Argumentation vs Contradiction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c
transcript from: http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

In this humorous video, Michael Palin enters John Cleese's room seeking an argument for which he pays to argue for five minutes. However, over the course of the five minutes, Palin becomes agitated because Cleese is doing nothing but simply contradicting everything he says which Palin asserts is, "not an argument" to which Cleese responds that, in order to argue, he must take up a contrary position. However, Palin notes that taking a contrary position is not simply saying "No it isn't" or "Yes it is". Palin defines an argument in this exchange as a "connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition". Later, he also states that an argument is "an intellectual process", not merely contradiction which is the "the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says". Are his definitions accurate? What constitutes a good argument?

An argument is defined as "a set of statements in which a claim is made, support is offered for it, and there is an attempt to influence someone in a context of disagreement" (13) in Critical Thinking and Communication: the Use of Reasoning in Argument by Inch and Tudor. Based on this definition which is a more complete definition than Palin's, a vital piece of an argument that has been discussed in a previous post is critical thinking which highlights Palin's point that a good argument is not merely contradiction. True argumentation is a process which specific characteristics- a claim, evidence, and reasoning to reach a specific conclusion (13-15). As demonstrated by the Toumlin and Co-orientational argument methods, a good argument is usually made up of a number of things, including an assertion backed up by specific data as well as a stated or unstated assumption (called a warrant). In the video, Palin's unstated assumption was that the five minutes argument that he paid for would be a good one and not simply filled with contrary statements which is more commonly categorized as bickering. Additionally, an argument usually has additional evidence to back it up and a qualifier, usually words like strongly, absolutely, somewhat, to demonstrate how confident the arguer is in his supposition. While Palin never uses a word such as this specifically, he does indeed insist vehemently that his position is correct. Within arguments, there are different types of claims. There are value claims which analyze the value  of something based on a standard determined by the arguer (122). A policy claim is one that "calls for a specific course of action and focus on whether a change in policy or behavior should take place" (123). Also, a claim can be factual which is one that "makes inferences about past, present, or future conditions or relationships" (120). It seems that Palin's is a value claim because he is judging the quality of their argument on his standards of a good argument. Claims can also be explicit or implicit. Palin's is explicit for he insists that their argument is not good but rather simply contradictory statements.    Evidence is a vital part of argumentation as well, but neither Palin nor Cleese provide evidence to support their assertions beyond "yes you did" or "no you didn't" which does not count as evidence. While evidence is not just facts or observable behavior, it does have to involve logical reasoning, observable, and/or a generally accepted truth (137-138).

So, while Palin does indeed provide a narrow but accurate definition of an argument, he and Cleese certainly do not carry it out for their exchange involves no evidence or critical thinking. At its base, it is simply bickering. Arguments involve some contradictions but certainly not simply the irritating response of "no it isn't" or "yes it is" repeatedly.