The Medieval Disputation

The Scholastic Method of Inquiry

My absolute favorite writing exercise is that of employing the Scholastic Method through Disputation. The purpose of this post is to introduce you to this great writing assignment so that you may practice it personally or give it to your own students. This is a format which is perhaps most well known because of the work of Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. But we actually see it all over the place in the writings of great men since the Middle Ages even if in more prosaic and less wooden fashion. John Calvin, for instance, uses this method for his Institutes of the Christian Religion he just does so in a less obvious way. This method was developed to help think through all the different aspects of a question (or topic) and to argue in favor or against each possible answer to the given question(s) while also anticipating an responding to objections from opponents.

To begin this exercise with you simply need a “question” or topic for inquiry. You can do this with just about anything. If for instance, we take “The existence of God” as our question/topic we would begin by enumerating aspects of this questions which need considered. These different aspects are called “articles.” In this case we might suggest the following as articles:

1. Whether or not such a being exists.

2. Whether or not such a being exists necessarily.

3. Whether perfection is a necessary quality of such a being.

4. What are the perfections of God?

5. Whether these perfections are one or many?

6. Etc.

We could certainly list more articles and various people performing this same exercise on the same questions will likely enumerate a different set of articles with only some overlap. This, in itself, will allow students and teachers to have a good discussion as to whose list covers the ground best or most comprehensively.

Once you have enumerated your articles for the question under discussion you then take the first of these articles and write a disputation over it. The first part of the disputation is the listing of “Objections” to your position. In the case of our first article above I would affirm the existence of God, so the objections I give will be objections against God’s existence. For this exercise to be most fruitful it is necessary that our objections be as good as possible. We ought not to pull punches or lob easy pitches across the plate. If we can list the best possible objections against our position, and then defeat them with reason, we are all the more prepared by this exercise to make our case. Whether it is in private discussion, essay writing, or speech giving, disputations are a powerhouse way to prepare.

Here is a sample objection to my affirmation of the existence of God:

Objection 1: It would seem that the presence of gratuitous suffering in the world undermines the idea that God exists. For if God is good then he would want to end suffering. If God is powerful then he would be able to stop suffering. If God is all knowing then he would be able to anticipate suffering. Therefore God does not exist.

If I were to work out this disputation in full I would also list several other objections but this will suffice for the sake of demonstration.

The next part of the disputation is the “On the Contrary” section. This section is “contrary” to the objections you have just listed against your position. It is also a quote from an authoritative source which speaks in favor of your position on the article. For example:

“Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” Job 1:20-22

This quote works well, even if it requires a bit more explanation. The way Aquinas uses this section of the disputation often assumes his reader is aware of the wider context of the quote. The Christian who reads this, or at least the Bible literate person who reads this, will know that Job never got a full answer to why he suffered so greatly but that God did indeed have a reason and a purpose for it. Hence suffering which may seem meaningless to us may actually have purpose.

Scripture is a great resource for this section of the disputation because the Scripture is not only a great source of authority but also because it speaks to practically all issues of importance in this life. That being said, you may also quote other authorities in this section. Historians, philosophers, theologians, politicians, literary wisdom, etc. The main idea is that the quote reinforces your position and that it comes from a source that is respected and which has something meaningful to say on the matter. One should not quote Homer Simpson or Taylor Swift in a disputation but Homer (as in the author of the Iliad and Odyssey) or Jonathan Swift would be great if they have something to say which is fitting to the topic.

For this same “on the contrary” I could have decided to go with a philosophic take and instead quoted:

“It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things.” -Aristotle

Again this alludes to the greater body of work of Aristotle wherein he argues for the existence of God as an “unmoved mover” who is perfectly good and unchanging and in whom all other things find the ground of their being.

The next section is the “I answer that.” This is the part where you write your own argument in favor of your position. So for this article I might say something like this:

The existence of God is certain and demonstrable in numerous ways and is nowise diminished by the arguments against it. First, God’s existence may be demonstrated by the finitude of the time, space, and matter. Second, the existence of God may be demonstrated by the existence objective moral values. Third, the existence of God may be demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. Fourth, God’s existence may be demonstrated by coming to understand the impossibility of his non existence once it is understood what is meant by “God.” Fifth, God’s existence may be immediately confirmed by coming to know him personally through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the first demonstration….

Concerning the second….

Etc…

I know, I know, you are dripping with disappointment that I abbreviated this. But for the sake of brevity of instruction it would go well beyond usefulness to do so here. I do discuss, in brief, the fourth argument (known as the Ontological Argument) HERE if you care to check it out. I will probably discuss all of these arguments and others at length at some point in the Thinking Christianly newsletter.

Once you have finished your “I answer that” the only thing left to do is directly reply to each objection you listed at the outset. Your “I answer that” may have partially, or even largely, defeated those objections but it is not the point of that section to directly or intentionally respond to them. Rather your “I answer that” should simply make a positive case for your position without direct consideration of the objections. But once you have made your case it is left to you to clean up after yourself by sweeping away the remaining pieces of your opponents arguments. So, for our case study:

Reply to Objection 1: It is impossible to prove that any suffering in the world is actually gratuitous. For as mortals we are necessarily limited in our knowledge and understanding. Often times what is a complete mystery to us, or even that which might seem like an injustice to us, is completely changed by the revelation of a little bit more information. It may be that suffering in the world, both of humans and animals, may be towards some greater end even when that end is hidden from us.

Further, the notion that gratuitous suffering is a strike against the existence of god seems to entail a value judgment of the sort, “Gratuitous suffering is bad and ought not to be allowed.” Such value judgments are impossible in a world without God because they lack sufficient grounding to make statements like these objectively true. Thus this objection is ultimately self defeating because if it is true then it it also false and if false then false. Therefore this objection ends up being another demonstration of God’s existence.

Once you have replied to as many objection as you have listed then you have completed your disputation on the given article.

Obviously this can be a major undertaking. It’s not hard to see that this can be time consuming and nearly endless. That is both the joy and curse of inquiry. Every answer leads to more questions, every good response requires another. But the fruit of this exercise is incalculable as an exercise of logic and rhetoric. The material from a disputation essentially involves numerous pieces of the Greek progymnasmata (exercises of writing) and synthesizes them together. The work you and your students may do in a disputation is easily made use of for a thesis paper or a speech on the same topic.

If you have any questions that you need answered please don’t hesitate to ask and I’ll assist you as best as I may. Below is an example of another disputation on a more “just for fun” topic which hopefully will show you the range of use you can put disputations to with your students (or just for fun on your own). Enjoy!

Disputation: What is to be done with the One Ring?

Setting: The council of Elrond in Rivendell. (From The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien)

Articles:

1. Should the One Ring be hidden?

2. Should the One Ring be used?

3. Should the One Ring be destroyed?

4. Should a hobbit be the ring bearer?

Article 1: Should the One Ring be hidden?

Objection 1: The ring was safely out of reach of the Dark Lord Saurun for thousands of years because he did not know where it was. Such being the case it seems that the main objective should be to hide the ring once again so that Sauron has no knowledge of its location.

On the Contrary:  “For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light.” (Mark 4:22)

I answer that: As long as the ring exists the evil Lord Sauron will be a plague to Middle Earth. His very lifeforce is bound to the ring and if it is not ever destroyed then neither will Sauron ever be truly destroyed. Further, even without the ring Sauron has gained back great strength in Mordor and threatens to overrun the kingdoms of Middle Earth. It is not at all certain that Sauron will fail to conquer the world even without the ring. The only course of action which offers real hope for a future for the free peoples of Middle Earth is to see the ring destroyed and Sauron utterly defeated beyond hope of return. All of this being considered it is the right course of action to try to destroy the ring once and for all. 

Reply to Objection 1: The ring was only safely out of Sauron’s reach while he was in a significantly weakened state but he had now gained back great strength and there is no guarantee that the ring could be hidden adequately nor perpetually from his growing power.

Article 2: Should the One Ring be Used?

Objection 1: The One Ring is also called “the ring of power” for a reason. It gives great power to anyone who wields it. Such being the case it seems that the ring should be given to someone who is already powerful and also good so that they may directly oppose Lord Sauron.

On the Contrary:  “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Paul the Apostle (Romans 12:21)

I answer that: The One Ring is inherently evil and evil can never be legitimately used to accomplish good. Whatever means is used as an attempt to defeat the dark Lord must not lead us down a path which makes us just as bad as that which we are trying to defeat. So the One Ring should not be used.

Reply to Objection 1: While on the face of things it seems to make sense to give more power to a good and powerful person, ultimately the nature of the ring would corrupt even such a one. All evidence suggests that every person who has held the ring has been significantly negatively affected by it. The more powerful the person is to begin with the more dangerous it is to give them the One Ring.

Article 3: Should the One Ring be Destroyed?

Objection 1: It would seem that destroying One Ring is too risky because it would require us to bring the ring to Mordor.

Objection 2: It would seem that hiding the One Ring from Sauron is less of a risk than attempting to destroy it.

Objection 3: It would seem that using the One Ring against Sauron is less risky than trying to destroy it.

On the Contrary: “Fortune favors the bold.” - Pliny the Younger (Eruption of Vesuvius)

I answer that: All options available to us concerning the One Ring require risks to be taken. Of the options available to us seeking to destroy the ring may be riskier than hiding it, but it is not riskier than using it. Further, as has been said above, the likelihood that the ring could be effectively hidden at this point is doubtful, and the idea of using the ring is far too dangerous. All things considered the risk of attempting to destroy the ring is at worst just as risky as the other options but it offers, by far, the greatest reward if success is granted to our endeavor. Such being the case, an attempt to destroy the ring by taking it to Mordor and casting it into Mt. Doom is the best option.

Reply to Objection 1: The risk attempting to destroy the One Ring is outweighed by the benefits of successfully accomplishing the task. Further, the alternatives are also risky but offer less benefits if chosen and, indeed, may lead to further problems.

Reply to Objection 2: See Article 1.

Reply to Objection 3: See Article 2.

Article 4: Should a hobbit be the ring bearer?

Objection 1: It would seem better that an Elf should be the ring bearer for they are far wiser than hobbits.

Objection 2: It would seem better that a Dwarf should be the ring bearer for they are better fighters than hobbits.

Objection 3: It would seem better that a Man should be the ring bearer for they are braver than hobbits.

Objection 4: It would seem better that a Wizard should be the ring bearer for they are more powerful than hobbits or any other race on Middle Earth and therefore have the best chance to overcome Sauron’s might and magic.

On the Contrary: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are” The Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:27-28)

I answer that: Hobbits have many valuable qualities which are often overlooked. Because of their size and simple way of life most would not think of a hobbit as the ideal creature to carry the One Ring to Mordor. Nevertheless, one of the defining qualities of hobbits is their love of life’s simplicities and humble way of life. Because of this they are not as easily tempted by greed for wealth or power. The One Ring plays off of the desires of the bearer to warp and twist their wills to its own purposes but the desires of hobbits are more innocent and humble than any other race of Middle Earth. Hobbits have proven to be more resilient (see Bilbo in The Hobbit) to the effects of the ring due to their lack of greed for worldly wisdom, power, and wealth. Further, hobbits have a way of going unnoticed which is a valuable quality on this mission given that the most likely way to succeed in destroying the One Ring is to go into Mordor undetected.. 

Reply to Objection 1: While it may be true that elves are generally wiser than hobbits, wisdom is a quality which may be easily warped into the vice of arrogance. This makes elves more susceptible to the effects of the one ring. So, an elf is not the best choice for a ring bearer.

Reply to Objection 2: Dwarves are undoubtedly better fighters than hobbits being a warlike race. Nonetheless, dwarves have a long track record of being greedy for gold and jewels and this desire seems to lurk in the hearts of even the most virtuous dwarves. This desire would be most easily twisted by the power of the One Ring making a dwarf an ill suited candidate to bear the ring to Mordor.

Reply to Objection 3: Men do indeed excel in the virtue of courage in Middle Earth. Nonetheless, they are also known for their desire for power, power to rule. Even those who would desire to rule justly would be easily warped by the One Ring’s power and would justify great evils in pursuit of the greater good. By the time the enemy was defeated they would be just like him. So, a man should not be the ring bearer.

Reply to Objection 4: A wizard wielding the One Ring is indeed the most likely candidate to defeat Sauron in a head on attack. The power of the One Ring combined with the power of a wizard would be great and terrible indeed, but, once again, it would twist the bearers desires and corrupt them turning them into something possibly even worse than Sauron. The greater the power one has initially, the more power the ring has to corrupt. So a wizard should not be the ring bearer.