I have been deep down a rabbit hole of argument analysis just recently. There is a natural orientation as bias in many people towards choosing points of view and systems of belief based upon their structural aesthetics, not upon their substance.
The arguments made for and against any particular political point or the tenets of a belief system are more often assessments and supporting arguments or disagreements about the structure of an argument, only indirectly related to the substance. It is an art of misdirection in politics, law and religion which fast or slow reorients an audience to inhabit the points made in rhetoric.
The extent to which we are (all) prone to occupying a particular position on a topic, shaped as it is by the hypnotic beguile of structural aesthetics, is a measure of the abstraction and virtualisation of language (and cognition) above and away from its subject matter or interest. For this reason, although not this reason alone, we should be particularly interested in arguments and assertions in which the structural aesthetic is the substance. This is how we begin to unveil the facts that language and subjective or tribal indeterminacy shroud in unconstructive ambiguity.
Is my argument or general point as to the degree we are all predisposed to aesthetic misdirection itself substantive or hollow linguistic aesthetic?