The Parasitic Mind shows
why empathy in politics leads to civilizational collapse.
What happens when a society elevates victimhood to a virtue and decides that
punishment is cruel? You get the disease Dr. Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy.
And the West may be terminally infected.
In his new book, Suicidal Empathy, Saad unleashes a blistering critique of
maladaptively irrational altruism that has gripped our culture. This mind
parasite hijacked the empathy module of our progressive elite, leading to a
catastrophic miscalibration of moral priorities. The results are everywhere:
from coddling violent criminals to protecting rapists to branding self-defense
as toxic behavior. We are witnessing a civilization in rapid decline. Lunatic
policies are instituted because we prioritize the feelings of ostensibly
marginalized groups over The Truth, criminals over victims, and squatters over
homeowners. This is not humane; it’s an active dismantling of the pillars that
keep us safe and free.
This crisis of empathy creates a horrifying system of inverse morality where
the strong and successful are demonized, and the destructive are celebrated.
Just look at the insane inversions we tolerate daily: we prefer illegal
migrants over our own legal citizens and veterans, permit drug addicts to
threaten children’s safety in parks, and elevate transgender 'women' above
biological women in sports and safe spaces. Common sense is dying in a deluge
of misguided compassion.
Suicidal Empathy is your wake-up call. Stop ignoring your survival
instincts in the name of political correctness. This isn't just misguided policy;
it is the ultimate expression of a culture actively choosing its own demise.”
So says Dr. Saad and so say I !
No comments:
Post a Comment