The Argument Sketch

Have you ever seen Monty Python's classic Argument Sketch? A customer comes in for an argument. "I'd like to have an argument, please." He mistakenly walks into the wrong room and is yelled at, but then clears it up. "I came here for an argument!!" "Oh, I'm sorry! This is abuse." And he finally ends up in the right room for an argument.

Most of the argument is a back and forth where one or the other makes a claim and the opponent denies it. "Yes it is". "No, it isn't." "Yes it is". "No, it isn't." Finally the customer complains. "This isn't an argument ... It's just contradiction!" He asserts, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." ("No, it isn't." "Yes it is". "No, it isn't.") The customer goes on to say, "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." It is a short and humorous routine. Not as good as the Dead Parrot routine, of course, but it makes me laugh.

I shouldn't, of course. That's because it's too close to home. How many times does it happen in real life? A lot.

"You know, the Bible says that it's a sin for a man to lie with a man as with a woman." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does."

"I read in my Bible that husbands and wives have different commands and roles to play." "No, they don't." "Yes, they do."

"All references in Scripture to marriage are always in terms of male and female without exception." "No, they're not." "Yes, they are."

And then it seems to go in reverse.

They will say something like, "It may look like it says what you think it says, but it actually means something different." And I'll answer, "But, my position lines up with the text, the context, and the history of the Church's understanding of the passage in question." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does."

You get the idea. Much like that Monty Python skit, they rarely offer any genuine evidence for their contradiction (using the Monty Python definition for "contradiction"). They don't address the questions raised or answer the problems their suggestions require. Then, they assume that the argument is settled. They've made their point. Argument concluded. Now ... how can you possibly hold your position in an irrational manner like that when we've already settled that it's wrong?

You know, I really begin to wonder exactly what a "compelling argument" really looks like.