We assume the following: any position held on some moral, philosophical, political (etc.) idea is a logical consequence of some (ideally minimal) set of rationally unjustifiable assumptions.
The laws are as follows:
- If you agree, there is no argument.
- If you make the same basic assumptions but disagree in your conclusions, then your opponent made a mistake in their reasoning and is consequently not worth arguing with*.
- If you disagree on the basic assumptions then rational thought is not the correct tool to persuade your opponent.
We conclude that rational debates concerning philosophy, politics and so on are redundant.
*Or can quickly be shown their error(s) (see law 1).