“Reasonable argument is impossible when authority becomes the arbiter.”

Correction: Could you name an individual of whom you are referring, of authority, Mr Card?  Can you, also, as well as name this unreasonable authority figure, specify the characteristics of this unreasonableness?

Reason, here being conjugated into reasonable is that which distinguishes “truth from falsehood, and right from wrong; - Reason is called the soul of the law; for when the reason ceases, the law itself ceases.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) “Argument” would here simply describe a meaningful discussion. The arbiter is: “a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Sillik, to your question; the individual referenced as an unreasonable character that relies on authority (by example, a religious zealot, a government figure, an academic with positive law accolades, a politico with the greatest perceived force at hand, any combination thereof, etc.) rather than nature’s law, truth or fact is a very identifiable character. Such arbiter is well illustrated by a theocratically indoctrinated socialist. Said socialist unreasonably relies solely on his priesthood dogma as a moral correctness instead of reasoning on the basis of the “soul of the law”.