Argument Bureau Replaces Logic With Contradiction to Extract Added Fee

palestne

A client seeking structured debate receives only automatic contradiction from a provider who halts the session early and denies taking payment.

AI-assisted summary of Argument - Monty Python — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2017-10-07

Key ideas

A specialized service bureau offers professional arguments at a standard rate of £1 for a five-minute session or £8 for a package of ten. (0:00)
The client attempts to enforce an intellectual standard for debate, defining an argument as a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition rather than mere automatic contradiction. (1:25)
The session concludes in a circular payment paradox when the practitioner denies receiving payment for an extension, neutralizing the client's logical trap by claiming he could be arguing in his spare time. (2:35)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by palestne on October 7, 2017, this video features the classic Monty Python sketch titled "Argument," noting in the description that some scenes have been cut.

## TL;DR A customer visits a specialized clinic seeking a paid intellectual debate and purchases a single five-minute session for one pound. He is directed to Mr. Barnard in Room 12, who immediately launches into a rapid series of blunt, knee-jerk contradictions rather than engaging in reasoned discourse. When the customer tries to explain that an argument requires a connected series of statements rather than automatic gainsaying, a bell rings to conclude his paid time. The customer pays another pound to dispute the timing, only for Barnard to deny receiving the money and deflect every attempt at logical resolution until the exasperated client gives up.

## Atmosphere & style The sketch carries a trademark blend of dry, bureaucratic absurdity and rapid-fire verbal sparring. Deadpan professional composure clashes hilariously with the client's mounting exasperation and intellectual desperation. Watching it feels like getting trapped in a maddening linguistic loop, where clinical punctuality and stubborn literalism completely unravel ordinary logic.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) A specialized service bureau offers professional arguments at a standard rate of £1 for a five-minute session or £8 for a package of ten. - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) The client attempts to enforce an intellectual standard for debate, defining an argument as a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition rather than mere automatic contradiction. - [02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=155s) The session concludes in a circular payment paradox when the practitioner denies receiving payment for an extension, neutralizing the client's logical trap by claiming he could be arguing in his spare time.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) A client visits a specialized bureau specifically seeking to purchase a professional argument. - [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=12s) The bureau's pricing structure offers single five-minute sessions for £1 and a discounted course of ten for £8. - [00:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=25s) Staff member Mr. DeBakey is deemed unsuitable for argument duty because he is too conciliatory. - [00:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=33s) The client is directed to Room 12 to hold his session with Mr. Barnard. - [00:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=39s) Mr. Barnard initiates the interaction immediately with hostile, contradictory denial before even verifying the booking. - [00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=53s) Mr. Barnard pauses briefly to confirm whether the client purchased a five-minute argument or the full half-hour. - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) The client objects to simple denial, defining an argument as a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=108s) The client distinguishes debate from contradiction, defining contradiction as mere automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says. - [01:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=115s) Mr. Barnard contradicts the customer's definitions directly, embodying the exact reflexive denial under criticism. - [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=131s) A desk bell abruptly halts the consultation, and Mr. Barnard refuses to continue without additional payment under staff regulations. - [02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=155s) The client pays an additional pound to continue, but Mr. Barnard immediately denies having received the money. - [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=164s) The client attempts to catch Mr. Barnard in a contradiction by pointing out that arguing proves payment was made. - [02:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=168s) Mr. Barnard evades the logical trap by asserting that he could simply be arguing in his spare time. - [02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=174s) Frustrated by the circular futility of the exchange, the customer gives up, only to be contradicted one final time.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) Booking an Argument

A man arrives at the reception desk of a professional service bureau and politely announces that he would like to have an argument. The receptionist inquires whether he has ever visited the establishment before, and upon learning that it is his first time, asks if he wants a single session or is considering taking a full course. When the customer asks about the rates, the receptionist breaks down the pricing structure: “It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.” Weighing his options, the customer decides that it is best to purchase a single five-minute session first to see how it goes before committing to anything further.

The receptionist checks the staff roster to see who is available. While Mr. DeBakey is technically free, the receptionist dismisses him on the grounds that he is rather too conciliatory for the job. Instead, the receptionist directs the customer down the hall to consult Mr. Barnard in Room 12.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Client intake and routing flow accDescr: Diagram showing client pricing choice and staff routing to Room 12.

subgraph Intake ["Intake & Pricing"] A["Client requests argument"] --> B{"Course or Single?"} B -->|"Single Session"| C["£1 for 5 minutes"] B -->|"Course Package"| D["£8 for course of 10"] end

subgraph Staffing ["Staff Assignment"] C --> E{"Check availability"} E -->|"Mr. DeBakey"| F["Rejected: Too conciliatory"] E -->|"Mr. Barnard"| G["Assigned: Room 12"] end ```

[00:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=39s) Defining an Argument vs. Mere Contradiction

The man knocks on the door of Room 12 and enters, asking whether this is the correct room for an argument. Mr. Barnard immediately barks that he has already told him once. When the client denies having been told, the two launch into a rapid, petty volley of “Yes, I did” and “No, you didn't.” Before proceeding further, Mr. Barnard breaks character for a split second to confirm the booking details, asking, “I'm sorry, is this a five-minute argument or the full half-hour?” Once the client confirms it is just the five-minute argument, the professional promptly resumes the hostile barrage, insisting adamantly that he already gave him directions.

Exasperated by the flat denials, the customer protests that simple knee-jerk disagreement does not constitute a legitimate service. He points out that he came for a genuine intellectual debate rather than mindless opposition, prompting Mr. Barnard to claim that arguing inherently requires adopting a contrary stance. The customer pushes back, arguing that real debate requires structured logic rather than mechanical denial: “An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.” When Mr. Barnard simply replies that it is not, the customer elaborates on the philosophical difference, declaring, “Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.” Mr. Barnard flatly contradicts even this definition.

- **Session duration confirmed**: A 5-minute booking rather than a full half-hour session. - **The client's distinction**: An argument is an intellectual process built on propositions, whereas contradiction is merely reflexive negation.

[02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=131s) The Five Minutes Expire and the Payment Paradox

Midway through the client's sentence, a small desk bell rings and Mr. Barnard abruptly terminates the session with a cheerful “Thank you.” Bewildered, the client protests that he was just getting interested and objects that five minutes could not possibly have elapsed already. Mr. Barnard refuses to continue, informing him that staff regulations prohibit him from arguing any further unless the customer pays for an additional five minutes. Highly irritated, the client relents, pulls out his money, and hands over another pound.

The moment the cash changes hands, the client tries to resume his complaint that the initial five minutes had not actually passed. Mr. Barnard immediately stone-walls him by repeating that he cannot argue until the customer pays. When the customer insists that he literally just handed over the money, Mr. Barnard denies ever receiving it. Delighted, the client believes he has finally trapped his adversary in an inescapable logical paradox: “Well, if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Got you.” Mr. Barnard calmly dismantles the trap by retorting, “Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.” Utterly defeated and fed up with the circular frustration, the client announces he has had enough, to which Mr. Barnard reflexively contradicts him one last time.

## Notable quotes > [00:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=39s) An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. — The customer

> [00:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=39s) Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. — The customer

## Mentioned Monty Python, Mr. DeBakey, Mr. Barnard, Room 12

## Video description Argument by Monty Python with some scenes cut

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ)

中文简报

辩论局以盲目反驳取代逻辑以索取额外费用一名寻求结构化辩论的客户只遭遇了服务提供方的机械式反驳，对方提前结束服务并否认收取过费用。一名顾客前往一家专业机构寻求付费的智力辩论，并花费一英镑购买了一次五分钟的单次服务。他被引荐至12号房间的巴纳德先生处，但对方并未展开理性探讨，而是立即发起了一连串生硬、本能的反驳。当顾客试图解释辩论需要一系列相互关联的陈述而非机械式否定时，提示付费时间结束的铃声响起。顾客又付了一英镑想要质疑计时问题，但巴纳德却否认收到了钱，并化解了所有通过逻辑解决问题的尝试，最终导致心力交瘁的客户放弃争辩。一家专业服务机构提供有偿辩论，标准收费为5分钟1英镑，或10次套餐8英镑。 (0:00) 客户试图为辩论设定一种智力标准，将辩论定义为旨在确立某种命题的一系列相互关联的陈述，而非单纯的盲目反驳。 (1:25) 当从业人员否认收到用于延时的费用时，该场辩论陷入了循环的付款悖论，对方声称自己可能是在业余时间进行辩论，从而化解了客户设立的逻辑陷阱。 (2:35)

Reading summary

The sketch portrays dispute as a commodified professional service, examining the friction between structured intellectual debate and reflexive contradiction under rigid commercial constraints. Commercial Intake and Staff Allocation (0:00) The service bureau operates debate as a structured consumer transaction, offering clients a single five-minute session for £1 or a package of ten sessions for £8. The intake process screens providers by temperament; Mr. DeBakey is disqualified from conducting the session on the grounds of being excessively conciliatory, leading the receptionist to assign the first-time customer to Mr. Barnard in Room 12. Logical Debate Versus Mechanical Contradiction (0:39) The encounter quickly centers on contrasting definitions of debate. The client maintains that a legitimate argument consists of a connected series of statements designed to establish a definite proposition, distinguishing this from mere contradiction, which he characterizes as the automatic gainsaying of an opposing party's claims. Mr. Barnard rejects the distinction and offers flat denials, treating continuous opposition itself as the billable service. Contractual Expiration and the Payment Paradox (2:11) Upon the sounding of the five-minute bell, Mr. Barnard halts the session, citing bureau regulations that forbid arguing further without payment for another interval. When the client hands over an additional pound, Mr. Barnard immediately denies having received the money. The client attempts to trap him in a logical contradiction by arguing that continuing to dispute the transaction proves payment occurred, but Mr. Barnard evades the trap by asserting he could be arguing in his personal spare time. The scenario concludes with the client departing in defeat, demonstrating how rigid procedural rules and reflexive negation completely subvert genuine intellectual discourse.

精炼阅读摘要

该记录呈现了一名顾客在专业机构购买“争辩服务”的荒诞经历，揭示了理性逻辑论证与机械性反驳之间的本质对立，以及服务商业化过程中衍生的履约悖论。争辩服务的商品化规程与人员配置 (0:00) 在该机构的业务框架下，争辩被转化为按时计费的标准商品。前台接待处给出的官方报价显示，单次5分钟争辩的收费为1英镑，而包含10次课的套餐售价为8英镑。初次到访的顾客因考量体验效果，决定先行购买1英镑的5分钟单次服务。在人员分配方面，前台在查看排班时直接排除了处于空闲状态的Mr. DeBakey，明确认为其性格过于温和、善于妥协，因而无法胜任争辩岗位，最终指引顾客前往12号房间接受Mr. Barnard的服务。理性命题论证与条件反射式否定的冲突 (0:39) 进入房间后，顾客随即陷入无休止的言语对立，迫使双方在确认所购服务仅为5分钟而非半小时后展开实质交锋。面对Mr. Barnard近乎本能的对立态度，顾客明确抗议机械否定不能算作合法的专业服务，并提出了两者的哲学界限：真正的争辩应当是“为确立明确命题而形成的一系列相互关联的陈述”，属于智力推演过程；而反驳则仅仅是“对他人所说的一切进行条件反射式的自动否定”。然而，Mr. Barnard主张争辩本质上就是采取相反立场，并直接对这一界定本身再次予以否定。计费截点、收费争议与逻辑陷阱的拆解 (2:11) 当桌面铃声响起，Mr. Barnard以5分钟已到为由突兀中止服务，并依据员工规章强调，若不额外支付5分钟的费用便不得继续。在顾客妥协并掏出1英镑现金后，Mr. Barnard却瞬间翻脸否认收到过款项。顾客见状试图构建逻辑归谬陷阱反唇相讥，主张如果自己没有付款，对方此刻便缺乏继续争辩的前提；但Mr. Barnard随即辩称自己可能是在利用业余时间争辩，轻易打破了这一逻辑闭环，迫使顾客在疲惫中放弃交涉。该过程表明，当沟通一方单方面拒绝遵循逻辑推演规则、退守于纯粹的机械否定时，任何试图通过归谬法或事实界定建立的理性探讨都将失效，使交流退化为不可调和的语言循环。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 palestne 于 2017 年 10 月 7 日发布。页面描述显示，这是蒙提·派森（Monty Python）经典喜剧小品《争吵》（Argument）的剪辑版本，删减了部分场景。 ## TL;DR 一名顾客前往专门提供怪诞服务的机构付费购买“争吵”服务，在前台了解价格后被引荐到12号房间与巴纳德先生对质。房间内的争论员从一开始便机械性地否定顾客所说的一切事实，迫使顾客认真试图探讨“真正的争论是理性智力过程”与单纯“无理抬杠”的区别。随着首个5分钟时长耗尽，顾客加钱续费，却立刻陷入争论员矢口否认收到付款的逻辑死循环，最终在对方荒谬的脱身借口中精疲力竭、彻底崩溃。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片充斥着典型的英式荒诞与冷面幽默（deadpan），将严肃刻板的官僚办事流程与毫无逻辑的纯粹杠精行为并置，产生强烈的荒谬感。争论员极其冷静从容甚至带有一丝职业公事公办的冷漠，与顾客逐渐从困惑、较真走向歇斯底里崩溃的情绪弧线形成鲜明反差，让观众在拍案叫绝的逻辑死循环和语言游戏中体验到既窒息又滑稽的观感。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) 荒诞喜剧短剧《争吵诊所》展示了将“争吵”商品化的极端场景：机构明码标价，单次5分钟争吵收费1英镑，10次完整课程打包优惠价为8英镑。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 短剧探讨了争论的本质定义，顾客主张争论是建立明确命题的严谨智力过程，而争论员则将其降解为单纯机械式的逢言必反与无理抬杠。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 服务计费与专业身份的自相矛盾构成荒谬闭环：争论员在收到加时费后立即否认收钱，并用“正利用业余时间免费争辩”化解了顾客的逻辑反诘。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) 前台将争论作为标准服务项目销售，单次5分钟收费1英镑，10次套餐收费8英镑。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) 机构内部根据员工性格分工，因德贝基先生容易妥协，顾客被指引至12号房间找巴纳德先生。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) 争辩在顾客进门未坐稳时即刻展开，争论员凭空坚称自己已告知过顾客房间用途以挑起矛盾。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) 争论员在激战正酣时突然暂停争吵以核对订单时长，展现出高度职业化与荒谬行径的滑稽反差。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 顾客提出争论的学术定义：争论是为确立明确命题而展开的一系列连贯陈述的智力交锋。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 争论员拒绝理性探讨，将所谓的辩论彻底降格为针对对方任何观点的机械性自动反驳。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 时间一到争论员即刻摇铃停止服务，坚决拒绝在未付费情况下超时工作哪怕一秒。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 顾客追加付费后，争论员立即将争论焦点转移至“顾客根本没付钱”的事实抵赖上。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 顾客试图利用因果闭环将死对方，主张“你在和我吵”本身就是“已收到款项”的铁证。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 争论员声称自己可能是在利用业余私人时间无偿争论，成功以无赖逻辑打破顾客的推理，致使顾客崩溃。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=0s) 购买争吵服务与进入12号房间一名顾客走入一家专门提供各种怪诞服务的机构前台，平静地表示自己想要购买一次“争吵”服务。接待员十分公事公办地询问他是否曾来过此处，得知顾客是初次光临后，便热情地介绍起收费标准：单次5分钟的争吵收费1英镑，而包含10次争吵的完整课程套餐优惠价仅需8英镑。顾客决定先花1英镑试水一次，看看体验如何再做打算。接待员随即核对当值员工的空档，发现德贝基先生（Mr. DeBakey）虽然有空，但他性格“稍微有点太容易妥协了”，于是转而引荐顾客前往12号房间找巴纳德先生（Mr. Barnard）。敲门进入12号房间后，争论在顾客甚至还没坐稳时就骤然爆发。当顾客询问这里是否是进行争吵的房间时，端坐桌后的专业争论员头也不抬地宣称自己刚才已经告诉过他一次了。两人立刻陷入了“你说了”与“你没说”的拉锯战。正当气氛逐渐升温时，争论员突然极具职业素养地停下来核对订单细节：“I'm sorry, is this a five-minute argument or the full half-hour?” 顾客回答只是5分钟的短程服务。确认时间后，争论员瞬间无缝切回刚才的针锋相对，以毫不讲理的肯定语气继续坚称自己刚才绝对告知过了，把毫无意义的单字反驳演绎得煞有介事。 - 价格体系：单次5分钟争吵收费1英镑；10次争吵打包课程收费8英镑。 - 人员分配：德贝基先生因过于温和妥协被排除，最终选定12号房间的巴纳德先生。 ### [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) 什么是真正的争论：智力交锋还是无理反驳？面对争论员一味机械否定事实的做法，顾客逐渐感到恼火，指出单纯的嘴硬并不是真正的辩论。顾客认真地阐述辩论的本质：“An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.” 他强调，进行争论固然需要采取相反立场，但绝不等于像复读机一样无论对方说什么都只回答“不，不是这样”。在顾客看来，争论是一种严谨的智力活动过程，而争论员现在干的不过是自动驳斥他人一切观点的抬杠把戏。然而，争论员对这番严肃的学术界定毫不买账，依然用最敷衍的“不，不是”轻飘飘地顶了回去。正当顾客被彻底激起辩论欲望、试图进一步深入理论时，争论员桌上的铃声骤然响起，争论员立刻恢复客气冷淡的态度宣布5分钟时间已到。顾客大为震惊，坚信刚才撑死不过才过去了一瞬间，但争论员坚持表示没有额外付费自己绝不超时工作。无奈之下，顾客掏出现金补交了下一个5分钟的费用。可当顾客试图回到刚才的话题时，争论员却立刻耍赖称顾客根本没有付钱。顾客自以为抓住了对方逻辑上的致命漏洞，得意地质问：“Well, if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Got you.” 顾客断言既然争论员还在跟自己争吵，就证明自己肯定已经付过钱了。争论员却面不改色地给出了荒谬的完美脱身借口——自己完全有可能只是在用业余业余私人时间无偿争论。精疲力竭的顾客最终彻底崩溃离场。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 争吵诊所的逻辑死循环 accDescr: 展示顾客付钱后与争吵员陷入的无休止悖论逻辑循环 A["顾客付费继续辩论"] --> B["争论员否认收到付款"] B --> C["顾客反诘：'没付钱你为什么跟我吵？'"] C --> D{"争吵是否正在发生？"} D -- "是，说明已付款" --> E["争论员辩称：'我是在用业余时间免费吵'"] D -- "否，陷入自我否定" --> B E --> F["顾客崩溃放弃，争辩终止"] ``` - 核心概念冲突：顾客主张“争论是建立命题的理性连贯陈述”（Intellectual process），争论员则将其降格为“自动否定一切对方言论的机械反对”（Gainsaying）。 - 逻辑圈套与化解：顾客企图用“你在跟我吵 = 我付了钱”的因果闭环将死对方，争论员则搬出“业余自愿加班争辩”打破了收费与提供服务的因果绑定。 ## Notable quotes > [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=85s) An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. — 顾客 ## Mentioned Monty Python, 德贝基先生 (Mr. DeBakey), 巴纳德先生 (Mr. Barnard) ## Video description Argument by Monty Python with some scenes cut [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ)

Source quotes

[1:25] 顾客: An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

Source quotes

[0:39] The customer: An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. [0:39] The customer: Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Original transcript

[0:00] Yes, sir? I'd like to have an argument, please. Sir, have you been here before? No, this is my first time. I see. Do you want to have the full argument? Or were you thinking of taking a course? Well, what would be the cost? It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten. Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and see how it goes from there, okay? Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment. I Mr. DeBakey is but he's a little bit conciliatory. Yes, sir. Try Mr. Barnard, room 12. Thank you. Coming! Is this the right room for an argument? I've told you once - No, you haven't. - Yes, I haven't. When? Just now. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. You didn't. I didn't. I'm not telling you I did. You did not. I'm sorry, is this a five-minute argument or the full half-hour? Oh, oh, just the five minute one. Fine. Thank you. Anyway, I did. You most certainly did not. Now, let's get one thing quite clear. I most definitely told you. You did not? Yes I did. You did not? Yes I did. Didn't? Yes I did. Didn't? Yes I did. Look, this is an argument. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. It's just contradiction. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. It is not. It is. You just contradicted me. No, I didn't. Oh, you did. No, no, no, no, no, no. You did just then. No, no, no, nonsense. Oh, look, this is futile. No, it isn't. I gave me a good argument. No you didn't, you gave me a good argument. Well an argument is not the same as contradiction. Can be? No, it can't. An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. It isn't just contradiction. Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. But it isn't just saying, no, it isn't. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Argument's an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic game saying of anything the other person says. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Not at all. Now, look, I... Thank you. What? That's it. Morning. I was just getting interested. Sorry, the five minutes is up. That was never five minutes just an hour. I'm afraid it was. No, it wasn't. Sorry, I'm not allowed to argue anymore. What? if you want me to go on arguing you'll have to pay for another five minutes But that was never five minutes just now. Oh, come on. This is ridiculous. I'm very sorry. But I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you pay. Oh, all right. Thank you. There you are. Thank you. Well, Well, what? That was never five minutes just now. I told you, I'm not allowed to argue. I guess you paid. I just paid. No, you didn't. I did! I did! I did! Look, I don't want to argue about that. Well, I'm very sorry, but you didn't pay. Aha! Well, if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Got you. - No, you haven't. - If you're arguing, I must have paid. Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time. - I've had enough of this. - No, you haven't. - Oh, shut up. Thank you.