CHRIS Quigley grew up in an argumentative Yorkshire family, but for all the Quigleys were often going at it hammer and tongs, the standard of the argument wasn't necessarily very high, he says.

"My dad and sister would rely on strength of character, firmly-held opinions and bullying," he recalls. "My mum was more measured and logical, but it was the other two who tended to 'win,' simply because they made the most noise. I used to just back off..."

His family sounds like thousands of others. The breakfast table surely isn't meant to be the Oxford Union in microcosm, is it? Rather than constructing a series of statements to establish a proposition, familial argy-bargy is all about emotional undercurrents, filial rivalry, unreasoned whining, whingeing, wheedling and – when all else fails – intolerable screeching that sends your opponent running for the quietness of the bathroom.

While most of us don't go as far as aping the famously abusive Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch ("Now look here, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings..."), it's fair to say that few domestic arguments
or verbal jousting over a pint at the Three Horseshoes reach the intellectual standards or elegant execution delivered by learned High
Court QCs.

The young Chris Quigley went on to become "a not very good captain of the debating team" at Ampleforth College in North Yorkshire.

He enjoyed compulsory theology lessons and through that subject became intrigued by philosophy. "It was a free-thinking kind of school which I found inspirational..." But a degree in philosophy wasn't all he'd hoped for – being too theoretical and no practical use, he says.

But ideas about the power of good argument never left him, and studying the techniques and form of classical rhetoric practised by masters of the art like Aristotle obviously left their imprint.

Inheriting an entrepreneurial streak from his businessman father, Chris started three small e-commerce companies which now turn over £2m a year and employ 35 people.

One of his recent projects involved working with the Government in developing software to help involve a wider spectrum of the population in democracy and decision-making on complex issues that affect all our lives.

Now 31, Quigley has had a growing desire to find a way of improving the level of argument – because it's personally enriching and fun, and also because he thinks being skilled at argument is liberating and empowering.

"I definitely would say that the more you enable people to understand good argument the more they'll see the holes in the arguments made by our leaders and the stronger we'll all be. It helps people's critical thinking, which can only be good."

In a Eureka! moment, Chris dreamed up an aid that anyone can use, in the shape of a small fold-out flow-chart guide to constructing an
argument. He had five different aMaps (argument maps) designed, each
focusing on a question that users can use as a launch pad for other themes.

Is Modern Art Rubbish?, Cat or Dog?, Beatles or Stones?, Are Children Worth It? and Does God Exist? each illustrates how an argument
can be developed on either side of the question, using age-old techniques like taking a central position, making a proposition, offering supporting arguments and stating facts.

"I've used the mind map structure as a way of visualising each argument
and I've chosen a broad selection of subjects that also embrace niche interests. I suppose they are sort of aimed partly at the dinner party set, but I think we as a nation generally love to argue yet we're not very good at it.

"You hear people in pubs and cafés arguing, but getting nowhere, and people sitting on the periphery of those in the argument are silent, not knowing how to join in. Usually the argument isn't a proper one at
all – it's a series of boring repetitions of entrenched positions, with no-one developing a point and moving the discussion on."

Chris admits his philosophy studies have been useful in this new venture, drawing as they do on Aristotle's The Art of Rhetoric, which
describes how good argument embraces a balance between logos (logic and structure), pathos (storytelling skills, using emotion and
connecting with the audience) and ethos (the strength of the person's character, their credibility and the respect in which they're held).

He's studied the technique and effectiveness of high-profile names whose life revolves around argument, and finds most of them wanting in one way or another.

"I listen to the Today programme on Radio 4, and John Humphrys loses respect because he uses too much emotion or pathos. Evan Davies is good because he uses a great deal of logic but has pathos and ethos, too. The worst crime in argument lies in allowing emotion to take over from logic, and it's a common weakness.

"Jeremy Paxman is getting better and pulling back on the aggression he used to use too much. Gordon Brown is low on character and David Cameron is logical but weak on ethos. The greatest arguer of our time is, in my opinion, William Hague. He gives good structure to his
argument, he's witty and engaging, and he commands respect. The worst is John Prescott, who is a hot-head and a bully in argument."

While Chris is on a mission to gear us all up to air our views better, he has a few particular social bugbears.

"I'd like to see taxi drivers, publicans and pub bores dosomething to improve their game. I'm not trying to turn every small argument in the pub into an intellectual debate, but people would get a lot more out of their arguments if they understood how to do it a bit better, by deconstructing the process."

The five aMaps have gone on the market for around £3.50 in independent shops and the Amazon website, and are even stocked in the shop at
his old school, where the monks say a particular favourite is Does God Exist?

"They're valuable little guides because they help one person to understand another person's point of view, and take their reasoning seriously as part of the courteous nature of debate," says Fr Jeremy, who manages the Ampleforth bookshop.

"We're thrilled to be selling something so ingenious that's been devised by an old boy, and I think they'd be brilliant for use in schools, as they give a model for airing your own reasons in a debate while also listening to opposing arguments – and really listening is what's often missing from debate these days.

"I like to quote Robin Day, who said he thought we all had a duty to be prejudiced – on the side of reason."