In the Fifth Circle, for causes too complex to discuss here, we long ago
determined that the appropriate way in which arguments must be conducted
and adjudicated is through proper reasoning. It is important to note
that in making this decision we, in effect, rejected various other
traditional ways in which arguments had been dealt with (e.g., by
appeals to scriptural authority or to traditional rituals based on
hereditary power and privilege or to variously irrational methods, like
astrology, augury, spiritual revelation, dunking, and so on).

Thus, to construct effective arguments in the world of today, one must,
first and foremost, have an understanding of the rules of reasoning. Of
course, we are a liberal society, and we still allow people in their
private lives to resolve their arguments or make their private decisions
(which often amounts to much the same thing) in any manner they wish. So
it is quite permissible in one's private affairs to consult scripture,
toss coins, use numerology, or consult spirit mediums in order to
resolve private arguments (once again, however, all participants have to
agree if the resolution is to be persuasive and thus secure agreement
among a group of people).

In the public world of organisation, politics, and education, however,
the primary requirement of an effective argument in our modern
pluralistic society is that it must be rational (that is, follow the
rules of reason). Of course, in this public world there is often a great
deal of irrationality (e.g., in political speeches and in dogma). An
important part of being an educated shard is possessing the skill to
recognize this irrationality, especially when it is posing as a
reasonable argument, since manipulating shards through misleading
arguments is a major feature of modern life.

Penned by My hand on the 12th of Avechary, in the year 134 CE.