The Doctor vs Davros, argument analysis
I was looking for new blog post ideas, and I remembered this scene from Doctor Who where Davros “argues” with the Doctor, and how it always made me want to step into that world just so I could tear Davros’ arguments apart and show them to the Doctor for what they really are: unfactual and relying heavily on pathos. (Pathos is one of Aristotle’s three forms of appeal, it means appealing to emotion.) As I went through the episode I started realizing just how great an example this was of the definition argument and what happens when something is falsely defined and no one corrects it. In short, get ready to see some bad but effectual arguments.
First though, a little background story (because otherwise, this will make no sense at all). Davros is the “creator” of the Daleks, he turned them from humanoids at war into killing machines and in the process removed all those pesky emotions that got in the way of everything. This was a long long time ago (back in the old episodes before the 2005 revamp of the show), and the Daleks and the Doctor have been at wor ever since – in fact the Daleks killed the Timelords, the Doctors people. So we basically have two arch-nemesis standing across for each other with all of reality on the line. Now, I will not show you everything from this argument, only the arguments worth analyzing and going into detail with. Because of this, there will be huge gaps in the story that are not included here but only briefly explained – but you can always go watch it on your own if you want the full story. But now, let’s get down to business.
Round 1
First we start off with the Doctor and his friend Rose having been captured and put in holding cells.
The reason I start with these nine images is that they show a trapped Doctor who lashes out with the first definition argument. I wanted to point this out because it makes him the verbal aggressor (Davors threatening to end reality obviously being the action aggressor).
Davros reflects this by turning to Rose instead, the Doctor’s companion, friend, and even weakness.
As you can see, in the first round we have the Doctor mocking Davros and then Davros responding by poking at the Doctor’s weakness. The thing here, is that Rose can take pretty good care of herself, or the Doctor would have never let her go with him. This means that the Doctor is being defensive not because he thinks Rose needs defense, but because it is an emotional response. The Doctor is feeling trapped, and is reacting emotionally.
Rond 2
The second round is Davros’ response to the Doctor getting angry because he believes another friend of his to has been killed.
Here we see Davros painting the Doctor blood red, as he himself perceives him. While it is true that the Doctor has fought the Daleks multiple times and most likely killed millions of them, the word “butchered” is a nice use of connotations. (Connotations are words that hold emotional meanings and not just literal meanings. For example, the words “woman” and “bitch” both refer to a female, but they hold each their emotional meaning and will provoke each their emotional response.) Because it is factually true that the Doctor did kill the Daleks the connotation is not argued, even though butchering someone is generally more upfront and personal, probably also with a knife. I don’t see any reality where it would be possible to “butcher” millions of Daleks. The connotation defines the act as negative, and because the act itself (ending the lives of millions of Daleks) is factually correct the definition argument stands unchallenged. It is a good example of how pathos mixed with logos can be effectual at misleading people. Furthermore, if this had been for example a political argument, arguing against the connotation would make you seem petty and weak, making this argument of mixing pathos with factual truth extremely useful (though often also a low blow).
So what we see here is the Doctor asking questions, as per his usual nature, and then Davros firing off definition arguments. Through these definitions Davros also creates a distance between Rose and the Doctor, for while it is true the Rose doesn’t fully know the Doctor – since the Doctor is thousands of years old – but Davros defines this as the Doctor deliberately hiding his true self and deceiving Rose. It is all in the way he phrases it, and that is why the Doctor isn’t objecting. The “lie” is in the emotional significance of the words, not the words themselves.
Round 3
And now we skip to the Doctor’s other friends coming to the rescue (they pulled out all the stops with this season finale, that’s why all the friends and companions are there). First, we have Martha Jones.
Then we have Jack Harkness joining in.
Now, first things first: let’s analyze their arguments for a brief moment. For one, Martha basically tells the Daleks “would you risk me spoiling your plan by blowing up my own planet or will you voluntarily give up your plan to kill us all so that I don’t have to commit genocide and suicide all in one fell swoop?” What kind of idiot would take that deal? She has nothing to bargain with, all she can do is prove that she isn’t bluffing and blow up planet earth – in which case they might just get out and get themselves a similar planet as a replacement.
Then we have Captain Jack joined by Sarah Jane Smith with their Warp Star (=explosion in a carbonized shell). Now, his threat is slightly better since it doesn’t involve killing the human race but only blowing up the “spaceship” they are on. It is the same calculation strategy, the benefit of the many outweighs the death of the few. Next to Martha, he seems quite reasonable – if it wasn’t because the Daleks were everywhere, not just on the Crucible. All in all a very poor performance from the rescue teams – including Rose standing there with comments like “She’s good” and “Now that’s what I call a ransom!” Basically all these threats do is pave the way for Davros and his definition argument – which is what we get to now (oh, BTW, Davros is the creepy one in the “wheelchair” thingy, and Caan, the slimy “octopus” like creature, is what a Dalek looks like out of armor.)
What Davros does here is defining the Doctor as the very thing he hates most of all, and he uses the people the Doctor loves as a foundation for this definition. Davros attacks the Doctor’s honor, his very identity as someone who helps people, and this is the Doctor’s reaction:
In short, what we see here, if that the Doctor defends his companions instead of himself. Davros is using the Doctor’s companions to smear the Doctor, and the Doctor cares more about what Davros says about his friends, about the people he loves most.
What does Davros do then? Well, he strikes back with yet another low blow.
The first of these people to “die in the name of the Doctor” died to save a space station full of people. The second one died to save the earth. the third one died in a game show that would most likely have killed her regardless of whether or not she knew the Doctor. The next one died for queen and country. The next one to save the world from cybermen. The sixth one is thousands of years old and dying was a blessing for him, not to mention he also saved the world. And I could go on. The only one of these people to actually die for the Doctor, to die in his name, is Jenny (bottom right corner). She took a bullet for the Doctor because he taught her that violence wasn’t the way – and if you count deleted scenes and audio stories she came back to life. In short, Davros saying people die for the Doctor is a blatant lie. But the Doctor has lost so many people, has seen so many people die around him, and the Doctor is the only common denominator, so, therefore, this definition argument too stands unchallenged.
Again, it is all about the definition and the subtle untruths. For example, is dying to give the Doctor time to save everyone else dying for the Doctor? Is it dying for the Doctor is the Doctor doesn’t manage to save you in time – even though without him you would only have died sooner? Is it dying for the Doctor if the Doctor simply visits you on your deathbed and you die of old age? I think not.
Then we move to after the battle, after the Doctor and his friends have heroically saved the day. Davros accuses Dalek Caan of having betrayed the Daleks (Caan sees the future, long story, but he told Davros that the Daleks would finally beat the Doctor). This is Caan’s response.
Here Caan takes basically every single definition Davros has put on the Doctor and uses them on Davros’ creation: the Daleks themselves.
Realizing he is defeated Davros brands the Doctor with one last definition, knowing that a definition like this spoken by a dying man – even one like Davros – will haunt the Doctor for years to come. Which, it really should – sadly this was the season finale of this Doctor’s last season, and we only see him again in a few special episodes that could be decades apart from his point of view, so we don’t get to see him struggle with this. It also possible though that he would simply “forget”, pretend it didn’t happen and just run off on another adventure. Whatever the Doctor does next, this is a deathblow of an argument Davros delivers, and he knows it.
To conclude
None of the arguments Davros uses are actually “good arguments”. His whole case rests on a mixture of half-truths, definitions, and a whole lot of pathos. It only works because it is the Doctor he is speaking to, and the Doctor doesn’t see himself clearly. The Doctor feels guilty for things that are not his fault. To someone with a clear mind or even just a basic understanding of rhetoric and how to construct a good argument, Davros’ arguments would be considered on the same level as a child saying “but everyone else is doing it”.
What we have seen here is how the right word, the right phrasing, can paint the world in any shade you want -but if your audience knows you’re full of it the effect won’t last long. Davros didn’t manage to turn the Doctor’s companions against him, he didn’t manage to turn the Doctor against his companions, but Dalek Caan, who had actual truth on his side and not just connotations and pathos, delivers a more damaging blow to Davros (one which Davros doesn’t even try to defend himself against).
I hope you enjoyed this breakdown, and that maybe you learned a little bit too. If there is any part of you that might be interested in rhetoric I would love to know. I am currently in the process of making a rhetoric course specific to writers, as a matter of fact at the time this post goes live I am looking for people to take it for free and give me feedback. So if there’s any part of you who might be interested to know more about that, or even just about what rhetoric is and why it is important for writers, there’s an email list here you can join and get updates and provide me with feedback if you want.
