AC+ SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE By EDWIN DuBOIS SHURTER Editor of "Oratory of the South: From the Civil War to the Present Time," "The Modern Speaker," and "Masterpieces of Modern Oratory." Author of "Public Speaking" and "Ex- tempore Speaking." New York and Washington THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY 1908 Copyright, 1908, by The Neale Publishing Company PREFACE This book treats of the various ways of convinc- ing and persuading men. While intended as a text- book for schools and colleges, it is also adapted to the needs of the lawyer, the preacher, the teacher, the citizen; in short, to anyone who is called upon as who is not? to urge the acceptance of his ideas upon a hearer, or to refute ideas offered in opposition thereto. In our schools and colleges the value of argu- mentation as an independent branch of study is now generally recognized. But numerous as are the treatises on argumentation, the subject of de- bate is usually treated in a single chapter, or not at all. This book aims to meet the needs not only of the expert in argumentation, but also of the practi- cal debater. The average citizen is called upon to argue orally far oftener than he is required to pre- sent a written argument; and of what avail is his knowledge and logic if they cannot be utilized in the discussions of every-day life? However, any attempt to teach debate in a thorough and system- atic manner must involve the study of argumenta- tion generally, and this, in turn, involves practice in writing and argumentative composition. A treatise on debate, therefore, must include the subject of argumentation in all its phases, analy- sis, evidence, proof, the different kinds of argu- ments and how to meet them. But the present 267355 6 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE volume goes further than this, and aims to show the student how he may utilize his training in writing when he is called upon to present his argu- ments orally before an actual audience and in the presence of an opponent who is waiting to reply. Debate being primarily a disciplinary study, not an informing one, the ultimate purpose of instruc- tion in this line must be to lead one to think -for himself, to check errors in reasoning, and to think straight. Debate is therefore a difficult subject to treat in a formal manner. The endeavor has been, however, to develop the treatment in a systematic way, making all suggestions as specific as possible, giving attention to one thing at a time, and supple- menting principles and theories with illustrative matter and with exercises for practice. In the one hundred and fifty questions for debate contained in the Appendix will be found a wide range of sub- jects for special investigations, discussions, and moot court practice. In the preparation of this treatise many helpful suggestions have been secured from various works on argumentation; special acknowledgements of which will be found in the text. Parts of the In- troduction and of Chapters I and II originally ap- peared in the American Debater (the January, February, and March numbers, 1902). E. D. S. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. CONTENTS Page Introduction The Advantages of Debate 9 The Elements of Debate 13 CHAPTER I Subjects for Debate Form and Matter ... 19 CHAPTER II Analysis of the Question 30 CHAPTER III Proof 62 CHAPTER IV Evidence {73 CHAPTER V Direct Proof Kinds of Arguments 91 CHAPTER VI Refutation 127 CHAPTER VII Preliminary Reading and Classification .... 150 8 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE CHAPTER VIII The Brief 158 CHAPTER IX Persuasion 194 CHAPTER X Methods in School and College Debating ... 255 Appendix: Subjects for Debate 265 Index 279 INTRODUCTION I. THE ADVANTAGES OF DEBATE In noting tendencies in modern education, the revival and spread of the practice of debate in school and college is significant. In England, where collegiate debates have long been features of educational endeavor, Oxford and Cambridge each have from twenty to twenty-five debat- ing societies, debating has always been an im- portant feature of university life, and many of England's distinguished orators and statesmen re- ceived their first training in these societies. In America, within the past ten or fifteen years, there has come, in and out of colleges, a noteworthy re- vival of the old-time debating lyceum, though in some cases it has been revived under another name. Intercollegiate athletics have been paralleled by intellectual athletics in the form of intercollegiate debates. The cause of this marked interest in debating among students is not far to seek. In the first place, it represents not so much a reaction against college athletics, which is sometimes claimed, as activity along similar lines and through similar IO SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE causes. As the typical American student of to- day is no longer the "pale" student, too ethereal for a vigorous physical life, so, on the mental side, he is no longer the simple "book-worm" wholly removed from the currents of thought and action in the great world-life for which he is supposedly making preparation. He is now preparing to meet the demands of American citizenship, and by studying and discussing the economic, social, and political questions which are pressing constantly for solution, is fitting himself as a leader and speaker of the future. Practice in oral argumentation has many special advantages, among which may be mentioned: 1. As a branch of public speaking, debating keeps a speaker to the point. The real debater cannot indulge in "glittering generalities," but has a definite issue to which to speak. The faults of vapid utterances, so common in formal oratory, of attempts at mere rhetoric, and of the general lack of unity and coherence so common in public speech are thus avoided. 2. Debating teaches one to think for himself. It conduces to logical, clear, and independent thinking. And this is a rare accomplishment, for few people really think for themselves. How many of our opinions and so-called "convictions," opinions which we hold as axiomatic, are bor- INTRODUCTION 1 1 rowed from those with whom we have been asso- ciated. The process of debating is the crucial test as to the value of such opinions. Mere assertion or citing the opinion of another will not avail in debate, as one must state reasons for the faith that is in him. All propositions, opinions, and as- sertions come to the mind of the educated man punctuated with interrogation points. "Beware," says Emerson, "when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet." U I believe that the next generation," says President Hadley, of Yale, "will recognize that precision of thought is what dis- tinguishes the first-rate speaker from the second- rate speaker; and that this precision can be ob- tained if, instead of hurling facts of science or lan- guage or history at his impervious skull, we open his eyes to the infinite possibilities of close thought and precise expression in all fields of knowledge." 1 Perhaps no study equals debate in the acquire- ment of the power of logical thinking combined with clear expression. Many branches of study must be taken largely on the authority of special- ists, but the discussion of debatable questions of the day opens up a field of subjects upon which au- thorities (Mer so widely that no opinion is ortho- dox. Tms the novice in debate soon discovers. 1 Harper's Magazine for June, 1905. 12 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE He rises, and with great satisfaction proceeds to enlighten his hearers upon the subject under dis- cussion, employing "strong assertion without proof, declamation without argument, and violent censure without dignity or moderation." But pres- ently, as he sees the bottom knocked out of his ar- guments, he becomes disgusted with his second- hand opinions and begins to think for himself. Nothing is so conducive to thought as the direct contact of mind with mind. Nothing so widens one's mental vision as an effort to define one's po- sition upon a given subject. Nothing so clearly and forcibly shows a man the unstable foundations of his opinions as an attempt to support these opin- ions in the face of unsparing criticism. 3. Debating produces broad-mindedness and toleration. It does this by compelling attention to both sides of a question for any really debatable question always has two sides. Practice in debate cultivates the habit of looking at truth, not in iso- lated and fragmentary forms, but in all its rela- tionships. It is unfortunate for any man, or class of men, to be placed under such conditions that their opinions are given out as authoritative and received as such or, if not so received, are deliv- ered when no opportunity is afforded fir their ut- terances to be disputed. Hence the tendency of preachers and teachers to become dogmatic and INTRODUCTION 13 narrow. Lawyers, on the other hand, are, as a class, liberal-minded and tolerant. Is not this be- cause of the practice in debate that their profession affords? The hard knocks they give and receive make them tolerant of antagonistic views. So the practice that students have in discussing either the affirmative or negative side of a debatable question tends to remove unfounded prejudice and narrow- ness. The trained mind is broad, impartial, and comprehensive in its vision; and these are the elements of mind necessary to draw conclusions and solve problems. II. THE ELEMENTS OF DEBATE Whenever people disagree in a discussion, and produce reasons to support their respective views, they are debating. Debate is therefore a far more common exercise, in all relations of life, than we are apt to think. Its object is to discover truth, to determine upon which side of a given question the truth lies. Debating is not conten- tiousness; it is a logical discussion for the purpose of elucidating thought or influencing action. "Ar- gument, in the sense of controversy, seems to be on the whole less seriously taken than it used to be; argument, in the sense of care in forming opinions, seems to be on the whole more seriously 14 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE cultivated." 2 Even in societies organized for the purpose, debate should have for its object the vin- dication of some truth, and the question should be seriously disputed. In its broad sense, then, debate is the search for truth. Truth is susceptible of proof. Hence the common definition of argumentation as "the pro- cess of proving or disproving a proposition." - Al- den 3 says : "If argumentation is the art of con- vincing others of the truth of falsity of a disputed matter, debate may be said to be the art of doing this under conditions such that both sides of the case can be heard and that the advocates of each side can reply directly to those of the other." Jevons 4 says: "When we join terms together, we make a proposition; when we join propositions together, we make an argument, or piece of reason- ing." "When we join the arguments, or pieces of reasoning together," says Baker, 5 "we have argu- mentation." And it might be added that when the arguments are stated orally, in the presence of an opponent who is waiting to reply, we have debate. None of the foregoing definitions, however, 2 Sidgwick, "The Process of Argument,'' p. 197. 3 "Art of Debate," p. i. * "Primer of Logic," p. 12. 5 "Principles of Argumentation," p. 33. INTRODUCTION 15 define any means for, nor do they set up any stand- ard of conviction. He who is an honest seeker for truth will necessarily employ truthful means in discovering and presenting it. He will not at- tempt to convince by fair means or foul, but will be honest with himself and his hearers, and will never appeal to low or mean motives. Debate may therefore be defined as the science and art of producing In others, through proper appeals to the Intellect and emotions by means of argument, a belief In the Ideas which we wish them to accept. "An argument is a fact or principle, or set of facts or principles, adduced as evidence of some other fact or principle" 6 ; it is the process whereby the connection between that which is admitted and that which is doubted, is traced or tested. Our definition denominates debate as both a science and an art. "A science," says Jevons, "teaches us to know, and an art to do." In dis- covering and classifying the means whereby a man's understanding is convinced and his feelings moved, we are dealing with debate as a science; in employing these means as applied to a given question, we are dealing with debate as an art. And these two processes are inseparable in de- bating. The debater must both acquire and give ; 6 Bain, "Rhetoric," p. 229. 1 6 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE he must be able both to find reasons and also to express those reasons to a hearer or hearers in such a manner as to induce belief. Again, our definition comprehends two means of producing belief in the mind of a hearer by appeals to the intellect and to the emotions. Hence the usual classification of debate into the two grand divisions Conviction and Persuasion. These terms are often used synonymously, but for our purposes we will understand that conviction refers to belief reached through the intellect, and persuasion to belief reached through the emotions, or affected by them. These two processes are al- ways combined, in varying degrees, in all debating. By a process of pure reasoning you may convince a hearer that your argument is sound the demon- stration of a proposition in geometry is a familiar example; but in the discussion of questions of the hour logic alone is rarely. sufficient. You wish the hearer not only to accept your reasoning as sound, but to accept it as his own, and if need be, to act upon it. That is, you wish to reach his will to have him act as you desire, to lead him to adopt a given course as a line of conduct, to vote for a verdict for your client, or for a measure that you are favoring. And this conquest of the will is not infrequently a far more difficult problem than the conquest of the intellect, for u one convinced INTRODUCTION 17 against his will is of the same opinion still." Pre- judices, idiosyncrasies, and motives of self-interest must be removed or won over to your side. This is the work of persuasion to appeal to those emotions which affect the will and touch the springs of action. Matthew Arnold defines persuasion as "the instilment of conviction." That is, persua- sion is not distinct from conviction, but reenforces it. Generally, a foundation for an appeal to the emotions must be laid by an appeal to the intellect, for ordinarily men will not act unless they see a reason for so doing. Sometimes, however, if one is addressing a hostile audience, or is antagonizing existing notions and prejudices, the conquest of the disposition must precede the conquest of the intel- lect: "The best way to convert a hungry man is to feed him." Again, the relative amount of con- viction and persuasion to be employed in a given argument will vary with the occasion and the audience. In an intercollegiate debate, the pri- mary aim is conviction ; the ordinary stump speaker depends almost wholly upon persuasion. So, in a legal argument addressed to a judge, the lawyer uses conviction almost solely; in an argument to a jury, a much larger proportion of persuasion is desirable. Not that these two methods of winning hearers to one's point of view are separable ; they belong side by side, for the use of either method 1 8 SCIENCE AND ART OP DEBATE is usually futile without the support of the other. But for the purpose of systematic treatment of our subject in its subsequent development, we shall first give attention to that part of argumentation which has to do with conviction; the subject of per- suasion will be dealt with in a separate chapter. It should be borne in mind, however, that such separate treatment is for pedagogic reasons only, since in any debate both conviction and persuasion must supplement each other in order to attain the most effective results. CHAPTER I SUBJECTS FOR DEBATE FORM AND MATTER A proposition necessary in debate. A de- batable question implies that a given proposition is maintained by one and doubted or denied by another. It implies a disagreement, else there is nothing to debate. In the questions on which people disagree, as discussions arise in every-day life, there is ordinarily no stated proposition to formulate the matter in dispute; and one of the first things that one skilled in argument will do, is to reduce the discussion to such form, whereupon one of three situations will develop : either the disputants' views are (i) identical, or (2) they are discussing two wholly different propositions, or (3) they take issue squarely with each other. In the first instance, the formulation of the subject under discussion into a clear statement removes any seeming disagreement. In the second in- stance, the discussion would be as if two trains passed each other in opposite directions on parallel tracks. In the last instance, there is what may be called a debate "head on" a direct, square col- lision. (19) 20 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE A proper subject for debate, then, must be capable of affirmation and denial, and a proposi- tion is the only rhetorical form that lends itself to this requirement. A proposition is "a form of speech in which a predicate is affirmed or denied of a subject"; it is a statement that something is or is not. And something must always be pred- icated of a subject in order to raise an issue for debate. "The Chinese in America" might be a proper subject for a lecture or an oration, but in order to debate the Chinese question some proposi- tion regarding the Chinese in America, as, "The Chinese Exclusion laws should be repealed," must be laid down. You cannot argue a mere term or phrase. You may explain a term, but only a proposition is susceptible of proof or disproof. The advocate, for example, may need to make clear by exposition what larceny or arson is, but he can- not argue the terms "arson" and "larceny"; he can argue that "This man is guilty of arson", or that "My client is innocent of larceny." "Argu- mentation attempts not only to explain why cer- tain ideas are as they are, but also to convince the understanding that they are as they are, or that they ought to be as they are not." 1 And in order to do this, argument requires for a starting-point the affirmation or denial of a definite proposition. iBrewster, Introduction to "Specimens of Narration." SUBJECTS FOR DEBATE 21 Stating the proposition. In formulating the proposition it should be so stated as to indicate the issue for debate. In deliberative bodies the issue is expressed in the form of a motion, a resolution, or a bill ; in legal practice, by the pleadings in the case. In formal debate the proposition may be put in the form of either a declaratory sentence, a ques- tion, or a resolution. Whichever of these forms be used, the proposition should be stated ( i ) affirmatively and (2) clearly. 1. To affirm a denial is always a weak state- ment, for no one, in the first instance, can well prove a negation. To put the matter in another way, the affirmative should be called upon to pre- sent a constructive line of argument. Now in many questions of pure fact one may affirm one side or the other of a matter in dispute. But in those questions where a change in present condi- tions or policies is proposed, the proposed change should be affirmed. For example, if one were to affirm that "the formation of a National Debating League is undesirable,V he is placed in the. position of defending an existing condition before it has been attacked. In questions of reform or of policy the test would be: Does the affirmative of this proposition propose any change in existing con- ditions ? 2. The proposition should be stated in clear, 22 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE unambiguous language, so that the issue raised is plainly indicated. Otherwise, we shall have a de- bate, not on the proposition, but on its meaning. This is always unfortunate. It is a trying ordeal for any audience to hear students carry on a debate which is nothing more than a continuous quibbling over the meaning of terms. Sometimes the young speaker the "smart" debater goes out of his way to evolve, by a narrow or strained construc- tion, some unusual and surprising meaning to be applied to terms used. But when this sort of "debating" is carried to excess, it is a questionable preparation for real life. Reasonable people do not debate words, but ideas. And if unfortunately there are ambiguous words in the proposition as stated, it is far better, if possible, for each side to agree on the meaning of such words in advance, in order that the discussion may proceed on the issue itself. Therefore great care should be exercised in eliminating all ambiguous words in stating the proposition; and only those who have had ex- perience can realize how difficult this often is. With the issue clearly in mind, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult, in an effort for due conciseness, to state the proposition so that the question means the same thing for that is the point to both the affirmative and negative speakers. As one means SUBJECTS FOR DEBATE 23 to this end, avoid the use of general terms that have no generally accepted meaning. Such cur- rent expressions as the "Monroe Doctrine," "Im- perialism," "Expansion," "Anarchy," might be variously defined. A proposition for debate re- lating to any of these terms should be stated with more definiteness than the terms themselves could possibly express. For example, in a debate on the question, "Resolved, that all anarchists in this country should be deported to one of our island possessions," the discussion would necessarily turn on the special question, Who are "anarchists"? The affirmative would attempt to show that they constitute a dangerous class whose deportation would be justifiable; the negative would bring forth evidence to show that the term included law- abiding citizens, acting within the constitutional guaranties of freedom of thought and speech. Either side would therefore be debating two wholly different propositions. If the question be stated, "Resolved, that all persons employing or advocat- ing force in destroying or changing our govern- ment, should be deported," while we may not have a comprehensive definition of "anarchists," we have at least given the question, for the purpose of debate, a more definite meaning. One other point in this connection: All ques- tion-begging epithets should be avoided; that is, 24 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE the use of terms which either argue or assume to decide the question in advance. A glaring example of this somewhat common fault would be: "Re- solved, that the unjustifiable course of President Roosevelt in appointing a negro to office should be condemned." "Unjustifiable" is of course the question-begging term ; for if the appointment was unjustifiable, of necessity it is to be condemned. But whether or not the appointment was justifiable is the issue for debate. PROPER QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE As questions for debate arise in practical life, one does not usually select the subjects they come. But whenever the subjects are to be de- liberately chosen, as in debating societies and class exercises, some care should be used in selecting questions, and some general suggestions may well be heeded. What sort of questions should be chosen? Let us partially answer this question by a process of exclusion, and consider certain classes of subjects to be avoided for formal debate. i. Propositions which cannot be seriously dis- puted. A bald example of such propositions would be a geometrical theorem. Or, "Resolved, that the Caucasian is a white man," is not a de- batable question. There are no black Caucasians. SUBJECTS FOR DEBATE 25 Nor could any one advantageously debate such obvious propositions as, "Resolved, that Shake- speare was a great poet"; or, "Resolved, that the murder of President McKinley was reprehensible." A question not having two sides seriously disputed, or one whose obviousness is concealed by the form of statement, should never be chosen for debate; in short, the question should be really debatable. 2. Propositions the truth of which is practically incapable of proof or disproof. Although the truth or error of most debatable propositions, as they arise in real life, cannot be demonstrated with mathematical exactness, yet those questions which are capable of only a slight degree of approxi- mation to proof should be avoided. For example, take such time-worn questions as, "Resolved, that the pulpit affords more opportunities for eloquence than the bar" ; "Resolved, that the pen is mightier than the sword." So vague questions of taste, as the relative merits of two great poets, or of two great generals; while such questions may be in teresting and profitable for general discussion, they are unsuited for formal debate. The proof is too elusive and indefinite ; neither side can come within range of a common object for attack or defense. "A generation ago," runs a recent editorial in the Saturday Evening Post, "rural debaters used to fall about one another's ears discussing what 26 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE would happen if an irresistible force met an im- movable body. The question of the superior sex is a fitting substitute. It is alluring because it is elu- sive ; it is possible to discuss it with delightful acri- mony because no solution is attainable." "Does the public speaker exert a greater influence than the writer?" is a question submitted in a recent treatise on debate. Now the natural course of events in the argument of such a question is for the affirma- tive to heap up examples showing the influence of the public speaker, and the negative to adduce examples showing the influence exerted by the writer. The affirmative might also point out cer- tain disadvantages under which the writer must labor, as compared with the public speaker, and the negative would adopt a vice versa treatment. The question states a comparison, but no common standard for comparison could be found, and hence no satisfactory proof or disproof is possible. 3. Propositions having more than one main issue. The reason for this caution is obvious. It is based on the rule in deliberative bodies which allows a member to divide a motion that contains more than one issue, so that the assembly need debate but one question at a time. Sometimes in formal debate two main propositions are included in the statement of the question, with a view of thus making the question more evenly divided. SUBJECTS FOR DEBATE 27 But unless such a purpose is in mind, avoid a com- pound or complex statement. For example, "Re- solved that the United States government should inaugurate a comprehensive plan for the improve- ment of our inland waterways, and that the Missis- sippi River should be made navigable for deep- sea vessels as far north as St. Louis." Plainly, here are two separate propositions, and either of them would furnish ample opportunity for an hour's debate. Again, a question may be stated singly, on its face, and involve several definite issues. For example, "Resolved, that President Roosevelt's foreign policy should be approved." A moment's analysis of the term "foreign policy" will show that the Panama, Cuban, Philippine, Chinese, and Japanese questions, not to mention other matters of foreign policy dealt with during Roosevelt's administration, are all included in the statement of this question. 4. Propositions of no interest in themselves, or of no interest to the audience addressed. In view of what has previously been said regarding the object and nature of debating, this caution may seem superfluous; but observation shows that de- bating societies constantly violate this rule. Such questions as, "Resolved, that ambition is produc- tive of more good than evil," that "The cow is a more useful animal than the horse," as subjects 28 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE for debate are in line with the grave discussions of the medieval theologians on such questions as, "How many angels can stand on the point of a needle at one time?" The "corner grocery" Solons may choose to discuss questions whose only opportunity for debate is furnished by some in- genious play upon words, but such aimless ques- tions are unworthy the attention of serious men. The trouble comes, in part at least, from viewing debating as a mental exercise in public speaking, rather than as a practical means to an end. In a country where public opinion is the mainspring of government; where great economic, social and political questions are pressing for solution; and where the solution must come mainly through that body of educated young men constantly being in- fused into its body politic, why should any asso- ciation of school or college students waste its ener- gies in debating subjects which call forth only a technical or theoretical treatment, or serve only a a means for an ingenious display of so-called wit? If the foregoing cautions be observed, they will at least help to start the search for debatable ques- tions in the right direction. To summarize these cautions in an affirmative form : Subjects for de- bate should be single, unambiguous propositions, having an affirmative and a negative side, capable of approximate proof or disproof, and of genuine interest to the audience addressed. SUBJECTS FOR DEBATE 29 EXERCISES Let the student determine wherein the following questions (collated from treatises on debate and from published lists) are open to criticism, either as to form of statement or as to subject-matter: 1. Is photography of greater practical value than mechanical drawing? 2. Was Titian a greater artist than Correggio? 3. Is the Wagnerian school entitled to a permanent place in classical interpretation? 4. Is Art the handmaid of Science? 5. The best way to solve our so-called Race Problem is to stop talking about it. 6. In the next Presidential election, Democracy should be triumphant. 7. Was Burke a greater orator than Fox? 8. Are all men "born free and equal"? 9. Is "Quo Vadis" a more powerful novel that "Ben Hur"? 10. Resolved, that if conscience says a thing is right, it is right. 11. Resolved, that the time has come when in place of our present robber tariff we should adopt the saner policy of tariff for revenue only. 12. Resolved, that whenever Congress has to deal with ques- tions involving the possibilities of war, jingoism and politics play too prominent a part. 13. Resolved, that there is more happiness than misery in life. 14. Railroads in the United States should not be owned by the government. 15. Reciprocity tariff treaties should displace our present pro- tective tariff, and free trade should be instituted. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION Given a good subject for debate, stated affirma- tively and in unambiguous language, the next step for the debater is to ask himself such questions as these: Just what does this question mean? What issue or issues are raised by it? What must be proved to establish the affirmative of the ques- tion ? and what must be proved to defend the nega- tive? In other words, he must analyze the ques- tion. Analysis is the process whereby the propo- sition for debate is resolved into its constituent elements. It is a process of critical examination, in order to extract the essence of the question and to ascertain the single propositions that enter into the argument of the proposition as a whole. Now, analysis enters into debating at every step, in the development of the direct argument, and in rebuttal. The skillful debater will not only analyze the argument for himself, but at every point will analyze the argument of his opponent, so that, as the debate proceeds, he is able to state, concisely and clearly, the point toward which the argument leads, and the stage of development in (30) ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 31 the arguments on either side. "An analysis of the debate at this point," he will frequently be led to observe, "shows that the affirmative rest their ar- gument on such and such lines of proof, and the negative base their contention on such and such points." He thus makes plain to the audience the relation of his further argument to what has pre- ceded, and points out any fallacies in the argument of his opponent. The well-known opening words of Webster, in his famous Reply to Hayne, is illus- trative : When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution before the Senate. So Lincoln, in his "Divided House" speech, be- gan as follows: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. The analysis now referred to, however, is that 32 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE preliminary analysis which should make clear the meaning of the question, bring out the debatable issue or issues, show the lines of proof essential to a given side, and also show the arguments on the opposing side that needs be met. Now, this process of preliminary analysis is too often neglected by the inexperienced debater. A student is apt to work out lines of proof before he knows, from careful analysis, just what proof is required. He may have read widely on the ques- tion, but he has failed to do that preliminary think- ing for himself which shows him the bearings and limitations of the discussion. If one has but two hours, say, to prepare on a question for debate, it is no exaggeration to say that ordinarily one hour of that time could most profitably be devoted to an analysis of the question, STEPS IN ANALYSIS All argument consists in leading another's thought over the same course your own thought has pursued in reaching a certain conclusion. An analysis of the question will show the point to be reached and the ground to be covered in reaching it. It will show the work to be done, and how it is to be done. In this preliminary analysis there are usually at least four steps not always clearly ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 33 separated in practice that demand attention, when one takes up the consideration of a question for debate. These steps are : ( i ) Define the question; (2) State the common ground in the discussion; (3) Determine the main issue, or issues; and (4) Locate the burden of proof. i. Definition. We have previously noted the desirability of having the question for debate so stated that it means the same thing to both sides. Assuming that this has been done as well as de- sired conciseness will allow, it rarely happens that some of the terms do not need defining, or in any case that the proposition as a whole does not re- quire some exposition or explanation. As distin- guished from a purely technical or logical process of defining, the definition of a question for debate usually involves an examination into the origin of the question, and an explanation both of the terms of the proposition and of the question as a whole. An examination into the origin of the question will raise such queries as : How does the question arise as a subject for debate? What place does it hold in current discussion? What is the nature and trend of public discussion concerning it? The answers to these queries will serve the two-fold purpose of engaging the attention of the audience and also of throwing light upon the meaning of the 3 34 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE question generally. As to the latter purpose, the general understanding of the question by the pub- lic mind will frequently serve as a check against an over-logical construction. In the Cornell-Pennsylvania Debate of 1899, for example, Cornell had the negative of the ques- tion, "Resolved, that the interests of the United States are opposed to the permanent acquisition of territory in the Eastern Hemisphere, except so much as may be needed for naval stations." The negative side offered the following logical line of argument : New Zealand lies just over the line of the Eastern Hemisphere; its territory is inhabited by a highly civilized and progressive people; and could the United States peaceably acquire these islands, many strong reasons could be adduced to show that their permanent acquisition would be to our best interests. But in current discussion it was not New Zealand to which the acquisition of terri- tory in the East related, but the Philippine Islands. The Cornell debaters therefore decided that they could not afford to go before a general audience and rest their case on an argument for the acquisi- tion of New Zealand, without shirking the real issue raised by the question. In addition, then, to furnishing a natural intro- duction for the opening of the debate, an examina- tion of the origin of the question will throw light ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 35 upon the question as a whole and aid materially in the definition of terms. In defining a term, we are always attempting to explicate, more or less directly, the nature and limitations of an idea expressed by a word or phrase. "Definition," says Quintillian, "is an ex- plication of something in question, proper, clear, and concisely expressed." By "logical definition" is meant a concise statement of the trait or traits most essential to an object. It involves two pro- cesses : ( i ) The object to be defined is identified with a class of objects the genus; and (2) its particular place in the class is determined by some distinguishing trait or traits the differentia or species. For example : "Literature is the written record of valuable thought having other than merely practical purposes." In this definition "written record" is the genus; the remainder of the statement is the differentia or species. Again : Anarchists are (genus) those men (species) who believe in the abolition of all government." Creighton, in his "An Introductory Logic," lays down the following requirements of a logical defi- nition : A definition should (i) state the essential attributes of the thing to be defined; (2) should not contain the word to be defined, nor any word which is directly synonymous with it; (3) should be exactly equivalent 36 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE to the class of objects defined, that is, neither too broad nor too narrow; (4) should not be expressed in obscure, figurative, or ambiguous language; (5) it should, when- ever possible, be affirmative rather than negative. But a strictly logical definition is frequently in- sufficient in debate. Standing by itself, it is too severe and compact to be impressive. It needs to be amplified the terms explained, illustrated, restated in another and fuller form, distinguished and qualified in order to make the meaning clearer and more readily comprehensible to an un- scientific mind. Nor will a dictionary definition always help us out of the difficulty, for dictionary definitions frequently deal largely in synonyms, and include the various meanings a word may have. The use of a synonym will rarely make clearer the meaning of a term ; and for a speaker to pick out some particular definition favorable to his side of the question is of no avail, for his opponent can ordinarily do the same. Sometimes, however, a method akin to the use of synonyms sometimes called the method of analysis may be helpful. For example, in an essay entitled "Is the World Growing Better?" Dr. Henry Van Dyke says: "Growing better" is a phrase about which a company of college professors would probably have a long pre- liminary dispute, but plain people understand it well enough for practical purposes. There are three factors ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 37 in it. When we say that a man grows better, we mean that, in the main, he is becoming more just, and careful to do the right thing; more kind, and ready to do the helpful thing; more self-controlled, and willing to sacri- fice his personal will to the general welfare. Is the world growing better in this sense? Is there more justice, more kindness, more self-restraint among the inhabitants of the earth than in the days of old ? Two other common faults of dictionary defini- tions are : ( i ) They are often given in the techni- cal language of the specialist, and (2) they fail to give the special or transitory meanings that par- ticular words or terms may have with reference to questions of the day. As a familiar example of the first fault, take Samuel Johnson's dictionary definition of "network" : "Anything reticulated or decussated at equal distances with interstices be- tween the intersections." As an illustration of the second fault, take the proposition, "The indepen- dence of Cuba should be maintained." Webster defines "independence" as "exemption from re- liance on others or control by them." But as ap- plied to the proposition under consideration, it will be found, first, that the independence of Cuba is limited by its treaty relations with the United States, and secondly, that the term is also limited in its use by the special meaning given it in the code of the law of nations. For an adequate and 38 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE exact definition, therefore, an authority on inter- national law must be consulted. Again, if a stu- dent were to debate the question, "Resolved, that in football a more open style of play should be sub- stituted for the present close formation," it is ob- vious that the most recent dictionaries could hardly be expected to give satisfactory definitions of "open style of play" and "close formation." The definitional amplification that debating re- quires will of course vary in amount, depending upon the terms used in a given proposition, and may be accomplished in various ways. With refer- ence both to single terms and to the question as a whole, some of the methods of supplementing a purely logical definition are by the use of nega- tion, antithesis, exemplification, analogy, illustra- tion, and description. By negation is meant the making of a term or question clearer by telling what it is not. It is a process of exclusion. It is frequently used with good effect, not as a substitute for Creighton's fifth rule for a logical definition, but as a supplement to it. "This term," the debater says, "means not this or this, but it means this." Voltaire used this method when he wittily remarked that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Definition by antithesis is a special form of ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 39 negation. Two terms that are likely to be con- fused are balanced, the one against the other, so that by a series of distinctions the difference in their meanings is made clear. For example, John Stuart Mill thus distinguishes eloquence from poetry : Poetry and eloquence are both alike the expression or utterance of feeling; but, if we may be excused the an- tithesis, we should say that eloquence is heard, poetry is overheard. Eloquence supposes an audience. The pecu- liarity of poetry appears to lie in the poet's utter uncon- sciousness of a listener. Poetry is feeling confessing itself to itself in moments of solitude, and embodying itself in symbols which are the nearest possible representations of the feeling in the exact shape in which it exists in the poet's mind. Eloquence is fteling pouring itself out to other minds, courting their sympathy, or endeavoring to influence their belief, or move them to passion or to action. Exemplification, analogy, illustration, and de- scription, as used for definitional purposes, may be considered together. They are often highly ser- viceable in illuminating a term whose meaning it is essential that the audience understand. The logical or dictionary definition, we will say, has set the limits to, and described the nature of, a word or phrase; the use of negation and antithesis has tended to remove obscurity and misunderstanding. But frequently a further explanation is necessary. 40 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE Hence we find all the best argumentative writers and speakers taxing their ingenuity in the search for clear, interesting, and forcible methods of pre- senting their definitions. Henry Ward Beecher, in his Liverpool speech, used analogy as a means of definition, as follows: A savage is a man of one story, and that one story a cellar. When a man begins to be civilized he raises another story. When you Christianize and civilize the man, you put story upon story, for you develop faculty after faculty; and you have to supply every story with your productions. Similarly, it is description and not definition when Emerson says that eloquence is u a taking sovereign possession of the audience." Dr. Lyman Abbott combines negation, antithesis, analogy, and description in the following definition of education : The function of education is not to add something to man from without, but to develop man from within; in other words, education is development. ... It is not an addition to nature, still less is it something antagonistic to nature. ... It is the whole process by which the child who is but a seed may be developed into the tree; the child who is but a germ may be developed into the man; the child who is but a beginning may be carried on towards completion. This, and nothing less than this, is education. It is the training of the whole man of his hand, of his eye, of his feet, of his reason, of his judg- ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 4! ment, of his taste, of his conscience, of his physical, in- tellectual, and moral powers ; in a word, of the man. 1 Again, definition must not only be clear and in- telligible, it must above all be reasonable. That is, in the last analysis it must be tested by the popular or common understanding of the terms used. In legal practice, it is true, the sole issue may sometimes be the meaning of terms, and the case is tried on this issue as in the interpretation of words or clauses in a will. But in formal de- bating, be it said once more, one should debate, not the terms of the proposition, but the proposi- tion. True, a common understanding of the terms may not always be possible, but in any event the preliminary analysis will show just where the af- firmative and negative differ in the interpretation of the question, and they can then fight it out, if they must, on that line; in which case, a reasonable, clear, and striking definition goes far toward winning the debate. But it is purposeless and silly for one to waste his time quibbling over terms and working out hair-splitting distinctions that convince nobody and weary the hearers. The various phases and methods of definition show its importance in debating. In his recent course of Lowell Institute lectures Professor Wil- 1<( The Rights of Man," pp. 148-149. 42 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE liam James, of Harvard, emphasizes the fact that "nine-tenths of the bitterest disputes are really about definitions. When one faction loudly asserts that a certain thing is so, and another as loudly proclaims that it is not, the trouble usually is that the two sides understand different things by the word or phrase in question, and that each is right, provided its own definition be adopted." 2 And yet one should be careful about defining too much; it is well to assume average intelligence on the part of the hearers. The right kind of definition elimin- ates confusion and vagueness, limits the proposi- tion, and puts the debaters and the hearers on common ground. 2. The Common Ground. Amateurs in debate often need to learn that it is neither necessary nor desirable to controvert every point raised by their opponents, to dissipate their energies in opposing what it would only strengthen their case to admit. The skillful debater learns to yield cheerfully any point raised that is not essential to the proof of the main point or points in the discussion. By "the common ground" is meant those points on which both sides agree the points that are con- ceded or granted. In this step in analysis the debater asks himself such questions as : What mat- ~ See The Popular Science Monthly for March, 1907. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 43 ters likely to be connected with this question can I safely concede without affecting my position? and what matters is it reasonable to assume that my opponents will yield? For example, take the question, "Resolved, that the deportation of all negroes in this country to one of our island posses- sions offers the best solution of the race problem. " The common ground in this question might be stated as follows: It is granted that the presence of the negroes in America presents a problem that as yet remains unsolved; that both sides admit the existence of the problem and the need of some solu- tion; that in the discussion of the particular solu- tion proposed, the deportation would be effected, so far as possible, in accordance with the demands of justice and humanity. If this much, say, be granted by both sides, the essential points of dif- ference, the points on which there is a real clash of opinion, are left for the undivided attention which they deserve. 3. The Main Issue. Having definitely deter- mined the common ground, the next step in analysis is to discover what there is left in the proposition for debate; in other words, to find the main issue. What is meant by the main issue ? It is that point in which the debate centers, and about which the whole discussion revolves; it is that which must chiefly be proved in order to 44 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE prove your case. Rarely is a question for debate so stated that the evidence can be applied directly to the whole case. By analysis you must usually work out another statement which points to the issue or issues. Such intermediate steps are almost always necessary for the purpose of getting a groundwork for an argument. In many cases there may be a main issue, and, resulting therefrom, two or three special issues. For example, take the proposition, u The standing army of the United States should be increased." In support of this proposition you might say that we need more regu- lar soldiers to quell disorder during strikes and riots, to fight Indians, to protect national reserva- tions, to send to Cuba and to the Philippine Islands, etc. But so far the argument is all a jumble. You must get some point or points toward which all these reasons are directed. You must find the issues. Now in this question you might say that the main issue is, What is the need of any standing army at all in the United States? And in answer to this question the main issue there might be worked out these two special issues : We need a standing army (i) for domestic service and (2^ for foreign service. The sub-propositions, then, that the affirmative would undertake to maintain in order to prove the main proposition would be: ( i ) Our standing army should be increased to ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 45 ensure effective domestic service, and (2) it should be increased to ensure effective foreign service. We have seen that a statement of the common ground is one way of reaching the main issue. In many questions of the day one needs to go a step farther, and ask: What ideas usually connected with this question in popular discussion of it and likely to connect themselves with it, are, after all, wholly extraneous? ideas, that is to say, which the opposing side may not in the first instance admit, but which in fact have nothing to do with the case. In political questions, for example, whereon people disagree in part by reason of party affiliations, we shall find that popular discussions are full of so-called arguments far removed from the real issues. For example, in the question, "Resolved, that the United States should not re- tain permanent control of the Philippine Islands," the first speaker on the affirmative, in an inter-col- legiate debate, eliminated extraneous ideas put forth in popular discussion and reached the main issue, as follows: The issue in this debate is not the wisdom or justice of our past action, but relates to a policy for the future. Whether the Paris peace commissioners, acting under the advice of military and naval experts, did right or wrong in demanding from Spain the entire Philippine archi- pelago instead of a single base for a naval station, is not 46 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE the question. Whether the President and Congress were justified in insisting upon the establishment of order and the acknowledgment of American authority in the islands, is not the question. We are there. Our government is the only recognized government there. And the ques- tion is, Shall we continue a policy now fully inaugu- rated, or shall we abandon it and withdraw? The ques- tion is, with conditions as they exist to-day, shall the United States look to the abandonment and relinquish- ment of any and every kind of authority and control over the Philippine islands? Mr. Carl Schurz, in his great speech in the United States Senate in 1872, favoring the removal^ of all political disabilities imposed as a result of the Civil War, frequently reminded his hearers of the main issue, as the following excerpts will show (the words of reference to the main issue being italicized) : What are the best means for the attainment of that end [national well-being] ? This, sir, as I conceive it, is "the only legitimate question we have to decide. . . . When we raised the colored people to the rights of active citizenship and opened to them all the privileges of eli- gibility, we excluded from those privileges a large and influential class of whites; in other words, we lifted the late slave, uneducated and inexperienced as he was, not merely to the level of the late master class, but even above it. We asked certain white men to recognize the colored man, in a political status not only as high but even higher than their own. , . You tell me that the late rebels had ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 47 deserved all this in the way of punishment. Granting that, I beg leave to suggest that this is not the question. The question is: What were the means best calculated to overcome the difficulties standing in the way of a will- ing and universal recognition of the new rights and privileges of the emancipated class? What were the means to overcome the hostile influences impeding the development of the harmony of society in its new order? . . . Some senator, referring to a defaulting paymaster who experienced the whole rigor of the law, asked us, "When a poor defaulter is punished, shall a rebel go free? Is embezzlement a greater crime than treason?" No, sir, it is not; but again I repeat, that is not the ques- ion. The question is whether a general amnesty to bels is not far more urgently demanded by the public interest than a general pardon for thieves. 3 Masters in debate have always possessed a talent for separating the kernel of a proposition from the chaff; the power of detecting, in the midst of a mass of confusing details, the vital point in the discussion. Lincoln, for example, was noted for his power in analysis. It has been said of him that his mind " ran back behind facts, prin- ciples, and all things, to their origin and first cause to that point where forces act at once as effect and cause. Before he could form an idea of anything, before he would express his opinion on a subject, he must know its origin and history 8 Ringwalt, "Modern American Oratory," pp. 95-113. 48 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE in substance and quality, in magnitude and gravity. He must know it inside and outside, upside and downside. Thus everything had to run through the crucible and be tested by the fires of his analytic mind; and when at last he did speak, his utterances rang out with the clear and keen ring of gold upon the counters of the understand- ing." In the introduction of his noteworthy address at Cooper Institute, New York, February 27, 1860, this analytic quality is forcibly shown. Taking as his "text" a quotation from Senator Douglas, Lincoln defines the terms, states the com-A mon ground, and then reaches the main issue, as follows : In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as re- ported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said: "Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now." I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republi- cans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding those fathers had of the question men- tioned ? What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be, "The Constitution of the United States." . . . Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the thirty-nine who signed ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 49 the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of our present government. . . . What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better, than we do now"? It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Consti- tution, forbid our Federal Government to control slavery in our Federal territories? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and the Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue this question is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we." 4 Again, in the following letter 5 to General McClellan, dated June 28, 1862, Lincoln first states the main issue, as to which one of two military movements was the better, and then pre- sents, as determining the main issue, five special is- sues: You and I have distinct and different plans for a move- ment of the Army of the Potomac yours to be down the Chesapeake, up the Rappahannock to Urbana, and across land to the terminus of the railroad on the York River; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad south- west of Manassas. If you will give me satisfactory answers to the follow- ing questions, I shall gladly yield my plan to yours. 4 "Perry, Little Masterpieces," pp. 37-39. Idem, pp. 109-110. 50 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE First. Does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time and money than mine? Second. Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine? Third. Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine? Fourth. In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would break no great line of the enemy's commu- nications, while mine would? Fifth. In case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your plan than mine? Webster, in his famous debate with Hayne, the main issue as follows : The inherent right in the people to reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws without over- turning the government. It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great ques- tion is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the consti- tutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that the main debate hinges. So Burke, in his speech on "Conciliation with the American Colonies," thus states the two main issues : The capital leading questions on which you must this day decide, are these two: First, whether you ought to concede; and, secondly, what your concession ought to be. If the proposition for debate raises a political, ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 51 economic, or social question, where some remedy is advocated for existing ills, the point at issue can usually be found by working out the analysis on the analogy of a sick man: (i) What is wrong? (illness) ; (2) Will the proposed plan correct the evils complained of? (remedy) ; (3) Is it the best solution? (the only cure) . For example, take the proposition, ''Trusts should be suppressed." After defining "trusts," and admitting that there are certain evils connected with their organization I management, we might say that the main issue uld be: Should trusts be suppressed, or mid they be controlled and regulated by the government? That is, the debate would center in "another remedy" argument. One further example, with a different method of approach. Take the question, "Resolved, that three-fourths of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in criminal cases." On analysis it* will appear that both sides admit that absolute jus- tice cannot always be expected in jury trials. The question, therefore, is : How secure the most per- fect justice consistent with a uniform system? There are two sorts of interests involved: (i) the interest of the accused, that he shall not be unjustly convicted (the present status) ; (2) the interest of the people as a whole, that the guilty shall not escape punishment. The main issue, 52 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE therefore, might be thus stated: Will the proposed change increase the probability of public justice without lessening the probability of justice to the accused? From the foregoing examples, and by way of summary, we may say that in order to find the issues the debater must ( i ) study the question thoroughly in all its phases and details ; ( 2 ) study both sides of the question ; (3) exclude all granted, admitted, and extraneous matter; and (4) deter- mine those points on which there is a direct clas. of opinion. 4. The Burden of Proof. The fourth and la step in the preliminary analysis is, to locate the bur- den of proof. What is meant by "burden of proof"? It has been defined as "the obligation resting upon one or the other of the parties to a controversy to establish by proofs a given propo- 'sition before being entitled to receive an answer from the other side." To put it another way, the burden of proof is that obligation resting upon the side that would be assumed to be defeated if no progress were made in the discussion. In the evolution of the law, a large number of rules have been established for governing the bur- den of proof, with many of which even the lay- man is familiar. In the first place, there is the fundamental maxim. "He who affirms must ;r- I ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION , 53 prove." The defendant in a civil or criminal case is not required to offer any proof until at least a prima facie case has been proven against him. The burden is upon him who has the affirmative of the issue usually the plaintiff. The degree of the burden differs in civil and criminal cases: in civil cases the issue affirmed must be proved by u a fair preponderance of evidence" ; in criminal cases, "beyond a reasonable doubt." From the burden of proof in a given case a certain degree of pre- sumption arises. He who has the burden of proof has the presumption in the case against him, and vice versa. Legal presumptions vary in degree from cases of absolute conclusiveness to cases hav- ing such a slight degree of presumptiveness that the burden of proof may be easily shifted from one side to the other in the controversy. Thus, it is a conclusive presumption that an idiot, an insane person, or a child under seven years of age cannot commit crime; that if a promise is secured by force or duress, the promisor is not bound. Again, if a person has been absent seven years without having been seen or heard from by those who would naturally have seen him or heard from him, the court must presume that such person is dead, a presumption, however, that may be overcome by proof, and so on through all degrees, to the ordi- 54 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE nary presumption of that "fair preponderance of proof" which is the general rule in civil cases. Thayer's "Preliminary Treatise on Evidence'' re- duces the doctrine of legal presumptions to the following four maxims : ( i ) No one shall, in the first instance, be called on to prove a negative, or be put on his defence, without suffi- cient evidence against him having been offered, which, if not contradicted or explained, would be conclusive. (2) The affirmative of the issue must be proved; other- wise men might be called upon by a stranger to prove the title to their property, which they might often be unable to do, though the title was in fact good. (3) Possession is prima facie evidence of property. . . . (4) What- ever anything appears or professes to be, is considered to be the fact, until the contrary is proved. In conformity to these legal rules, the side which has the affirmative of the issue in a debate is said to have the burden of proof. That is, the burden of proof is upon him who would change a present custom, who attacks one's character or motives, who proposes a change in the established order of things, who champions a new plan or policy, who argues counter to the prevalent practice, belief, or opinion. Corresponding to Thayer's fourtk maxim, as given above, we might say that the gen- eral presumption is that "whatever is, is right" until it is proven wrong. And as in law, there ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 55 are in debating generally various degrees of pre- sumption, depending upon the nature of the propo- sition, and the time when, and locality where, it is proposed. For example, the presumption in the United States has always been against a monarch- ial form of government; in France, the presump- tion has been shifted from a monarchial to a re- publican form; while in Russia the presumption is in favor of a monarchy. So, in the Southern States the presumption is in favor of a strict con- struction of the Constitution as to the reserved rights of the States, while in the North the pre- sumption leans towards a more liberal construc- tion and a stronger central government. The shrewd debater will always take advan- tage of any presumptions in his favor; and if, on the other hand, the argument seems against him on the surface, he will aim to change such pre- sumption. It very frequently happens that the first efforts of the debater must be directed to combating popular prejudices or preconceived opinions. The burden of proof may be shifted in various ways, depending, of course, upon the ques- tion. It may be done by showing that the speaker and the hearers are, after all, not so far apart as might appear on first thought, that seeming differ- ences are more apparent than real; by showing that one's ideas are not new or revolutionary; or 56 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE by showing the intrinsic reasonableness of the proposition. Suppose, for example, one is arguing in favor of suffrage for women. He has existing conditions and, generally speaking, popular opin- ion against him. He might argue that the under- lying idea of popular government is, that all citi- zens have the right to participate in the govern- ment through the suffrage, provided they are cap- able of expressing themselves intelligently on its operations. Hence all male citizens except minors, idiots, and criminals are allowed to vote. Women are also disfranchised, but for reasons now obso- lete and merely traditional since the political privileges of women have not kept pace with their emancipation from the social and intellectual bondage of the past. It is therefore for those who oppose granting women the suffrage to show why we should continue this anachronism. The following examples of attempts to shift the burden of proof, in intercollegiate debates, will il- lustrate how the matter has been worked out in actual practice. On the question, "Should the United States re- tain permanent control of the Philippine Islands?" the first speaker on the affirmative anticipated the charge of imperialism that he knew was likely to come from a Southern audience, as follows: ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 57 We disclaim, at the outset, any intention or tendency of this government to embark upon a general imperialistic policy in the sense of subjecting other peoples to our rule for selfish objects. If it is imperialism to hold the Philip- pines because of the "consent of the governed" doctrine, then Jefferson was the prince of imperialists when he purchased the Louisiana Territory over the protests of the inhabitants. If you say that the purchase of the Philippines is not an analogous case because of distance, I answer that by the extended use of steam and electricity, Washington is nearer Manila to-day than it was to St. Louis or New Orleans in 1803. But, it is said, great evils must result from the addition of these islands to our territory. Let me remind you that every addition of territory to our country (and we have been expansionists from the beginning of our history) was prophesied to portend the downfall of the Republic, while as a matter of fact each accession has proved a mutual blessing to both the United States and the country added. When the addition of Louisiana was proposed, for example, in a speech in Congress Josiah Quincy said: "If this Bill passes, the bonds of the Union are virtually dissolved. The Constitution was never intended and cannot be strained to overlap the wilderness of the West. You have no authority to throw the rights and liberties and prosperity of this people into hotchpot with the wild men of Missouri, nor with the mixed race of Anglo-Gallo- Americans who bask on the sands in the mouth of the Mississippi. This Bill, if it passes, is a deathblow to the Constitution." But the bill passed, our Constitution sur- vives, our Union is more powerfully cemented than ever, and the thrift and enterprise of this great Southern 58 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE metropolis suggest anything else than basking on the sands of the Mississippi. 5 Again, on the proposition to have compulsory arbitration of disputes between public-service cor- porations and their employees, the first speaker on the affirmative argued that such changes had been wrought in industrial conditions as to demand the remedy proposed, and closed as follows: Having seen every form of industry affected by strikes on railroads, having witnessed destruction of property, do the gentlemen of the negative venture to say that the ex- isting relations between railroads and their employees are satisfactory; do they deny that the present methods are inadequate to meet the problem that confronts us; and do they consider that such a problem does not demand solution ? The first speaker on the negative, by the ques- tion-asking method, thus attempted to shift the burden of proof: It is a little bit remarkable, perhaps, that one should open a debate without outlining it in some way, and with- out even telling what the gentlemen for the affirmative expect to prove. It is barely possible they don't expect to prove anything. Since they do not take upon them- selves the burden of proving anything, I would say that we, for the negative, require and challenge them to prove at least four main propositions: (i) the need in this B From the Texas-Tulane debate of 1901. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 59 country for compulsory boards of adjustment of labor disputes; (2) the practicability or workability of the scheme proposed; (3) the possibility in the face of American thought and the spirit of our institutions and, indeed, in the face of our Federal Constitution itself especially the thirteenth amendment, which declares that "no one shall be subject to involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime"; and (4) the gentlemen for the affirmative must prove that the proposed scheme is expedient and politic. And now we have come here to learn. We are con- scientiously seeking for some practical, expedient, sensible means of curing one of our country's great evils quar- rels between public corporations and their employees. We recognize that evil; I will answer the gentleman, we don't deny that evil ; and we are as earnestly and conscientiously looking for the cure as are the gentlemen for the affirmative; but we are going to look pretty sharp to see, first, that the panacea proposed is a cure; and, second, that the cure is not worse than the disease. 6 We have noticed some of the technical points as to burden of proof and presumptions. But the demands of general debating are not usually satis- fied by observing strictly legal rules, or even by satisfying the demands of logic. This admonition may therefore well be heeded: In general debat- ing, do not attempt to rest your argument upon technical presumptions. True, a lawyer may get a prisoner free by discovering a flaw in the indict- 8 From the Cornell-Pennsylvania debate of 1897. 60 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE ment; or he may decline to put his client on the witness stand in his own defense. But it is well known that this does not ordinarily convince the public of the prisoner's innocence. So, in general debate, the question is not, for example, whether a plan proposed will meet the objections urged by its opponents, but the question in the public mind is, Will it, on the whole, be a good plan to adopt? The debater must not so much attempt to shift some purely technical burden of proof, as the real burden of doubt in the mind of the hearers. It is to be remembered, too, that you cannot shift to an opponent what properly belongs to you a thing that amateur debaters often attempt. The burden of proof is the proof that either side must assume, and is willing to assume, in order to establish the case; it represents the demand of the hearers: "Prove your case, if we are to believe it." The amount of attention that each of these steps in analysis may require, when applied to a given question, will of course depend upon the form and nature of the proposition. In the finished argu- ment the steps may be interwoven, but the student should train himself in taking these steps seriatim in entering upon the discussion of a given question, for by such an approach only can one reach the de- sired clearness, pointedness, and emphasis in the argument as a whole. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 6 1 EXERCISES 1. Assign members of the class questions of current discus- sion, and let each student bring in at the next meeting a written statement of (a) why the subject is one of public discussion, (b) the state of the discussion at the present time, and (c) the opinions held by each side. 2. Point out how much definition is necessary in the following questions : (a) Association football is preferable to the Rugby game. (b) Trusts should be suppressed. (c) American colleges and universities should adopt the elective system. 3. State the common ground in the following: (a) The honor system should be employed in the examina- tions of high schools and colleges. (b) Negroes should neither be enlisted nor commissioned in the United States regular army. (c) Any further centralization of power in the Federal Government should be opposed by all citizens. 4. On the basis of the interests involved, determine the main issues in: (a) Fraternities should not be allowed in this institution. (b} The faculty of this institution should have the right of censorship of student publications. (c) The publication of cartoons of public men should not be permitted. 5. Where does the burden of proof lie in the following ques- tions, and why? () Aaron Burr was guilty of treason. (b) The United States Government should have general charge of interstate railway passenger rates. (c) The San Francisco school board was justified in its action relative to the segregation of Japanese pupils. 6. Let each member of the class analyze an assigned question for debate (see Appendix), the results to be given in either oral or written reports at the next exercise. CHAPTER III PROOF Having analyzed the question and so gotten an idea of the work to be done, the debater is now ready to proceed to his proof, or argument proper. It is the purpose of this chapter to deal with proof only in its broad outlines; more detailed features of the same general subject will be considered in succeeding chapters. What is Proof? Proof has been defined as consisting of "any effort, process, or operation de- signed to discover a fact or truth"; 1 "anything which serves, directly or indirectly, to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact or propo- sition." 2 "Evidence is anything which generates proof." 3 That is, proof is the effect, or result, of evidence; evidence is the medium of proof. Evi- dence is the raw material, proof the finished pro- duct. And argument, it might be added, is the machinery wherewith evidence is manufactured into proof. 1 Webster. 2 Best on Evidence, p. 5. z Idem. (62) PROOF 63 Proof vs. Assertion. Taking a lesson from the ordinary methods of the amateur debater, a prin- ciple that needs emphasizing is, asserting is not debating. Real debating requires that every as- sertion material to a question must be supported by proof. To reason is to state relevant facts or experiences, and to draw inferences from these facts and experiences, in support of a propo- sition. The statement of a matter as a fact, or of a belief as a truth, without stating the reasons on which the conclusion is based, is mere assertiveness. Not amateur debaters alone need to be on their guard against assertiveness the fault is also il- lustrated, as has previously been suggested, in the dogmatism of the preacher or teacher, and gener- ally in the bigotry of persons in all walks of life when called upon to present some evidence of the truth of their assertions. If a man says that he knows a thing or believes a thing, he must show how he knows it or why he believes it. A minister once came to Jeremiah Mason, the famous trial lawyer and said : "Mr. Mason, I have seen an angel from heaven who told me that your client was inno- cent." "Yes," replied Mason, "and did he tell you how to prove it?" "How can I prove it?" is the constantly recur- ring question in debate. As a preliminary to the search for proof the student should first of all sub- 64 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE ject himself to a severe self-scrutiny, and note what clearly defined opinions he already has on the sub- ject under discussion; what opinions are based upon personal knowledge, or upon experience or evidence of some sort that he can lay his hands on; and what opinions rest on vague impressions, early teaching, and prejudice, or upon the desire that this or that side of the question may be true. By such a preliminary examination of the content of his own mind he will clear the approach to the proof of a great deal of rubbish, and will clear his mind for action* This process of excluding impressions and prejudices, as a question is taken up for debate, is not always easy. "The best minds," says Victor Hugo, in his "Les Miser- cables," "have their fetishes, and at times feel vaguely wounded by any respect on the part of logic." "It is no proof of a man's understand- ing," says Emerson, "to be able to confirm what- ever he pleases." It is not only no proof of his understanding, it is no compliment to his intelli- gence. Assumptions. An exception to the rule that in argument every material assertion must be sup- ported by proof is found in the legitimate use of assumptions. An assumption is the provisional or absolute acceptance of a certain truth without ref- PROOF 65 erence to proof taking a thing for granted. The provisional acceptance of an alleged truth is a method of reasoning largely used in scientific in- vestigation. The method consists of either of two processes, known as deduction and induction. In deduction a general law or hypothesis is first as- sumed, and then all instances or phenomena are brought within this general law; and the inverse method, or induction, which proceeds from par- ticulars to the general law, assumes that all in- stances are like those examined. In mathematics an assumption is called an axiom; in practical af- fairs, a maxim. The ordinary proverb is simply the expression of the common experience or com- mon knowledge of mankind. In one of his ad- dresses, President David Starr Jordan says : "We know that if the youth fall not the man will stand. I shall not argue this question. I assume it as a fact of experience, and it is this fact which gives our public school system the right to exist." 4 In this instance a common proverb "As the twig is bent the tree is inclined" is used as the basis for the support of our system of public schools. And, generally, in every-day discussions assumptions are the ultimate basis of much reasoning. The point to be guarded against is that nothing be assumed * "Care and Culture of Men," p. 84. 66 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE unless it is generally accepted as true. That is, whenever an assumption has any argumentative force, it must itself rest on the assumption of gen- eral acceptance without the necessity for proof. The force of the argument from authority (later considered) rests on the assumption that the au- thority quoted will be accepted as authoritative. Assumptions, then, are widely serviceable as a basis for much argument. It will be seen, how- ever, that they readily shade off into presumptions. An assumption may vary in force from the cer- tainty of a self-evident proposition to a mere guess. And the test of its argumentative force, it should be remembered, is its effect on the mind of a hearer. The moment that the truth of an assumption is questioned, proof to support it becomes necessary. Varying Degrees of Possible Proof. In com- mon usuage proof means the establishment of a greater or less probability as to the truth of a given proposition. When we argue current political or economic questions, our proof must always fall short of mathematical demonstration; the very fact that such questions are in dispute implies that they cannot be settled by syllogisms. Outside of mathematics and logic, then, and from the view- point of ordinary debate, we may properly speak of degrees of proof. The degree, of conclusive- PROOF 67 ness that may be reached in an argument will de- pend upon the nature of the question. Proof or disproof may vary from practically absolute con- clusiveness to a mere presumption of truth. A gen- eral presumption, for example, is all that could be expected in the discussion of such a question as, "Is the World Growing Better?" In his argu- ment of this question, previously referred to, Dr. Van Dyke says: Of course, when we consider a question like this, before even a modest guess at the answer is possible, we must be willing to take a long view and a wide view. The world, like the individual man, has its moods and its vagaries, its cold fits and its hot fits, its backslidings and its repentances, its reactions and its revivals. An ad- vance made in one century may be partly lost in the next, and regained with interest in a later century. One na- tion may be degenerating, under local infections of evil, while others are improving. There may be years, or re- gions, of short harvest in the field of morals, just as there are in the cotton-field or the cornfield. The same general conditions that work well for the development of most men, may prove unfavorable to certain races. Civiliza- tion seems to oppress and demoralize some tribes to the point of extinction. Liberty is a tonic too strong for cer- tain temperaments; it intoxicates them. But what we have to look at is not the local exception, nor the tem- porary reaction ; it is the broad field as far as we can see it, the general movement as far as we can trace it. And here I make my sober guess that the world is really grow- ing better: not in every eddy, but in the main current of 68 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE its life ; not in a straight line, but with a winding course ; not in every respect, but in at least two of the three main points of goodness [justice, kindness, and self-restraint] ; not swiftly, but slowly, surely, really growing better. As determining the degree of possible proof, two classes of questions for debate may be consid- ered. These are : ( i ) Questions of Fact, wherein the argument mainly rests on past experiences 'or present conditions; and (2) Questions of Policy, wherein the truth of the proposition must be tested, at least in part, by future experiences. i. "A fact is a past happening or present con- dition." In a question of fact, then, something has happened, or exists; the process of proof consists in showing what that something is. Such questions are therefore capable of a greater degree of ap- proximation to absolute conclusiveness of proof than is possible in questions of policy. Now, in questions of fact three classes of facts are to be dealt with: First, those facts that are admitted or conclusively proved; second, the facts that are in doubt, which must be determined from the evi- dence to be presented; and, third, the facts that are to be inferred from the facts that are admitted or proved. These three classes of facts represent the steps in the proof in an ordinary trial at law. First, there is the statement of the facts in the case which both sides admit including those matters PROOF 69 of which the court will take "judicial notice"; sec- ondly, the proof of facts in issue; and, thirdly, the conclusions of fact drawn by the verdict of the jury, which records those facts proven by either "a fair preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt," as the case may be. And so in debate generally. For example, take the question, u Was Admiral Schley guilty of the charges brought against him?" (i) Facts admitted: Ad- miral Sampson was in nominal command, and cer- tain facts as to coaling, maneuvering, etc. (2) Matters for proof: (a) Whether or not Admiral Schley did his utmost to capture or destroy the Colon on May 31, 1898; (b) whether or not his official reports regarding the coaling facilities of the Flying Squadron were inaccurate and mislead- ing; (c) whether or not he did an injustice to Lieutenant-Commander Hodgson by publishing a garbled version of the correspondence that passed between them. (3) Facts for inference: Conclu- sions from the proof presented as to (#), (&), and (c). 2. In questions of policy the proof relates not to what has happened, but to what should hap- pen. But while the conclusion to be reached looks toward the future, the argument must almost al- ways be grounded on facts. Take, for example, the question of government ownership of railroads 7<3 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE in the United States. The usual line of proof would be : ( i ) The existing evils in railway management demand correction; (2) government ownership has proved beneficial in other countries; and (3) it would prove beneficial in this country. Or, again, questions of policy can usually be reduced to these two issues : ( i ) Would the adoption of the plan proposed be to our interest? (2) Would it be in accord with principle? These are the two main issues in the argument of such questions, for ex- ample, as the permanent retention of the Philip- pine Islands or the annexation of Cuba (i) Will it pay? and (2) is it right? And if it can be shown that interest and principle coincide, a strong argument results. But in all questions of policy, it will be readily seen, absolute proof or disproof is impossible. And the test is : Has the advocate of this policy made out such a case that a reasonable man should act on it? The test proceeds on the principle that that proof which convinces an honest seeker of the truth should convince an honest hearer. No re- form political, social, humanitarian, or relig- ious can be proposed against which valid objec- tions cannot be urged. The test is: Do such ob- jections outweigh the proved advantages? PROOF 7! EXERCISES 1. How much does prejudice or early training enter into your answers to the following questions, and what proof have you to offer to sustain your answers? (a) To what political party do you belong? (b) What church do you favor? (c) Do you approve of the present game of college football? (d) What is the best government on earth? (e) What is the best country in which to live? The best State of the United States? The best town? 2. What is the proposition for proof in the following speech? Is the proposition proved? If not, why not? "If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar's, to him I say that, Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: Not that I lov'd Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men? As Caesar lov'd me, I weep for him ; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but, as he was ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his am- bition. Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country? If any, speak ; for him have I offended." 3. Give examples of deductive and inductive reasoning. 4. In the following propositions, determine those which might properly be used as assumptions in the course of an argument, those which are only presumptions, and those which are mere assertions : (a) A rolling stone gathers no moss. (b) Every cloud has a silver lining. (c) Honesty is the best policy. (d) You should decide this question, not on the basis of your individual interest alone, but on the basic prin- ciple of "the greatest good to the greatest number." (e) A law may be a good law for a given community, though a bad law for individuals in the community. (/) The Bible is the inspired word of God. 72 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE (g ) Roosevelt is an honest man. (h) The Czar of Russia is a weak man. (i) Government in the United States is tending to become unduly centralized. 5. Determine the degree of possible proof in each of the fol- lowing questions: (a) Men are growing more humane. (b] People living in southern latitudes are more cruel to dumb animals than those living in the north. , (c) According to non-Euclidian geometry, two parallel lines may meet. (d) The earth revolves about the sun. (e) Aaron Burr was chiefly at fault in causing the duel be- tween himself and Alexander Hamilton. (/) Japanese coolies should not be allowed to immigrate to ' the United States. CHAPTER IV EVIDENCE Facts and Evidence. The establishment of facts, and the inferences therefrom, are the basis of all processes of reasoning. A single fact is fre- ^uently more convincing than a long array of theories and generalizations. "A popular as- sembly," says Emerson, "like the House of Com- mons, or the French Chamber, or the American Congress, is commanded by these two powers first by a fact, then by skill of statement." Facts are established by various kinds of evi- dence. In law, the trier of facts the court or juryman gets the facts by one of four ways : ( i ) To a limited extent, from his own knowledge, that is, those facts which everybody ought to know, and including matters of which the court takes "ju- dicial notice"; (2) by actually seeing the thing in question as, a broken limb or a chattel the res ipse, or thing itself "real evidence"; (3) by oral or documentary evidence on the matter in suit; and (4) by a process of reasoning from facts closely related to the facts in issue to a conclusion regarding such facts, and if the conclusion is such 1 (73) 74 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE that an ordinary man would ordinarily draw, it is a "presumption of fact." The debater gets his facts from his own knowl- edge of the matters in question, from talking with others who are qualified to speak, and yet more from "documentary" evidence, official publi<^- tions, books, periodicals, and newspapers, and from the facts so gathered he reaches, by a process of reasoning, certain conclusions as to facts in dis- pute. In legal procedure a large number of principles and rules relative to the value and admissibility of various kinds of evidence have been formulated in a code of practice. The debater is bound by no such rules ; and yet, since these rules of law are based on the common judgment of mankind, the debater should be slow to use what a court of law would reject. In the search for evidence of dis- puted facts, then, it becomes necessary for the de- bater to test the evidence as to its strength or weak- ness. Following are some of the principal tests that apply to argumentation generally. There are three tests as to the evidence itself: ( i ) It should be consistent with ordinary human experience; (2) it should be consistent with the other known facts in the case; and (3) it should be consistent with itself. There are three tests of evidence as to its sources : ( i ) Does the witness EVIDENCE 75 speak from personal knowledge? (2) Is he un- prejudiced? (3) What is his reputation for intel- ligence and truthfulness? Again, there are three kinds of evidence which are from their very nature trustworthy : ( i ) Undesigned testimony ; ( 2 ) negative testimony; and (3) concessions. TESTS OF EVIDENCE AS TO ITS NATURE i. Evidence should be consistent with ordinary human experience. People are slow to believe anything that fails to tally with human nature and experience. Is an allegation true, on the face of it? is a test question constantly applied. Is it reasonable? Is it in accord with common sense? Is it consistent with the natural coutse of affairs? This is one of the tests that the trial lawyer, both in cross-examination and in the closing argument, is frequently called upon to apply. In the cele- brated case of Rex vs. Forbes, for example, one Dr. McNamara testified that he saw the defend- ant hurl a bottle at the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire- land from the upper gallery of a theater. The de- fendant's attorney, John Henry North, attacked this testimony as follows: The Doctor in the middle gallery sees Handwich in the third row of the upper one, though between them there were two benches covered with people, and the 76 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE boarded parapet in front of the upper . gallery besides ! Through all these obstacles he sees him in that dark corner of the gallery where he represents him to be placed ; sees him fling the bottle, and is now able, at this distance of time, to identify his person. The bottle itself he saw in what he learnedly calls its transit. A word or two on that same transit. I hold it physically impossible that a bottle could have taken the course described by Farrell McNamara, from the upper gallery to the stage, without being observed by four or five hundred spectators. Just think what the theater is: a wide, illuminated area, whose bounding surfaces are studded with eyes as numer- ous as those of Argus. Not a square inch in that field of view which was not painted on the retina of some one eye or other in that vast assembly. Consider, too, the time the interval between the play and farce when the attention of the audience was not fixed upon the stage, when people were all looking about them, recognizing and greeting their friends and acquaintances. Was there no one to mark this bottle but Farrell McNamara, and the young medical student? What, not one giggling girl in the boxes, glancing around for admiration! not an opera-glass pointed ! no fortunate observer of the transit but the astronomer from Ballinakill! Is all this credible? But this is not all "voonders upon voonders," as the Dutchman said when he got to London the greatest miracle is to come. Down comes the bottle, thundering from the upper gallery to the stage, and falls unbroken! 1 2. Evidence should be consistent with the other known facts in the case. Any evidence that varies 1 "Great Speeches by Great Lawyers," p. 659. EVIDENCE 77 materially from facts already proved or gener- ally accepted is at once open to suspicion, and is ordinarily discredited. The evidence as a whole must hang together. Evidence at variance with a clearly established fact is worthless. It is told of Lincoln that in a certain case he elicited from a witness, in considerable detail, testimony of things seen by the aid of the moonlight on a certain night. An almanac was then introduced to show that there was no moon on the night in question. Again, Webster applied this test in the following comment on the testimony of a witness in the trial of Frank Knapp: Balch says, that on the evening, whenever it was, he saw the prisoner; the prisoner told him he was going out of town on horseback, for a distance of about twenty minutes' drive, and that he was going to get a horse at Osborn's. This was about seven o'clock. At about nine, Balch says, he saw the prisoner again, and was then told by him that he had had his ride, and had returned. Now it appears by Osborn's books that the prisoner had a saddle-horse from his stable, not on Tuesday evening, the night of the murder, but on the Saturday evening previous. This fixes the time about which these young men testify, and is a complete answer and refutation of the attempted alibi on Tuesday evening. In practical life the danger of this test of con- sistency lies in accepting as absolutely true what 78 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE is generally accepted as true. Many so-called facts or truths have been proven, as we know, "hoary errors." And the same will doubtless prove true of many principles and maxims which are to-day generally accepted as axiomatic. The process of progress in science, sociology, or politics is the abandonment of generally accepted theories, re- sulting from the discovery of new truths. 3. Evidence should be consistent with itself. This test, it will be seen, is practically the same as the preceding, except that it has a narrower appli- cation. Is the evidence credible, regardless of its comparison with other known facts ? Does it in itself hang together? Is it self-consistent or self- contradictory? In a trial at law, it is not infre- quently the purpose of the cross-examination to bring forth contradictory statements to lead the witness to impeach himself. And so the debater generally must be constantly on his guard against inconsistencies in the evidence he examines. Ma- caulay, for example, in his review of Croker's edi- tion of "Boswell's Johnson," points out the follow- ing contradictions on the part of the editor: Mr. Croker tells us in a note that Derrick, who was master of the ceremonies at Bath, died very poor in 1760. We read on ; and, a few pages later, we find Dr. John- son and Boswell talking of this same Derrick as still liv- EVIDENCE 79 ing and reigning, as having retrieved his character, as possessing so much power over his subjects at Bath that his opposition might be fatal to Sheridan's lectures on oratory. And all this in 1763. The fact is, that Derrick died in 1769. ... In one note we read that Sir Herbert Croft . . . died in 1805. Another note in the same volume states that this same Herbert Croft died ... on the 27th of April, 1816. TESTS OF EVIDENCE AS TO ITS SOURCES i. Does the witness speak from personal knowl- edge? In seeking evidence on a fact in dispute, the evidence should be adduced from original sources, whenever possible. Second-hand knowl- edge is relatively weak. Hence the general rule in law that "hearsay" evidence is inadmissible; u its intrinsic weakness," says Greenleaf, u its incompe- tency to satisfy the mind as to the existence of the fact, and the frauds that may be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule." In argu- mentation generally, the farther the evidence of a fact in question is removed from the personal knowledge of a witness, the weaker the evidence becomes. Thus, in questions of governmental ad- ministration official publications are far more trustworthy than newspaper reports. If one were arguing the question, "Should Cuba be annexed to the United States?" and the question arose as to 8o SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE the desire of the inhabitants of Cuba regarding annexation, such desire could best be shown, not by the reports of travelers in the island, or by the reports of our consuls there, but by the statements of representative Cubans themselves. So, on the question of the incorporation of labor unions, the willingness of the unions to be incorporated must be proved, not by the testimony of an economist or a government official, but by the statements and actions of the labor leaders themselves. In the search for evidence, then, first-hand statements are first to be sought. The debater must ask himself, Is this the best available testimony that can be ad- duced? 2. Is the witness unprejudiced? Just as an ad- mission against one's interest is considered inher- ently strong, so evidence that shows bias, from whatever motive, is inherently weak. Not that an interested witness may not tell the truth, but his evidence is apt to be viewed with more suspicion than the testimony of one who has no motive for desiring that this or that side of a disputed fact may be true. When we consider the fallibility of human testimony at its best, due to lack of accurate observation and memory, it is no wonder that the testimony of a prejudiced witness should be viewed with suspicion. The most honest of men are apt EVIDENCE 8 1 to see events as they hope to see them. A striking illustration of this is found in the conflicting re- ports of the Spanish and American commissions that investigated the cause of the destruction of the battleship Maine. With the same facts be- fore them, the two commissions reached conclu- sions diametrically opposed to each other. So, ex- pert testimony in trials at law is nowadays apt to be discredited, since the expert usually has either a financial or professional interest in the outcome. 3. Is the witness intelligent and truthful? This test, so common in legal trials and in every- day life, is of course to a greater or less degree in- volved in the. other tests of evidence. Intelligence and truthfulness are always essentials for reliabil- ity. Has a witness the mental power to observe accurately, remember truly, and report intelli- gently? And what is his general reputation for truthfulness? An unfavorable answer to any of these questions discredits the testimony. Many an interesting ghost story has been found to rest on nothing except weakness of sight, or hearing, or touch. Many a railroad accident has been due to a color-blind engineer or switchman. Not only must a witness have good mental and sensorial fac- ulties, he must also show trustworthiness. Our be- lief in human testimony rests on the general pre- 6 82 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE sumption that a witness is not only able, but is also willing, to tell the truth. As we have seen, his willingness to tell the truth may be affected, in a given case, by his interests or prejudices ; but there is also the "natural-born liar." And if one has a general reputation for untruthfulness, his testi- mony is of little or no value. The ordinary trial at law shows witnesses so at variance that it is fre- quently no small part of the lawyer's work to demonstrate who is telling the truth. Thus, in the Dalton divorce case, Rufus Choate attacks the tes- timony of one of the leading witnesses for the plaintiff as follows: I begin, therefore, with the foundation witness in this case, John H. Coburn, and I respectfully submit to you, that tried by every test of credibility which the law recognizes, on your oaths you are bound to disbelieve him. It is not that a laugh can be raised against Coburn or his testimony that is nothing; it is that, according to those tests which are founded on the longest and widest experience the law deems satisfactory to show whether a jury can safely believe or not, he is not to be believed. I submit, then, that John H. Coburn is not an honest man, and is not, therefore, entitled to be heard in so deli- cate a work as bringing every word my client spoke on that evening to her husband; he is not an honest man, and I put it on your solemn oath to you, that there is not a man on this jury who, on the exhibition of John H. Coburn, would intrust him to carry a bundle worth five dollars from this courthouse to the depot. 2 2 "Great Speeches by Great Lawyers," pp. 307-311. EVIDENCE 83 Again, in the White murder trial Webster thus compared the claims of two witnesses to veracity: These two witnesses, Mr. Colman and Phippen Knapp, differ entirely. There is no possibility of reconciling them. No charity can cover both. One or the other has sworn falsely. If Phippen Knapp be believed, Mr. Col- man's testimony must be wholly disregarded. It is, then, a question of credit, a question of belief between the two witnesses. As you decide between these, so you will de- cide on all this part of the case. Mr. Colman has given you a plain narrative, a con- sistent account, and has uniformly stated the same things. He is not contradicted, except by the testimony of Phippen Knapp. He is influenced, as far as we can see, by no bias, or prejudice, any more than other men, except so far as his character is now at stake. He has feelings on this point, doubtless, and ought to have. If what he has stated be not true, I cannot see any ground for his escape. If he be a true man, he must have heard what he testifies. No treachery of memory brings to memory things that never took place. There is no reconciling his evidence with good intention, if the facts in it are not as he states them. He is on trial as to his veracity. The relation in which the other witness stands deserves your careful consideration. He is a member of the family. He has the lives of two brothers depending, as he may think, on the effect of his evidence; depending on every word he speaks. . . . Compare the situation of these two witnesses. Do you not see mighty motive enough on the one side, and want of all motive on the other? I would gladly find an apology for that witness, in his agonized feelings, in his distressed situation; in the 84 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE agitation of that hour, or of this. I would gladly impute it to error or to want of recollection, to confusion of mind or disturbance of feeling. I would gladly impute to any pardonable source that which cannot be reconciled to facts and to truth ; but, even in a case calling for so much sympathy, justice must yet prevail, and we must come to the conclusion, however reluctantly, which that demands from .us. EVIDENCE WHICH IS INHERENTLY STRONG i. Undesigned Testimony. By undesigned tes- timony is meant such evidence as a speaker or writer states inadvertently or incidentally, without any thought as to its value or bearing on a ques- tion in dispute. To be of value, however, such in- advertence must not amount to any suspicion of carelessness or inaccuracy. In the absence of any such suspicion, undesigned testimony, having be- hind it no motive or bias, ordinarily carries with it a strong presumption of its truthfulness. Web- ster also makes use of this presumption in the White murder trial, as follows: Mr. Southwick swears all that a man can swear. He has the best means of judging that could be had at the time. He tells you that he left his father's house at half- past ten o'clock, and as he passed to his own house in Brown Street he saw a man sitting on the steps of the rope-walk ; that he passed him three times, and each time he held down his head, so that he did not see his face. EVIDENCE 85 That the man had on a cloak, which was not wrapped around him, and a glazed cap. That he took the man to be Frank Knapp at the time; that, when he went into his house, he told his wife that he thought it was Frank Knapp; that he knew him well, having known him from a boy. And his wife swears that he did so tell her when he came home. What could mislead this witness at the time? He was not then suspecting Frank Knapp of any- thing. He could not then be influenced by any prejudice. If you believe that the witness saw Frank Knapp in this position at this time, it proves the case. 2. Negative Testimony. This class of evi- dence, also called "the testimony of silence," con- sists in u the failure of a witness to mention a fact so striking that he must have noticed it had it oc- curred." In his speech on "Conciliation" Burke based the following argument on negative testi- mony: We see the sense of the Crown, and the sense of Parliament, on the productive nature of a revenue by grant. Now search the same journals for the produce of the revenue by imposition. Where is it? Let us know the volume and the page. What is the gross, what is the net produce ? To what service is it applied ? How have you appropriated its surplus? What, can none of the many skillful index-makers that we are now employing find any trace of it? Well, let them and that rest together. But are the journals, which say nothing of the revenue, as silent on the discontent ? Oh, no ! a child may find it. It is the melancholy , burden and blot of every page. 86 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 3. Concessions. By concessions in this con- nection is meant any admissions by a witness that are hostile to his interests. If the owner of a line of steamships makes statements in opposition to ship subsidies, or a manufacturer to a protective tariff, this would be taken as strong evidence- unless, of course, it be shown that in some way the witness's interests are not really opposed to his statements, such as his desire to destroy a com- peting rival or to engage in a new business not needing protection. In the following argument, Senator Albert J. Beveridge shows that while cor- porations having to do with interstate commerce might naturally be supposed to favor "centraliza- tion" as opposed to "States' rights, "still their inter- ests sometimes lie in favoring the latter doctrine : Powerful interests which exploit the people and the nation's resources can more easily handle a smaller por- tion of the American people for their purposes than they can handle the entire eighty millions of the people for their purposes. And if they are defeated in one State one small subdivision of the American people they always have forty-five other chances. This analysis reveals the heart of the present battle against the people's instinctive effort toward national unity. Every corporation, so great that its business is nation-wide, is championing States' rights. Every rail- road that has felt the regulating hand of the nation's gov- ernment is earnestly for States' rights. Every trust at- torney is declaiming about "the dangers of centraliza- EVIDENCE 87 tion." . . . And does anybody doubt that the real reason of these mighty financial interests for engineering this twentieth century crusade for States' rights is that they believe that by curbing the power of the American people expressed through the people's Congress they can better protect their plans for financial gain? 3 The foregoing are some of the tests governing the value of evidence adduced from our common experience with witnesses of all kinds. In general debate the main point to be remembered is, that the value of the evidence produced should be clearly brought out in the course of the argument. In a legal trial, a lawyer has an opportunity of testing evidence by the examination and cross- examination of witnesses. The general debater has no such opportunity. He must usually present his evidence from the published statements of the witnesses, and he must be able to show in a few words why the evidence is to be believed, to point out the difference between second-hand testimony, based upon mere rumor or newspaper gossip, and that derived first-hand from capable and disinter- ested witnesses. When facts are in dispute, or when the setting forth of the facts is an essential step in proof of a proposition, the handling of evi- dence has no small bearing on the effectiveness of an argument. 3 The Reader magazine for March, 1907. 88 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE EXERCISES. 1. Discuss with the class different kinds of evidence gathered by the students from current magazines and newspapers. 2. Let the members of the class point out the strength or weak- ness of the evidence contained in the following extracts: (a) "The Republican party will uphold at all times the author- ity and integrity of the courts, State and Federal, and will ever insist that their powers to enforce their process and to protect life, liberty and property shall be preserved inviolate. We believe, however, that the rule of procedure in the Federal courts with respect to the issuance of the writ of injunction should be more accurately defined by statute, and that no injunc- tion or temporary restraining order should be issued without notice, except irreparable injury would result from delay, in which case a speedy hearing thereafter should be granted." (From the Republican national platform of 1908.) (b) "The courts of justice are the bulwarks of our liberties, and we yield to none in our purpose to maintain their dignity. . . . Experience has proved the necessity of a modification of the present law relating to injunctions, aod we reiterate the pledge of our national platforms of 1896 and 1904 in favor of the measure which passed the United States Senate in 1896, but which a Republican Congress has ever since refused to enact, relating to contempts in Federal courts and providing for trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt." (From the Demo- cratic national platform of 1908.) (c) "First, I desire to state, as I have repeatedly heretofore stated to the Senate and to the country, that I am not and never have been a polygamist. I have never had but one wife, and she is my present wife. "There has been a more or less prevalent opinion that the doc- trine of polygamy was obligatory upon the members of the Mor- mon Church, whereas, in truth and fact, no such obligatory doc- trine has ever existed. The revelation concerning polygamy, as originally made, and as always interpreted, is permissible, and not mandatory. As a matter of fact, only a small percentage of the adherents of that faith have ever been polygamists. The vast majority of the adult members of the Church, from its foundation to the present time, have been monogamists. ^ "The Mormon people, however, regarded this doctrine al- though permissible in character as part of their religious faith, and when the law was passed denouncing its practice, the execu- EVIDENCE 89 tion of the law was resisted on the ground that it was unconsti- tutional, as being an interference with their religious liberty. Appeals were taken to the highest courts of the land, every phase of the subject was tested in the courts, and the law was upheld. Then the Church adopted the manifesto against polygamy, which was ratified by the general conference of the people, and there- upon the practice of polygamy for the future was abandoned." (From a speech by Senator Reed Smoot, of Utah, in the United States Senate, February 19, 1907.) (d) "No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco, and many products of the temperate as well as the tropic zone grow in various sections of the archipelago. I have seen hundreds of bushels of Indian corn lying in a road fringed with banana trees. The forests of Negros, Mindanao, Mindora, Paluan, and parts of Luzon are invaluable and intact. The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man in the island told me that forty miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. Pablo Majia, one of the most reliable men on the islands, confirmed the statement. Some de- clare that the coal is only lignite; but ship captains who have used it told me that it is better steamer fuel than the best coal of Japan. I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. I have gold dust washed out by crude processes of careless natives from the sands of a Philippine stream. Both indicate great deposits at the source from which they come. In one of the islands great deposits of copper exist untouched. The mineral wealth of this empire of the ocean will one day surprise the world. 1 base this statement partly on personal observation, but chiefly on the testimony of for- eign merchants in the Philippines, who have practically investi- gated the subject, and upon the unanimous opinion of natives and priests. And the mineral wealth is but a small fraction of the agricultural wealth of these islands. These conclusions were forced upon me by observing the people in all walks of life in the different islands, and by conversations with foreign mer- chants, priests, mestizos, pure Filipinos, and every variety of mind, character and opinion, from San Fernando, in Luzon, on down through the entire archipelago to the interior of Sulu. These conversations were had informally at dinner-tables, on journeys, and the like, and always under conditions favorable 90 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE to entire frankness and unreserve. Their chief value is that they are the real opinions of their authors and not prepared and guarded statements." (From a speech by Senator Albert J. Beas frequently employed, and the burden of proof. Senator Beveridge, in the article previously quoted from, combats the States' rights doctrine by showing how changed conditions render it now necessary for the Federal Government to do many things not contemplated by the framers of our Constitution: The progress of nationality and the decay of "States' rights" grows out of changed conditions. The railroad, telegraph, and telephone have bound our people into a national unit. None of these agencies of national soli- darity existed when the Republic was founded. We were then a handful of people, and this handful separated by lack of communication. But now San Francisco is much nearer New York than Pittsburg was to Boston in the old days. One can travel in luxury from Washington to Chicago in a fifth of the time that the fathers could cross the State of Pennsylvania. We can talk instantaneously from St. Louis to Philadelphia to-day. Whereas, we were only four million people in the days when States' rights was in its greatest vigor, we are now eighty mil- lions of people, and in half a century will be two hun- dred million of people and these all woven closely together by the most perfect facilities of communication the world has ever seen. All^this creates new problems which the old theory of States' rights never contemplated, and new necessities on the part of the people which States' rights cannot supply. But the -people's problems must be solved, the people's necessities supplied. Each^iay makes it clearer that only the nation can do this. That is why the n^ion is 4oing 100 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE it. If the States could do that work better, nothing could prevent them from doing it. It is because the nation is the only force equal to the daily developing needs of the people that nationality is developing, and for no other reason. In all of this there is no harm, but only the welfare of the people; for it is merely the people themselves acting in common for their common good. After all, the purpose of these free institutions of ours is to make better people. The reason of our government is to improve human conditions and to make this country a fairer place for men and women to live in. No jugglery with mere phrases can impair this mighty truth, upon which, and upon which alone, the Republic is founded. Tests of the Argument of Antecedent Proba- bility. The strength of this argument depends upon the closeness of the causal relationship. It must appear that one thing is the natural and prob- able cause of another; else we have the fallacy technically known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (usually called simply post hoc) after this, there- fore because of this. The argument must answer favorably these two test questions : ( i\) Was the assigned cause adequate to produce the alleged ef- fect? and (2) Were there no other acting causes which may have produced the same result^? It will readily be seen that these tests are destructive of many so-called arguments from cause to effect. Thus, the causal connection, and the intervention f other forces than the assigned cause, affect the KINDS OF ARGUMENTS IOI probative value of our common superstitions. To say that the moon affects growing crops; that breaking a looking-glass will be followed by death in the family; that Friday and the number thir- teen are omens of bad luck, etc., all such infer- ences fail to meet the aforementioned tests of ade- quacy and closeness in causal relationship. Infer- ences no less palpably unsound are common in po- litical discussions. To argue, or example, that commercial prosperity or depression results from & given tariff policy leaves out of consideration so many other possible causes that economists gener- ally content themselves with enunciating principles, and leave it to the politicians to draw conclusions based on alleged cause and effect. The argument of antecedent probability, then, is mainly preparatory and corroboratory. Standing by itself, it is not conclusive. Its great value lies in impressing the minds of the hearers favorably as to one's argument, and so preparing them for the reception of further and more conclusive proof. The Argument from Sign. Corresponding to the argument of antecedent probability is the ar- gument from sign. In logic this is known as the a posteriori method reasoning from effect to cause. A given effect is absolutely known, and from it we infer a probable cau,se a process in- IO2 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE verse to the argument of antecedent probability. A certain known thing, we say, is reason for believ,- ing in the existence of another. Something has happened; effects are pointed out that are likely to have been produced by the event or act in ques- tion, an effect being regarded as the "sign" of the cause. If there is a red sky at sunset, we infer that the atmospheric conditions are such that fair weather will follow. When we see a rainbow we conclude that at that point the sun's rays are fall- ing on rain-drops. When statistics are adduced t show the beneficial results of a given monetary or tariff policy, we are reasoning from effect to cause. Thus it will be seen that the arguments from sign and of antecedent probability are complementary, the one looking backward, the other forward; and a given argument in this class may sometimes be termed one or the other, depending upon the point of view. The most familiar examples of argument from sign are found in criminal trials. As Webster re- marked in the White murder trial, "midnight as- sassins take no witnesses." "Circumstances," someone has said, "are God's detectives. With their sightless eyes and voiceless tongues they see farther and speak louder than the average human witness." In one sense, the argument from sign is more certain proof than the argument of antece- KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 103 4Went probability. No matter how many reasons jnay be assigned to show that A would probably nurder B, they are of no avail unless it be shown that B has been murdered. Hence the law, in capi- Jtal cases, insists that the sign of the murder be con- Delusively shown the doctrine of corpus delicti. ^This having been shown, all the facts relating to the accused person after the occurrence of the Berime "circumstantial" evidence belong to the argument from sign. As an example, Webster supplemented his argument (previously quoted), showing the antecedent probability that Frank Knapp was one of the conspirators who murdered Captain White, with the following argument from sign : Let me ask your attention, then, in the first place, to those appearances, on the morning after the murder, which have a tendency to show that it was done in pur- suance of a preconcerted plan of operation. What are they? A man was found murdered in his bed. No stranger had done the deed, no one unacquainted with the house had done it. It was apparent that somebody within had opened, and that somebody without had entered. There had obviously and certainly been concert and cooperation. The inmates of the house were not alarmed when the murder was perpetrated. The assas- sin had entered without any riot or any violence. He had found the way prepared before him. The house had been previously opened. The window was unbarred from within, and its fastening unscrewed. There was a 104 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE lock on the door of the chamber in which Mr. Whitfll slept, but the key was gone. It had been taken away and secreted. The footsteps of the murderer were visible^ out-doors, tending toward the window. The plank by which he entered the window still remained. The roacff he pursued had been thus prepared for him. The victim^ was slain, and the murderer had escaped. Everything^ indicated that somebody within had cooperated witl^ somebody without. Everything proclaimed that some oig the inmates, or somebody having access to the house, hadj had a hand in the murder. On the face of the circum-^ stances, it was apparent, therefore, that this was a pre- meditated, concerted murder; that there had been a con-J spiracy to commit it. It The arguments of sign and antecedent proba- bility stand or fall together. Since both depend upon causal relationship, they are both measured by the same tests. Whenever the two arguments can be linked together, as is done by Webster in the two previous extracts, a strong argument re- sults. But the argument from sign, standing by itself, is rarely conclusive, and the danger of de- pending upon circumstantial evidence alone has passed into a proverb. You may pile sign upon sign to show that A murdered B, but if A can prove an alibi, all the signs fail. An example showing the danger in sign-inferences will be seen in the following story that recently went the round of the newspapers: KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 1 05 During the college days of ex-Mayor Bessom, of Lynn, he had two of the professors of the college as guests at a hunting camp in the Maine woods. When they entered the camp their attention was attracted to the unusual position of the stove, which was set on posts about four feet high. One of the professors began to comment upon the knowledge woodsmen gain by observation. "Now," said he, "this man has discovered that the heat radiat- ing from the stove strikes the roof, and the circulation is so quickened that the camp is warmed in much less time than would be required if the stove was in its regu- lar place on the floor." The other professor was of the opinion that the stove was elevated to be above the win- dow, in order that cool and pure air could be had at light. Mr. Bessom, being more practical, contended 0that the stove was elevated in order that a good supply of green wood could be placed beneath it to dry. After considerable argument the guide was called and asked why the stove was placed in such an unusual position. "Well," said he, "when I brought the stove up the river I lost most of the stovepipe overboard, and had to set the stove up there so as to have the pipe reach through the roof." Argument from Authority. The argument from authority rests on the peculiar force of one's opinion whose special knowledge of, skill in, or ex- perience with a matter under discussion enables him to reach a true conclusion. As a man is un- able to investigate for himself every question that arises, he must accept the conclusions reached by 106 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE others in matters in which they are competent and more or less exclusive judges. In law, if such conclusions be admitted as evidence in the trial of a cause, it is called "expert testimony"; while the opinions of judges, in adjudicated cases, constitute authorities applicable to subsequent similar cases. Although "expert testimony" and "authority" are clearly distinguished in legal practice, for the pur- poses of general debating they may be classed to- gether, the former usually having reference to the testimony of a specialist on a question of disputed fact, the latter to those fundamental laws and prin- ciples found in books and documents which are generally accepted as authoritative. Thus, in law* appeal is made to recorded cases and precedents; in theology, to the Bible; in politics, to constitu- tions and statutes; in science, philosophy, econom- ics, etc., to the works of those men who are emi- nent in their respective fields. While we commonly speak of the use of author- ity as one of the kinds of argument, it is, more properly perhaps, a kind of evidence and not a process of reasoning the debater asking his hear- ers to accept the conclusions of another as evi- dence of the truth of a given proposition. Now, if the authority used refers to an elementary prin- ciple in economics, or law, or education, ready ac- ceptance may safely be assumed. But if one is de- KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 1 07 bating a question of policy, there is usually such a conflict of authorities on various phases of the question that no one authority, however eminent, can be cited as decisive. It then becomes a matter of weighing authorities or of comparing wit- nesses; and all the tests of witnesses, previously referred to, are to be applied. Thus, in an edi- torial regarding our permanent retention of the Philippine Islands, in the New York Evening Post, the value of an authority quoted is explained as follows : Mr. John Foreman is conceded to be the foremost authority on the Philippine Islands. A resident in the archipelago for eleven years; continuously acquainted with the natives for twenty; a frequent visitor to vari- ous islands of the group; possessed of a more intimate knowledge of Filipino character and a larger circle of friends and correspondents among the inhabitants than any foreigner living; the historian par excellence of land and people, he is a qualified expert to whom we are bound to listen. Certainly there is no need to labor this point with Republicans. He is their own witness, and they dare not try to discredit them. Professor Worcester, of both Philippine commissions, constantly bows in his own book to the authority of Foreman. He was especially summoned to Paris by our Peace Commissioners as the very man to guide their uncertain steps aright. Tests of the Argument from Authority. Spe- cifically, then, the two main tests of this argument 108 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE are: (i) Is the authority competent? (2) Is the authority recognized as such by the hearers? Whenever another's opinion is quoted to sub- stantiate a statement, it must appear that the per- son quoted is an authority on the matter in ques- tion and the best that can be produced. If the au- thority used amounts to expert testimony, it must appear that the witness is qualified as an expert. The opinion of a member of the Panama Com- mission on the subject of the interoceanic canal would be better authority than a statement by a member of Congress. A Government publication is better authority than an irresponsible newspaper report. If Thomas W. Lawson's articles on ''Fren- zied Finance" were quoted as authority regarding the unjustifiable methods of the Standard Oil Company, it might be urged that he speaks as a partisan. On the other hand, his claims to relia- bility are thus defended by the Detroit News- Tribune : Mr. Lawson is many times a millionaire. At least such is the common belief among his countrymen, and it is certain that, in all the outward evidences of the pos- session of great wealth, he keeps pace with most of our modern Croesuses. A man's possessions are not neces- sarily indicative of his veracity; but, under particular circumstances, they may become so. In this instance they are at least presumptive proof that he has not yet over- stepped the bounds of what he is prepared to establish KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 109 if haled into court by any of the victims of his scathing and erratic pen. This is true because his financial re- sponsibility is hardly to be questioned, and none of the money-bags who have been squirming under his lash can excuse himself from bringing action against the offender on the ground that it would be impossible to recover any- think like adequate damages. Moreover, there has been ample temptation to shut him off by proceedings under laws of criminal libel, if he has afforded his former asso- ciates any hopeful opportunity for such action. Month after month his revelations of criminal doings, apparently brought home to men of prominence and standing in the financial and social worlds, have been permitted to ap- pear without the slightest public effort made to shut off this flood of disclosures. Up to date the general pub- lic has accepted Mr. Lawson's literary efforts with a sur- prise mingled w r ith incredulity. His continued immunity from interference or attempted punishment for statements of the most damning import directed against supposedly self-respecting men is beginning to influence many to the belief that those whom he attacks are in no position to reply. Not only must the authority be good in itself, it must be accepted by the hearers. The final judge as to its fitness in a given case is, not the speaker, but his audience. If the authority is not respected, in matters of opinion it is no authority. In this connection it is well to note the decay of the argument from authority in modern times. It is of more force in legal discussions than in general debate, but even in the courts, so far as "expert IIO SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE testimony" is concerned, juries are now slow to ac- cept the opinions of experts as final. The reasons for this are thus set forth by Wharton in his "Law of Evidence" (page 425) : When expert testimony was first introduced it was re- garded with great respect. An expert, when called as a witness, was viewed as the representative of the science of which he was a professor, giving impartially its con- clusions. Two conditions have combined to produce a material change in this relation. In the first place, it has been discovered that no expert, no matter how learned and incorrupt, speaks for his science as a whole. Few specialties are so small as not to be torn by factions; and often, the smaller the specialty, the bitterer and more inflaming and distorting are the animosities by which these factions are possessed. ... In the second place, the retaining of experts, by a fee proportioned to the im- portance of their testimony, is now, in cases in which they are required, as customary as is retaining of lawyers. . . . Hence it is that, apart from the partisan temper more or less common to experts, their utterances, now that they have as a class become the retained agents of parties, have lost all judicial authority, and are entitled only to the weight which a sound and cautious criticism would award to the testimony itself. In adjusting this criticism, a large allowance must be made for the bias necessarily belonging to men retained to advocate a cause, who speak not as to fact, but as to opinion; who are selected on all moot questions, either from their prior advocacy of, or from their readiness to adopt the opinion wanted. In such instances we are inclined to adopt the strong lan- guage of Lord Campbell, that "skilled witnesses come KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 1 1 1 with such a bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked that hardly any weight should be given to their evidence." In general debate, also, many sources once con- sidered authoritative are no longer so. The Ro- man Catholic Church is no longer an authority in law, nor the Bible in science. So, in the discussion of unsettled problems, the opinions of the most eminent men are not authority. They lack the force of general acceptance. If, for example, one is arguing in favor of government ownership of interstate railroads, the opinions of railway attor- neys and officials, of shippers, of members of Con- gress, of the Interstate Commerce Commission, or of the President of the United States, while they may be used as corroborative of one's argument, are in no sense authoritative. Such an argument might be reduced to this form : "The President of the United States favors this plan, therefore it should be adopted." This is a fallacy frequently noticeable in student debating. If the opinions of men, however prominent, are to be accepted as proof of one's case, there is nothing to debate. You cannot win a debate by a count of hands. In most questions, the average American auditor re- serves the right of individual opinion and con- science, and no opinion is accepted as orthodox. The reason for such an opinion must be shown. 112 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE On the other hand, whenever a question under discussion concerns matters wherein authorities ex- ist which the opposing side is bound to recognize, the use of the argument from authority still has an important place. Thus, a court constitutes an authority on points of law; the Bible, on re- ligious questions; and a book universally ac- cepted as authoritative on matters within its par- ticular field constitutes an authority in such field such as the United States Pharmacopeia regarding drugs. The main work of the debater, in such cases, is to show why the authority is good. This the lawyer has an opportunity of doing, in the case of an expert, by preliminary questions. Simi- larly, the debater must explain, in a few words, just why an authority should be accepted, and also just what the authority states on the point in ques- tion. Example and Analogy. For practical pur- poses, example and analogy may be classed to- gether. In example we argue from the mere simi- larity of two things or conditions; in analogy, from the similarity of their relations. In com- mon usage, too, example usually refers to a single resemblance, analogy to a series of examples. In any case the argument from example and anal- ogy is an argument based on resemblances. From KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 113 the similarity of two or more things in certain par- ticulars, their similarity in other particulars is in- ferred. Thus, the earth and Mars are both planets, nearly equidistant from the sun, having similar distribution of seas and continents, alike in condi- tions of humidity, temperature, seasons, day and night, etc. ; but the earth also supports organic life; hence from analogy Mars (probably) supports organic life. Similarly, we infer that what has happened in the past will, under similar conditions, happen again. If the past condition of one country, economically or politically, closely resembles the present condition of another, we may use the history of the one country to prove what we wish about the modern condition; that is, we can judge of the future, as Patrick Henry said, only by the past. This, "argument from experi- ence," as it is frequently called, is more or less em- ployed in debating current political and govern- mental questions. When properly used, the argu- ment is very effective, for "substantially the mode in which we learn a new thing is by its being lik- ened to something that we already know." It has been said that all reasoning consists ultimately in inferences from experience. Of example Burke says that it is "the only argument of effect in civil life"; that it is "the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." 114 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE When one or more examples are used to prove a general law, this is sometimes called the argument by generalization. Burke thus draws an inference from individual instances to prove a general truth with respect to the whole class to which they be- long the method of induction : In large bodies the circulation of power must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. The Turk cannot govern Egypt and Arabia and Kurdistan as he governs Thrace; nor has he the same dominion in Crimea and Algiers which he has at Brusa and Smyrna. Despotism itself is obliged to truck and huckster. The Sultan gets such obedience as he can. He governs with a loose rein, that he may govern at all; and the whole of the force and vigor of his authority in his center is de- rived from a prudent relaxation in all his borders. Spain, in her provinces, is, perhaps, not so well obeyed as you are in yours. She complies, too; she submits; she watches times. This is the immutable condition, the eternal law of extensive and detached empire. A favorite and effective use of the argument from example is that technically known as a for- tiori (all the stronger), which reasons that if a certain principle, say, is true in a given case, much more is it true in the case under discussion, wherein the conditions are more favorable. Many passages in Scripture are put in the form of a fortiori argu- ment: KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 115 Wherefore if God so clothe the grass which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father. Fear ye not, therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. This has always been a favorite argument of forensic orators. The following is an example from Erskine's speech in defense of Lord George Gordon : But it seems that Lord George ought to have fore- seen that so great a multitude could not be collected with- out mischief. Gentlemen, we are not trying whether he might or ought to have foreseen mischief, but whether he wickedly and traitorously preconcerted and designed it. But if he be an object of censure for not foreseeing it, what shall we say to government that took no steps to prevent it, that issued no proclamation warning the people of the danger and illegality of such an assembly? If a peaceable multitude, with a petition in their hands, be an army, and if the noise and confusion inseparable from numbers, though without violence or the purpose of vio- lence, constitute war, what shall be said of that govern- ment which remained from Tuesday to Friday, knowing that an army was collecting to levy war by public adver- tisement, yet had not a single soldier, no, nor even a con- stable, to protect the State? 2 2 Goodrich, "British Eloquence," p. 551. Il6 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE So Burke, in his speech on Conciliation, cites four "capital examples" constitutional precedents in favor of his plan of dealing with the American colonies in England's treatment of Ireland, Wales, Chester, and Durham, and thence argues that there is all the more reason for employing a similar policy in the case of America. Tests of the Argument from Example and Anal- ogy. In the employment of this argument the re- semblances, in order to be of any probative value, must be real, and they must correspond to the thing or matter in question in all essential particu- lars. These tests are so difficult of application that examples and analogies, unsupported by other evidence or argument, are rarely convincing. The method is therefore chiefly of value for illustration of an argument rather than for argument proper. "Almost anything can be established by a simile, even opposite sides of the same question." Un- less the resemblance be real, you can, to quote a fa- vorite metaphor of Lincoln's, "prove a horse chest- nut to be a chestnut horse." There must be not only a resemblance of states, but also of condi- tions ; not only must relations be alike, but it must be shown that they are due to the same or like causes. The following summary of an argument based on the alleged false analogy of the oppos- KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 117 ing side illustrates the caution necessary in using this kind of argument. In an inter-literary society debate on the proposition to adopt the method of compulsory arbitration in the settlement of dis- putes between employers and labor unions, one speaker on the affirmative used New Zealand as an example of the success of this method, and therefrom argued that the method would likewise prove successful in the United States. In reply, the negative speaker contended that this was a false analogy, closing his argument as follows : No one will deny that to justify the United States in adopting any plan in operation in a foreign country, in- volving the extension of governmental functions, all three of these propositions must be established: (i) That the conditions, governmental and industrial, are similar to ours; (2) that the conditions during the trial of the plan have been sufficiently varied to thoroughly test it in all its phases; (3) that the plan has been successful dur- ing its operation, and that it has been in operation a suf- ficient length of time to leave no doubt as to its just and effective workings. Not a single one of these three essential propositions have we found applicable while considering the question as to adopting a compulsory arbitration plan on the strength of governmental attempts in New Zealand; for we have shown that the United States and New Zealand are diametrically different in government and industry; that the law has been in operation only during a brief period of unusual prosperity occasioned by increased ex- ports, and that even then strikes have occurred, industries 1 1 8 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE closed, seventeen thousand breadwinners out of employ- ment, while commercial banks are glutted with money, a quarter of a billion dollars being out of use; and further, that the very authors of the plan confess it to be a mere experiment. Hence, as New Zealand is the only country that even claims to have operated a compulsory arbitration plan, we must inevitably conclude that governmental attempts at compulsory arbitration do not justify the adoption of -the proposed plan in the United States. It is to be borne in mind that in reasoning from analogy the resemblance must always be an essen- tial one it must apply to the point under discus- sion. The following illustrations will make this clear. We find many points of resemblance be- tween the earth and the moon, but we cannot, infer therefrom that there are living creatures on the moon, since the moon has no atmosphere, and we know that air is an indispensable condition of life. The construction of an argument resembles, in many respects, that of a frame house; but it does not follow that everything true of the house is true of the argument. Again, take the somewhat com- mon comparison of a nation with an individual: nations, it is said, like individuals, have youth, manhood, the decline of old age, and death. But the resemblance fails in the one essential point physical organization. So, "Carlyle's saying that a ship could never be taken around Cape Horn if KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 119 the crew were consulted every time the captain proposed to alter the course, if taken seriously as an analogical argument against representative gov- ernment, is open to the objection that the differences betw.een a ship and a state are too great for any argument from the one to the other to be of value." 3 On the other hand, there may be many points of dissimilarity, but if there be a resemblance in the essential particulars the argument is good and, es- pecially with a popular audience, very effective. For example: Horses and generals are unlike in themselves and in their relations in many ways; but Lincoln's oft-quoted saying, in reply to poli- ticians advising him to change generals at a certain time during the Civil War, that he deemed it un- wise to "swap horses while crossing a stream," was a valid argument in that horses bore the same relation to crossing a stream as generals did to prosecuting the war. Again, when Patrick Henry said, u Caeser had his Brutus, Charles I his Crom- well, and George III may profit by their example," the "example" applied to George III in perhaps only one respect, but that the essential element the effect of tyranny upon a liberty-loving people. The following incident 4 in a trial at law illus- 8 Mill, "System of Logic," p. 332. 4 Adapted from Alden's "Art of Debate," p. 179. 120 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE trates both good and bad analogy. An action for damages was brought against a railroad company whose conductor had refused a ticket reading "From A to B ," when the passenger holding the ticket was traveling from B to A . The attorney for the railroad argue^J that the passenger was really claiming a different service from that he had paid for; that he might as well buy a barrel of potatoes at a grocery, and then sue the grocer on the ground that he did not deliver apples instead. In reply, the attorney for the plaintiff argued that the cases would be more closely analogous if, instead of the illustration given, the grocer, having sold the man a barrel of apples, insisted that he should begin at the top and eat down, whereas the purchaser should have a preference for beginning at the bottom and eat- ing up ! However, it should constantly be borne in mind that so-called examples and analogies readily shade off into mere illustrations. Illustrations are good to illuminate an argument, and are to be frequently employed for this purpose, but they are not argument, and great caution is needed in their use. If real resemblance is lacking, or if the re- semblance fails in the essential particular, a fine opening is left for the opposing side. It has well been said that "example and analogy are of value KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 121 mainly in those cases where the parallel conditions are broad and easily traced, and where the object is to make an argument at once simple and impres- sive. They are best applied to those general truths wh,kh do not require to be verified so much as to be illustrated; their office, even in argument, is mainly expository." 5 The Method of Residues. This name is given to that form of argument wherein all possible ways of dealing with the question are enumerated, and then showing that only one way is correct. It is a "boiling down" process, sometimes also called the argument of "logical exclusion." In science it is "an argument in which, after showing that all causes but one are insufficient to account for a phe- nomenon, it is urged that the one remaining cause must be the true one." The method is, then, a process of reasoning by tests. The debater points out certain determining principles, certain limiting conditions, or depicts some prominent features of the case in point, and makes these representative or determinative of the whole case. Whenever a question lends itself to this method of treatment, it is, by reason of its broadness and comprehensive- ness, a very effective plan of procedure. It will be 1 Genung, "Practical Rhetoric," p. 423. 122 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE seen that it is in reality a mixed method of refu- tation and direct proof, refutation preceding and leading to the direct argument. Following is an example from a brief of the question, "Resolved, that the deportation of all negroes in this coi|ntry to one of our island possessions offers the best so lution of the race problem:" I think it will be agreed that the following plans ex- haust the possible schemes for the solution of our race problem: (i) Educate the negro and recognize him as an equal co-citizen, fraternizing with him. (2) Let the two races amalgamate and become one race. (3) Let the negro remain a co-citizen in name, but in reality an in- ferior, a servant and a slave. (4) Deport the negro to our island possessions, and with government aid let him work out his own salvation. After showing that the first three plans offer no solution to the problem, and that the last plan does, the following conclusion is reached: Since to educate the negro and recognize him as an equal is not a possible solution of the race problem, be- cause of his mental inferiority and his physical make-up; and since the amalgamation of the races is odious and im- possible; and since to let the negro remain a co-citizen in name and a slave in reality is dangerous to our govern- ment, because it creates strife, class distinction, and loss of respect for law; and since the possible solution left is practical, because it has been tried in the past, because KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 123 the negro is not commercially necessary to the South, and because it gives a final solution of the race problem, therefore the negroes should be deported to our island possessions. example of this form of argument oc- 4prs in Burke's speech on "Conciliation with America" : % Sir, if I were capable of engaging you to an equal at- tention, I would state that, as far as I am capable of dis- cerning, there are but three ways of proceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which prevails in your colonies, and disturbs your government. These are to change that spirit, as inconvenient, by removing the causes; to prose- cute it as criminal ; or to comply with it as necessary. I would not be guilty of an imperfect enumeration; I can think of but these three. Another has indeed been started, that of giving up the colonies; but it met so slight a reception that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a great while upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger, like the frowardness of peevish children, who, when they cannot get all they would have, are re- solved to take nothing. Burke then argues that the first two plans are impracticable, and summarizes as follows : If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be for the greater part, or rather en- tirely, impracticable; if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable or, if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient; what way yet remains? No way is open 124 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE but the third and last to comply with the American spirit as necessary; or, if you please, so submit to it as a necessary evil. \ Tests of the Method of Residues. For the ef- fective use of this method, ( i ) all possible ^e or solutions must be enumerated; (2) all aspe but the alleged tru^one must be destroyed ; . and (3) the alleged true one must be affirmatively es- tablished. All the alternatives should be carefully classified, and as limited in number as possible; but at the same time the enumeration must be ex- haustive, that is, it must not overlook any essential consideration, and herein lies the great danger in the use of this method. The preceding example from Burke is, in fact, open to the objection of the "imperfect enumeration" which he sought to avoid or, rather, to an undue slighting of the plan mentioned by way of an afterthought and not considered in his subsequent argument, "that of giving up the colonies." KINDS OF ARGUMENTS 125 EXERCISES. What kind of argument is used in each of the following ex- amples? Point out any fallacies in the reasoning. (Note that some of the examples may not be readily classified under the special kinds of arguments dealt with in this chapter. In such cases any fallacy may usually be detected by reducing the state- ments to syllogistic form.) 1. The consensus of opinion among the American people is that trusts are assuming threatening proportions; that some method should be devised whereby the general Government shall limit their power. It is to be presumed, therefore, that a trust is an economic evil ; and such presumption, in turn, carries with it the further presumption that there is a remedy for such evil. 2. It is our duty to retain possession of the Philippine Islands, for the Report of the Philippine Commission so declares. 3. The pjovernment of India by England has proved a losing financial venture; therefore we may expect the same will prove true of the government of the Philippines by America. 4. We have had a period of general prosperity under the op- eration of a protective tariff. We must therefore conclude that protection is a good thing for this country. 5. One of three principles must be applied in inflicting pun- ishment for crime: (i) Revenge on the criminal; (2) the pro- tection of society; or (3) the reform of the criminal. The first is inhuman, the second can be accomplished in applying the third. Therefore the reform of the criminal should be the object of all penal legislation; and if this be true, capital punishment should be abolished, for how can you reform a dead man? 6. If we can show that a large majority of successful business men are college graduates, is not the inference plain that a col- lege education prepares one for a business career? 7. "Walter McMillan will serve as a good illustration of a young man who 'woke up'. He was employed as a clerk by the Armour Packing Company of Kansas City, with nothing in pros- pect but his desk with its endless drudgery. He read the signs correctly, and after careful investigation decided that the Chi- cane College of Advertising could give him the thorough, prac- tical advertising education he craved. Almost immediately after completing the course he was referred by the college to the Kan- sas City Journal, where he started at just four times the salary he was receiving in his former position. He is there to-day and 126 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE has been still further advanced. What Mr. McMillan has done you can do." 8. Dr. John Smith's Soothing Syrup has been used for over fifty years by millions of mothers for their children, while teething, with perfect success. All mothers having children which are teething should use it. 9. Mr. Clarence Darrow, the lawyer who won great distinc- tion as counsel for the United Mine Workers' Union before the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, is representing the street car employees in the Chicago trouble. We may therefore look for an amicable settlement of the latter strike in the near future. 10. All criminal actions ought to be punished by law- Prose- cutions for theft are criminal actions. Therefore, prosecutions for theft ought to be punished by law. 11. Nations, like individuals, are born, flourish and decay. We may therefore infer the ultimate downfall of this Republic. 12. Of course you ought to be good, for you belong to a church and go to prayer-meeting; but I make no professions. 13. Written examinations are not an absolutely fair test of a student's scholarship much less of his industry and intelligence. It is therefore wrong to base his grade upon them. 14. I am justified in passing this counterfeit money. The pub- lic gave it to me and the public ought to get it back again. 15. Everybody ought to contribute something to the support of the unfortunate; therefore there is no harm in a law which compels him to do so. 16. We all drank this water and none of us became sick; so this outcry about the danger of typhoid is all nonsense. 17. The people who say that athletic victories do not increase the attendance at a school are mistaken. In the last six years we have beaten our main rival in football five times; and in that period the number of students here has increased from 750 to 1,200. 1 8. The referendum has been tried in Switzerland and has worked well for a number of years ; we may therefore reason- ably expect that it would work well in the United States. 19. Trains run with Blank's oil have made the fastest time in railway records. 20. One of two things is true either the laws of the Union are beyond the control of the States, or else we have no Consti- tution of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of the Confederation. Webster. CHAPTER VI REFUTATION Refutation consists in the destruction of oppos- ing arguments. It may be either direct or indirect. When a speaker meets objections to his argument, it is direct refutation; when he produces an ar- gument to supplant that offered against him, that is indirect refutation. Refutation, therefore, is not only destructive, in the sense of detaching separate points for answer, it is also constructive. It may meet a given plan by showing that another plan is better; it may meet the other side as a whole by proving one's own side as a whole is ftr^mger. And such indirect refutation is the more tffective. Negative argument alone is rarely suf- ncient. Belief is essentially positive; hence the lest refutation not only tears down, but also builds fp supplies something better than the thing de- stroyed. In debating a question of policy, for ex- ample, unanswered objections to a proposed solu- tion for existing evils would fulfill the require- ments of pure logic, but it would not meet the requirements of the average audience. If the (127) 128 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE opponent of the proposed plan can go further, and show a better plan, his case is infinitely strength- ened. Effective refutation, usually the most difficulty branch of argumentation for a student to master, depends upon following pretty closely these two rules : ( i ) Clearly analyze your opponents' argu- ments, and (2) Answer only the strong arguments against you. i. Since refutation is either the destruction or overbalancing of an opponent's proof, the debater must always recognize, first, that there Is an op- posing side, and, secondly, when he is upholding the negative, that the opponent is already in pos- session of the field. It will not do, therefore, in either the preparation or progress of the debate, to ignore the arguments against you. In the course^ of preparation the successful debater will always learn the strong and weak points of the other side, as well as those of his own side. He will be ready? not only to defend himself against attack, but will have decided upon a line of refutation to meet eacn one of several lines of argument that may be ofj fered by his opponent. The first requirement^ then, of successful refutation is to study the otheij side; and then, in actual debate, to state clearly ^ more clearly, if possible, than your opponen^ states it the proof produced against you. "The REFUTATION 129 case of my opponent," the debater replies, "amounts to this;" or, "In the argument of my op- ponent, we may for the present waive all but the third point." The statement of the opponent's case must of course be honest, comprehensive, and fair, and it must appear to be so to the hearers. A study of masterpieces in argumentation will show how great debaters have acted on this prin- ciple. It is said that the success of Lincoln and Webster in legal arguments was due largely to their handling of the opponent's case. As bearing on both of the rules above laid down, Lincoln's method is thus described by a member of the Chi- cago bar: He was wise in knowing what to attempt and what to let alone. He was fair to the court, the jury, and his adversary; candor compels me to say, however, that he by practice learned there was power in this. As he en- tered the trial, where most lawyers object he said he "reckoned" it would be fair to admit this or that; and sometimes when his adversary could not prove what Lin- coln knew to be the truth, he said he "reckoned" it would be fair to admit the truth to be so and so. When he did object to a ruling of the court and such objection was overruled, he would often say, "Well, I reckon I must be wrong." Now, about the time he had practiced this three-quarters through the case, if his adversary did not understand him he would wake up rinding that he had feared the Greeks too late. When the whole thing was 130 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE unraveled the adversary began to see that what Lincoln was so blandly giving away was simply what he could not get and keep. By giving away six points and carry- ing the seventh he carried his case; the whole case hang- ing on the seventh, he traded everything off which would not aid him in carrying that vital point. In his Reply to Hayne Webster thus states the arguments adduced against him : I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain that it is a right of the State legis- latures to interfere whenever, in their judgment, this Government transcends its constitutional limits, and to ar- rest the operation of its laws. I understand him to main- tain this right as a right existing under the Constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify revolution. I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States, thus to interfere for the purpose of correcting the exercise v by the general Government, of checking it, and of com- pelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its" powers. I understand him to maintain that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its ow authority is not lodged exclusively in the general Govern> ment or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the' States may lawfully decide for themselves, and eacrX State for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of th^ general Government transcends its power. I understany^ him to insist that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any State Government, require it, such State Government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general Government which it cleems plainly REFUTATION 131 and palpably unconstitutional. This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina doc- trine, and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider it, and compare it with the Constitution. 1 2. The stated analysis of your opponent's ar- ^gument leads naturally to the second step in refu- ^tation answering the strong arguments against ^ you. And only the strong opposing arguments are % to be answered. While there is great danger in re- % futing too little, there is the still greater danger of * refuting too much. The typically clumsy debater takes up his refutation by rehearsing a long list ^of "points" that he has noted down for the pur- e pose of answering. Many of these are wholly ir- % relevant, or at best they are of little argumentative force, and the rehearsal of these "points" only serves to emphasize them unduly to the minds of * the hearers. "The speaker who hurls a ponderous 4 refutation at a weak argument is like a builder who should erect a huge derrick in order to lift a small stone; people would infer that the stone must be much heavier than it looks." 2 In this sort of refu- tation the debater only dissipates his energies and scatters his forces. This scattering method natur- ally gives his argument a scattering effect. His 1 "The Great Debates," Riverside Series, p. 182. 2 Clark, "Practical Rhetoric," p. 297. 132 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE refutation is a series of pop-gun shots all about his enemy's intrenchments, without sending a solid shot at any vital part. Effective refutation (and direct argument as well) does not consist in enum- erating "points," but rather in aiming at points vital to the issue. "Refutation is not a DonnyJ brook Fair; don't hit every head you see, but airrL at the leaders." 3 Just as in the analysis of a ques-^ tion to determine the issues extraneous matter is excluded, so in refutation the debater must subor-^ dinate the less important and strike at central^ ideas. Now, an opponent's arguments, for the purpose of refutation, may be roughly divided into these^ four classes: (i) Those which may safely and properly be admitted as true. Admit them. (2)^ Those which are beside the point, having no argu-f mentative force including statements made in-g advertantly, mere slips of memory, and the^ like. Ignore these, or at the most brush them aside with a sentence or two. (3) Those having some bearing on the question, but more or less re- motely related to it. Answer these briefly, if time permits. (4) Those bearing directly on the is- sues the really strong arguments against you. Answer these first and foremost. 3 Baker and Huntington, "Principles of Argumentation," p. 174- REFUTATION 133 To refute, then, one must detect the weak places, or gaps, in an opposing argument, and aim at them. Such gaps are known as fallacies. The possible fallacies in the kinds of arguments already considered have impliedly been pointed out. By way of recapitulation, one may refute actual or alleged facts by showing either that, the facts as alleged being admitted, wrong inferences are drawn from them, or that the facts in the case are not as alleged; the argument of antecedent probability, by showing that the assigned cause was inadequate to produce the result alleged, or that there are so many causes involved that the given effect cannot be attributed solely to the cause alleged; the argument from sign, by showing that the fact alleged as the result of the fact in dis- pute either did not exist or that it is evidently not a sign of the disputed fact; the argument from authority, by showing that the authority cited is either not competent or that there are other and better authorities; the argument by example and analogy, by showing that examples and analogies used by an opponent do not resemble, in essential particulars, the points in dispute; the method of residues, by showing either that all the possible aspects of the question were not enumerated, or that all the aspects but the alleged true one were not disproved, or that the alleged true aspect was not satisfactorily established. 134 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE SPECIAL METHODS OF REFUTATION In addition to the foregoing ways of exposing fallacies, the following special methods of refu- tation may be noted : ( i ) Reductio ad Absurdum, (2) Dilemma, (3) Amplifying and Diminishing. I. Reductio ad Absurdum. One of the most commonly used methods of refutation is that of reducing an argument to an absurdity, or, as it is named, the reductio ad absurdum a term bor- rowed from geometrical demonstration. By this method, the refuter assumes for the moment that a given proposition is true, and then points out the absurd results to which it leads. The method may of course be used as to the main question under dis- cussion, or as to any particular proposition ad- vanced by an opponent. Following in a classic example from Webster's Reply to Hayne : And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical applica- tion. Let us look at his probable modus opemndi. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and I wish to be informed how this State in- terference is to be put in practice without violence, blood- shed, and rebellion. We will take the existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it (as we prob- ably shall not), she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature declaring the several acts of Congress, REFUTATION 135 usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Carolina or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. He, therefore, must be stopped. The collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. The State authorities will undertake their rescue. The marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. They will march, sir, under a very gallant leader, for I believe the honorable member himself commands the militia in that part of the State. He will raise the nullifying act on his standard and spread it out as his banner. It will have a preamble, setting forth that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous viola- tions of the Constitution! He will proceed, with his banner flying, to the custom-house in Charleston, "All the while, Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. . . . But, sir, the collector would not, probably, desist at his bidding. He would show him the law of Congress, the Treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. He would say he should perform his duty, come what might. . . . Direct collision, therefore, between force and force is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws which the gentle- man contends for. It must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. 4 4 "The Great Debate," pp. 208-211. 136 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE A form of the reductio ad absurdum is that of "enforcing the consequences," or, as we commonly say, such and such an argument "proves too much." It proves not only its own conclusion, but also one or more others which are absurd. The refuter shows that an opponent's argument leads to unde- sirable conditions or results over and beyond the matter under immediate discussion. Thus, in the debate in the United States Senate relative to the Philippine question, in 1900, replying to the argu- ment of Senator Beveridge, that to establish a good colonial government abroad would stimulate good government at home, Senator Hoar said: If I understood him correctly, he said also that he thought it was not necessary to wait until we could get the very best of government here, but if we established it abroad under some commissioners to be appointed by some executive authority, they would govern so well that they would furnish a good example for us at home, and we should improve. I suppose, though he did not say it, that he thinks also we had better not have free speech here in the United States Senate until they have got it out among the Filipinos, to see whether it works there, and then it may come back to us in a way which would gradually permit us to use it here, in a sort of diluted form. The reductio ad absurdum is the most com- monly used, perhaps, of all the methods of refuta- REFUTATION 137 tion. By reason of its simplicity and directness, together with a flavor of humor that frequently ac- companies its use, the method is, when well con- ceived and carried out, very effective. 2. The Dilemma. The dilemma, which is one of the oldest of all known rhetorical forms, is a special form of the reductio ad absurdum. It arises when one can show that an opponent's po- sition must lead to two alternate results, and can then show the absurdity of both of these results. The opponent is thus placed, as is commonly said, "between the horns of a dilemma." "As to the points at issue," the refuter says, "there are but two possibilities; namely, A and B. A is not true, and B is not true; hence your contention falls." Two or three examples will show the method in actual use. A professor in a theological seminary was re- cently charged with heresy. An editorial in the official organ of his church, urging his removal, says: Either Professor believes what he has printed, or he does not. If he does, his sentiments disqualify him for the position he now holds; if he does not believe, his indiscretion disqualifies him. Any claim from any quarter that he should remain impeaches either his sense or his morality. 138 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE Colonel Abraham Davenport, so the story runs, sat in the Governor's Council at Hartford on the extraordinary dark day of May 19, 1780, when chickens went to roost in the morning, and when the Day of Judgment was thought to be at hand. It was therefore proposed to adjourn the Council, whereupon the Colonel said : The Day of Judgment is at hand, or it is not. If not, there is no occasion for adjournment. If it is, I chose to be found doing my duty. Bring in the candles. In order to make the dilemma conclusive, ob- viously two things are necessary: (i) The alterna- tive must be exact it must include all the possi- bilities in the case; and (2) both alternatives must be destroyed. The first test is especially dif- ficult to meet, for two alternatives seldom exhaust all possible cases. But when a perfect dilemma is found, it is conclusive refutation, and he against whom it is used must abandon his position. 3. Amplifying and Diminishing. To amplify and diminish one uses both direct argument and refutation, but the effect is largely that of ref- utation. The method consists in magnifying (amplifying) your own argument, and at the same time belittling (diminishing) that of your oppon- REFUTATION 139 ent. It is therefore a balancing process, the argu- ments pro and con being placed in juxtaposition with the object of giving a more favorable view to your side of the case. To cite a standard ex- ample, Burke refutes Lord North's plan for con- ciliating the American colonies by amplifying his own plan and diminishing that of Lord North's : Compare the two. This I offer to give you is plain and simple; the other full of perplexed and intricate mazes. This is mild; that harsh. This is found by experience effectual for its purposes; the other is a new project. This is universal; the other calculated for cer- tain colonies only. This is immediate in its conciliatory operation; the other remote, contingent, full of hazard. Mine is what becomes the dignity of a ruling people gratuitous, unconditional, and not held out as a matter of bargain and sale. SPECIAL FORMS OF FALLACIES We have seen that any unsound reasoning any gap in the proof is a fallacy. Logicians have classified various special forms of fallacious reason- ing, among which we will notice the following: Begging the Question (Petitio Principii), Ignoring the Question (Ignorantio Elenchi), Composition and Division, and Non Sequitur. Begging the Question. This fallacy consists, 140 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE generally, in assuming what is to be proved. The fallacy may appear in various forms, the most common being ; ( i ) Using a word in two senses ; (2) stating what is to be proved as a reason for such proof; and (3) arguing in a circle. 1. One is said "to beg the question" when he uses a word at one time in one sense, and at an- other time in a different sense, and yet draws a conclusion depending on the assumption that the word has the same meaning in both instances, otherwise called the fallacy of ambiguous terms. Such words as "expansion," "socialism," "an- archy," etc., may be used either in a colorless or in a prejudicial sense, but they cannot properly be used in both senses in the same argument. 2. It might seem strange that anyone would be so foolish as to assume the truth of his conclusion as a means of proving it, and yet it is a fault often :ommitted in amateur debating; and words and phrases, especially in a long discussion, help to cloak the error. For example: "A prohibitory law should be enacted, for this is the only way to control the liquor traffic," begs the question, since the reason stated in the second proposition prac- tically assumes the truth of the first proposition. So, a religious body condemning a belief because it REFUTATION 141 is "heresy," begs the question, since heresy is a belief which should be condemned. And any statement which, instead of supporting a propo- sition, merely varies its expression, or assigns it incidents granting it to be true, is only a repetition of the proposition, and is no evidence or proof. 3. "Reasoning in a circle" consists in using in turn each of two propositions to prove the truth of the other. A bald example of this fallacy is contained in the following conversation in a popu- lar novel: " 'Who is my landlady ?' Peter asked. 'She is the Duchess.' 'Who is the Duchess?' 'Why, she is your landlady!'" 5 The fallacy, however, is not always so apparent as this instance shows. In the case of Ogden vs. Saunders, Web- ster thus analyzed an extended argument by the op- posing counsel: The plaintiff in error argues in a complete circle. He supposes the parties to this contract to have had reference to the statute law because it was a binding law, and ye% he proves it to be a binding law only upon the ground that such reference was made to it. Arguing in a circle is a fallacy not infrequently used by a careless thinker, and it is often employed as a trick for confusing a sluggish thinker. 5 "The Cardinal's Snuff-Box," p. 16. 142 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE Ignoring the Question.* This fallacy con- sists in arguing beside the point. The reasoning may not be fallacious in itself, but the fallacy lies in a gap between the proof offered and the main issues. Sometimes a debater will glide almost im- perceptibly from one proposition to another, and his opponent needs to revert constantly to the analysis of the question to make him meet the case. The politician, called upon to reply to warranted criticisms upon some party measure, is wont to indulge in vague talk about "local self-govern- ment/' "constitutional rights," and the like. So, in trials at law, when an attorney finds himself hard pressed as to the real merits of the case, he frequently resorts to pleas for "justice" and "righteousness." The fallacy is also illustrated in the legal maxim or want of maxim "No case, abuse the opposing attorney." The following oft- quoted extract shows what Macaulay claimed was a widespread use of this fallacy : The advocates of Charles the First, like the advocates of other malefactors against whom overwhelming evi- dence is produced, generally decline all controversy about the facts, and content themselves with calling attention to character. . . . And what, after all, are the virtues ascribed to Charles? A religious zeal, not more sincere than that of his son, and fully as weak and narrow- minded, and a few of the ordinary household decencies which half the tombstones in England claim for those REFUTATION 143 who lie beneath them. A good father! A good hus- 4 band! Ample apologies indeed for fifteen years of perse- cution, tyranny, and falsehood! We charge him with having broken his coronation oath; and we are told that he kept his marriage vow! We accuse him of having given up his people to the merciless inflictions of the most hot-headed and hard-hearted of prelates; and the de- fense is, that he took his little son on his knee and kissed him ! We censure him for having violated the articles of the Petition of Right, after having, for good and valu- able consideration, promised to observe them; and we are informed that he was accustomed to hear prayers at six o'clock in the morning! . . . We cannot, in estimating the character of an individual, leave out of our consider- ation his conduct in the most important of all human re- lations; and if in that relation we find him selfish, cruel, and deceitful, we shall take the liberty to call him a bad man, in spite of all his temperance at table, and all his regularity at chapel. What are technically called the Argumentum ad Hominem and the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam are only other forms of the Ignorantio Elenchi. The argument ad h.ominem is an appeal or at- tack "addressed to the peculiar circumstances, character, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual, and therefore has reference to him only, and does not bear directly and absolutely on the real question." 6 It attacks an opponent's con- sistency or character, rather than his argument. It "Whately, "Elements of Logic," p. 237. 144 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE is often heard in courts of law and in political campaigns, when men and not principles are at- tacked. It is gratifying to note, however, that this kind of argument has become less and less com- mon in modern public debate. When an oppon- ent's character is attacked, it obviously has no bear- ing on the merits of a question other than to dis- credit him as a witness. And when his consist- ency is attacked, this, too, can go no farther than to discredit him personally; it leaves the real ques- tion untouched. The urging of an opponent's in- consistency that his advocacy of a certain meas- ure is contrary to his opinions as previously ex- pressed, or with his circumstances has, it is true, a certain force in popular harangues, but the ar- gument is frequently worked beyond its legitimate limits. Suppose a man does argue contrary to his record or to his circumstances what of it? This fact has no bearing on his argument, nor does it necessarily impeach his sincerity. If one were never to change his opinions, there would be no in- dividual development. A great man has said that it is the prerogative of great minds to change their opinions. "A foolish consistency," says Emerson, "is the hobgoblin of little minds." The argument ad ignorantiam is one based, generally speaking, on the ignorance of an op- ponent, or of an audience. Ordinarily, it refers to REFUTATION 145 attempts to prove a given proposition true by showing that its opposite cannot be proved. But proving a thing untrue is not proving true its op- posite. The fallacy consists in confusing refuta- tion with positive proof. One form of it is "the fallacy of objections." Every day we hear men object to this or that plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it must be rejected. But the real question is, as was previously stated in dis- cussing Proof, Do the objections, after all, out- weigh the proved advantages? Composition and Division. The fallacy of Composition arises when we affirm something to be true of the whole which holds true only of one or more of its parts when taken separately or distributively; as, arguing that if a given law would be good for a certain town, or State, it would therefore be good for the nation. Con- versely, the fallacy of Division consists in assum- ing that what is true of the whole is also true of the parts taken separately ; as, arguing that a law that is good for a community as a whole is neces- sarily good as applied to every individual in that community. Thus both fallacies, it will be seen, arise from drawing unwarranted generalizations. Non Sequitur. In logic, this is the "fal- 10 146 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE lacy of the consequent" It consists in drawing il- logical conclusions from the facts or premises ; as, "Everyone desires happiness; virtuous people are happy; therefore everyone desires to be virtu- ous." Non sequitur it does not follow obvi- ously characterizes many of the fallacies pre- viously discussed. It should be noted that one's premises may be false and his conclusion true, and conversely, the premises may be true and the con- clusion false. Especially in the case of a long ar- gument, there are so many opportunities for er- rors between premises and conclusion that it is un- safe to assume the truth or falsity of one from the truth or falsity of the other, another illustration of the care needed in determining fallacies, and that as to one's own argument, as well as to the argument of an opponent. REFUTATION 147 EXERCISES. Let the student point out the methods of refutation and special forms of fallacies in the following examples. 1. It is said that the control of trusts by the Federal Govern- ment is unjustifiable and unconstitutional. But why should not the Government control such monopolistic and unjustifiable com- binations? 2. With the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of 1 6 to i, silver either would or would not maintain its parity with gold. If silver should maintain its parity, free coinage is unnecessary, for that is the condition at present; if it should not, free coinage is undesirable, for it would cause inflated prices and business unrest. 3. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are free and equal. Therefore the negro is the equal of the white man. 4. All criminal actions ought to be punished by law. Prose- cutions for theft are criminal actions. Therefore, prosecutions for theft ought to be punished by law. 5. It is always wrong to lie; for any departure, for any reason whatever, from the one invariable law of absolute veracity is al- ways reprehensible. 6. This island empire [The Philippines] is the last land left in all the oceans. If it should prove a mistake to abandon it, the blunder, once made, would be irretrievable. If it proves a mistake to hold it, the error can be corrected when we will. Every other progressive nation stands ready to relieve us. Beveridge. 7. Those are the arguments against the course of conduct I propose; and yet the fact remains that when you were in my position you did the very thing that you are now advising me not to do. 8. If a student likes his studies he needs no stimulus; if he dislikes his studies no stimulus will avail ; but a student either likes his studies or he dislikes them; therefore stimulus is either not necessary, or it is of no avail. 9. You cannot help going with the minority, who are strug- gling for their rights against the majority. Nothing could be more generous, when a weak party stands for its own legitimate rights against imperious pride and power, than to sympathize with the weak. But who ever sympathized with a weak thief, 148 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE because three constables had got hold of him? And yet the one thief in the three policemen's hands is the weaker party. I sup- pose you would sympathize with him. Beecher, Liverpool Speech. 10. The increased immigration of Japanese would be beneficial to the State of Texas; therefore it would be beneficial to the United States. 11. The Panama Canal will be commercially beneficial to the United States; therefore it will be commercially beneficial to the State of New York. 12. This State has many undeveloped resources. But we have a State University. Therefore the higher education unfits one for a business career. 13. You charge that we stir insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enter- prise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are in- excusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. Lincoln, Address at Cooper In- stitute. 14. When I consider that we have colonies for no purpose but to be serviceable to us, it seems to my poor understanding a little preposterous to make them unserviceable in order to keep them obedient Burke. 15. Senator Depew's opinion of the United States Senate is that it displays "an absence of jobbery, an unselfish devotion to the public service, a sincere and hopeful patriotism, and a broad, comprehensive and statesmanlike grasp of the necessities of the country and the possibilities of its development worthy of the best days of the republic." The history of the last river and harbor bill showed that conclusively. The Philadelphia Ledger. 1 6. I do not admit the competency of South Carolina, or any other State, to prescribe my constitutional duty or to pass upon the validity of laws enacted by Congress. . . . And, sir, if we look to the general nature of the case, could anything have been more preposterous than to make a government for the whole Union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? . . . Would any- REFUTATION 149 thing with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a government? No, sir. It should not be denominated a Constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. Webster, Reply to Hayne. 17. Contrast now the circumstances of your life and mine, Aeschines, and then ask these people whose fortunes they would each of them prefer. You taught reading, I went to school ; you performed initiations, I received them; you danced in the chorus, I furnished it; you were assembly clerk, I was speaker; you acted third parts, I heard you ; you broke down, and I hissed ; you have worked as a statesman for the enemy, I for my coun- try. Demosthenes. CHAPTER VII PRELIMINARY READING AND CLASSIFICATION I. READING. Prior to determining upon a final line of proof, and sometimes, it may be, .be- fore a complete preliminary analysis is worked out, the student will need to do some reading on the question for debate; for questions are rare in which one can depend for arguments solely on his own experience and thought. But in view of two common faults of students in preparing de- bates, these two corresponding admonitions should be heeded : ( i ) Do not make reading a substitute for thinking, and (2) Study both sides of the ques- tion. I. Thinking should precede, accompany, and follow any reading on the question under investi- gation. In taking up the consideration of any proposition for debate, the first thing is to take an inventory of the contents of your own mind. How does the question strike you as a citizen ? What pre- conceived notions have you regarding it? Have you proof for opinions already formed? How does the question arise as a subject for discussion? What is the meaning of the proposition? What (150) READING AND CLASSIFICATION 151 are the issues raised? And what lines of proof are necessary in order to establish the affirmative or tly negative side? In other words, first of all ^analyze the question and your opinion and knowl- edge of it. Senator Albert J. Beveridge, in an article in the Saturday Evening Post of October 5, 1900, writes as follows: The method commonly employed in preparing speeches is incorrect. That method is to read all the books one can get on the subject, take all the opinions that can be procured, make exhaustive notes and then write the speech. Such a speech is nothing but a compilation. It is merely an arrangement of second-hand thought and observation and of other people's ideas. It never has the power of living and original thinking. The true way is to take the elements of the problem in hand and, without consulting a book or an opinion, reason out from the very elements of the problem itself your solution of it, and then prepare your speech. After this, read, read, read, comprehensively, omnivor- ously, in order to see whether your original solution was not exploded a hundred years ago aye, or a thousand; and also, to fortify and make accurate your own thought. Read Matthew Arnold on Literature and Dogma and you will discover why it is necessary for you to read ex- haustively on any subject about which you would think or write or speak. But, as you value your independence of mind yes, even your vigor of mind do not read other men's opinions upon the subject before you have clearly thought out your own conclusions from the premises of the elemental facts. 152 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 2. The necessity of studying both sides of the question has been shown in the discussion of the processes in both direct proof and refutation^ Th debater must know the strong and weak places i both the affirmative and negative sides; and he cannot know the weak places in his own argument until he knows what can be said against it. The beginner in argumentation is very apt to neglect the study of the other side; not by deliberately avoiding it, perhaps, but by seeking for only such material as will tend to confirm the side of the question that he wishes to establish. On the im- portance of studying the opposing side of a case, a great lawyer is said to have remarked, "If I have time to study only one side of a question, I study that of my adversary." Not only should one read arguments on both sides of a question, he should aim to get a com- prehensive grasp of the whole field of the discus- sion, to master the general situation or general principles involved before taking up the details of the issues raised in a particular question. The search for material should be pursued in the fol- lowing order: ( i ) Books and periodicals that deal with the question generally; (2) magazine articles or pamphlets bearing on the particular question, and (3) newspapers and reports if the question READING AND CLASSIFICATION 153 is one in current discussion for details as to evi- dence. Generally speaking, four classes of material will be gathered from reading: (i) Simple facts; that is, facts not disputed by the opposing side, but which, as a groundwork for your argument, it is necessary the hearers should know. As to such facts, then, the main work is to get a clear and orderly statement for use as the basis of your proof. (2) Facts in dispute, whose value will de- pend upon the source, and whose acceptance by the hearers will depend upon the skill with which you show that the source of your information is reliable. In other words, all the tests of evidence, of witnesses, and of the argument from authority, will needs be brought to bear. (3) The argu- ments of others opposed to you. Such arguments should be carefully analyzed, and noted for future refutation. (4) The arguments of others in your f$vor. This class demands the greatest care in its use. The arguments supporting your side should first ^be examined critically, to see if they are tenable and logical. Then, if accepted, adopt the substance, if you choose, but not the form. Do not borrow en masse, or even paraphrase. Such a method is not only dishonest (unless given as quoted matter), but ineffective: the stamp of the speaker's individuality is lacking. In using the ar- 154 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE guments of others, then, avoid compilation and aim for originality; pass the matter through the crucible of your own mind and give it a new mean- ing, mold it into new forms and stamp it with your individual expression, in short, make it your own. The preliminary reading for gathering proof- material, therefore, should be (i) wide, so that the whole question, pro and con, is covered; (2) thorough, so that nothing essential is neglected; and (3) thoughtful, so that the matter be not swallowed whole, but be mentally assimilated. II. CLASSIFICATION. Rhetoricians and others give various methods as to collecting and arrang- ing material for an essay or a speech. Individuals may use different methods, but the point is, some method is necessary. The following plan of pro- cedure is recommended. Make a tentative outline of your argument; then read for amplification; then revise the outline, if found desirable, and fit the material obtained from reading int* such outline. The details of an outline for a debate are treated in the next chapter, so suffice it to say here that the outline desired at this point should be as orderly and logical as possible. The main head- ings might run something as follows : ( i ) The Facts in the Case; (2) Arguments for the Affirma- READING AND CLASSIFICATION 155 tive; (3) Arguments for the Negative. Then under each of these main headings would be grouped appropriate subheadings. At the outset, it may be, especially if the subject is a familiar one, or at any rate before the reading will have pro- ceeded far, the main issues in the question will loom up. These will naturally constitute the main subheadings under either (2) or (3) above. As the reading proceeds, the matter finds ready classi- fication under these various headings, the outline being expanded or otherwise changed to admit of new matter. Some system in taking notes should be adopted. Memoranda of matter needs be made, for no one can well carry in memory all the results of read- ing. But what a jumble many students' "notes" are! If one crowds into a notebook, in helter- skelter fashion, the information and points he gleans from reading, wholly unrelated matter re- corded in an unrelated manner, such notes are hardly usable, or at the best they represent poor economy of time. An old Latin maxim holds that "a large part of education is to know where you may find anything." Some sort of classification should accompany the note-taking. The best plan is to make the notes on cards or slips of paper of uniform size, each labeled with a heading corre- sponding to the outline, which shows the point 156 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE on which the note bears, new headings being added in the outline as new ideas occur. After the notes are finished, assort them and put together all those bearing on a particular point. Under such a plan as this, it will be seen, the outline and the notes mutually react upon and aid each other. With a general outline drawn up, and with .the notes classified to fit such outline, the debater is ready for incorporating the whole into the form of a brief. This is the subject of the next chapter. READING AND CLASSIFICATION 157 EXERCISES. Assign to each student a question that will eventually be briefed and debated. In advance of the brief, let the student hand in, first, a statement of the principal arguments, affirmative and negative, such statement being based solely on his general knowledge of the question ; then a fairly exhaustive bibliography, affirmative and negative, stating the gist of each book or article consulted; then a statement, deduced from his notes, of the principal arguments for and against the proposition. If time permits, review and criticize these written reports with each writer and with the class. CHAPTER VIII THE BRIEF We saw in the preceding chapter that one's pre- liminary reading should both proceed from and result in an outline. Let us now consider the details of an outline, or "brief," which may be used as a foundation for either a written or an oral argument. Why an Outline is Necessary. Some kind of an outline is indispensable to the presentation of the argument in full. In the first place, an outline is necessary for getting an orderly arrangement of the proof. Ideas are not ordinarily to be pre- sented in the same order in which they were ob- tained. There must be such a rearrangement and classification of the material that the whole course of the discussion is covered in orderly progression from the starting point to the end desired; and an outline may be said to furnish a map of the territory to be traversed. Secondly, such orderly classifica- tion is necessary in order to impress the plan of the whole argument upon one's mind. No ordinary person can carry in his memory a complete outline of an argument without first reducing it to writing. THE BRIEF 159 Further, when the time comes for presenting the proof in final form, whether it be first written out or whether spoken directly from the outline, the author's mind should be left free for the elabora- tion of his argument, step by step, the framework having been completed in advance. Especially is this the case in extemporaneous debating; for any- one can learn to speak extempore if he knows in ad- vance the order and substance of what he wishes to say. Finally, an outline is necessary in order to make the argument clear to others. Especially in debate, the foundation and framework in the structure of the speaker's argument must be made clear to the hearers. They must in some way be made to see the structure by means of an oc- casional "first," "secondly," and "thirdly," or other means of identification; and the speaker can- not well make the structure apparent to his audi- ence unless he has previously made an outline for himself. Different Kinds of Outlines. There are all sorts of outlines, from the exceedingly meager and fragmentary form, consisting in mere headlines or catch-words, to an elaborate statement covering all material points. The first type may be illus- trated by the following brief prepared by Lincoln for his argument in a case to recover for the widow l6o SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE of a Revolutionary soldier two hundred dollars which had been retained by the defendant out of four hundred dollars awarded the widow as pen- sion money: No contract Not professional services Unreason- able charge Money retained by Deft not given to Pl'fE Revolutionary War Describe Valley Forge pri- vations Pl'fT's husband Soldier leaving home for army Skin Deft Close. 1 This outline served Lincoln's purpose, no doubt, but it would be almost useless to anyone except the writer, and it is altogether too meager for a com- prehensive and closely related argument. The type of the other extreme the full outline is found in the ordinary legal brief. A brief, in law, "is a document, prepared by counsel as a basis for oral argument of a cause in an appellate court, containing a statement of the manner in which the questions in controversy upon the appeal arises; of the facts of the case so far as they relate to these questions; a specification on the part of the plain- tiff in error or appellant of the errors alleged to have been committed by the court below, upon which reversal is asked for; and a brief of the ar- gument, consisting of the propositions of law or fact to be maintained, the reasons upon which they 1 Lewis, "Specimens of the Forms of Discourse," p. 233. THE BRIEF l6l are based, and citation of authorities in their sup- port." 2 A brief in debate has all the essential features comprehended in this definition, but it need not contain quite so full and detailed state- ments as a brief in law; since a debate-brief al- ways presupposes a subsequent expansion, either written or oral, while a legal brief often takes the place, by agreement of counsel, of any oral argu- ment. On the other hand, an outline consisting of mere headlines is insufficient. With a view of criticism by the teacher, the student's brief, it should be remembered, is to inform a reader, as well as the writer, of the author's analysis of the question and of all the proof upon which he relies. It is a composition in itself, containing all that part of the complete argument which is essential for a successful appeal to the intellect, and lacks only complete rhetorical form and the element of per- suasion. A brief in debate, then, is a condensed written argument, covering every essential step in the proof. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A . GOOD BRIEF The main features of a good brief are ( i ) Clearness, (2) Coherence, and (3) Unity. 2 Abbott, "Brief Making and the Use of Law Books," p. 5. II 1 62 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE i. Clearness. However desirable perfect clear- ness may be in other forms of composition, in ar- gumentation it is absolutely indispensable. Re- membering always that the brief is the outline- plan for the subsequent complete argument, it is essential that it be so constructed that the reader and hence later the hearer may readily follow you. And yet the average beginner in brief- writing constantly disregards, in actual practice, this fundamental principle. Nor is the fault con- fined to the school or college student, but the briefs of many lawyers in cases where so much depends upon good workmanship are lamentably deficient in clearness and orderliness. A member of the faculty of a prominent law school recently wrote : Clearness in the preparation of the brief goes a long way toward success in the case. There cannot be too careful attention to every detail of style and arrange- ment. . . . The average lawyer does not know how to prepare a brief. I was about to say the average young lawyer, but I will make it general. The principal faults that I should specify are citation of cases having only the most general bearing on the question in hand, the use of violent expletives, generally a cloak for feebleness of thought, undue repetition, and higgledy-piggledy arrange- ment. The first requisite of clearness is, of course, clear thought on the part of the writer. If your THE BRIEF 163 own thoughts are muddy, you can hardly expect them to be clear in the brief. You must have an unobstructed view of the whole course of the argu- ment, from the beginning to the end of the proof. But more than this, particular care must be exercised in the phrasing in order to make the brief clear to a reader and to the average hearer. I say to the average hearer, because after a student has made special study of a question, many points that are very apparent to his own mind might not appear so clear to one who has made no special study of the subject. In the phrasing of your proof, then, avoid complex statements and aim for simplicity, directness, and conciseness. 2. Coherence. Not only must an argument be clear, as to the whole and as to all its parts, but the whole must hang together and the parts adhere to the whole and to each other; the argument must be coherent. The two principal elements of coherence are subordination and sequence. We have seen that any question for debate will resolve itself into certain issues that need chiefly to be proved in order to prove the proposition; and that other subordinate issues, with all the evidence in the case, merely go to support these main issues. Coherency requires that these main issues be em- phasized in the argument, and that related issues 164 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE be subordinated; that is, that in the welding to- gether the cohering of the whole argument the evidentiary and supporting material be grouped about the main issues. By sequence, as an element of coherency, is meant that all steps in the proof naturally and logically lead to and follow one another. This applies to the main divisions of the whole argu- ment and to the proof that supports each main division. In the development of the proof, care should be exercised to avoid arbitrary and abrupt changes; the transitions from one part of the proof to another should be smooth and natural. It is a problem in classification and arrangement, which we shall have occasion to discuss further in connection with other phases of brief-writing. 3. Unity. Lastly, a brief should conform to the law of unity. In the first place, analogous to the rhetorical law of the paragraph, each main division of the argument should make a single impression upon the mind of the reader, to wit, the proof of the proposition which is the subject of that division ; and then, all these main divisions should in turn produce but a single impression, to wit, the proof of the main proposition. Here again due emphasis will aid materially in the attainment of unity; and the proper coordination THE BRIEF 165 of the proof material, later discussed, will serve as a check against the scattering effect of many arguments. THE MAIN DIVISIONS OF A BRIEF Whatever may be the absolute .requirements in other kinds of composition, a brief in debate must always include the threefold division of an intro- duction, the proof or argument proper, and a con- clusion. Inasmuch as the brief is to include every essential feature of the complete argument, it would be difficult to conceive of any question the argument of which would be complete if any of these three divisions were omitted. Any question for debate will require some introductory explana- tion and exposition and some indication of the proof required, before entering upon the argument proper. The argument, or proof, is of course necessary. And the cumulative force of the proof is lost without a conclusion to reenforce and bind the whole together. Let us now consider these three main divisions of a brief in some detail, all the time bearing in mind that the brief is to be the foundation for the subsequent written or oral argument. THE INTRODUCTION. The function of the in- 1 66 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE troduction is to prepare the minds of the audience for the subsequent argument by presenting all facts and explanations necessary for understanding the question, pointing out the issues in the discussion, and outlining the proof as to those issues. An in- troduction will vary in length and explanatory details, of course, according to the nature of the question. It should include, in addition to a state- ment of the proposition, a bibliography, and an outline of the proof, the results of the preliminary analysis of the question. For the purpose of an orderly and uniform mode of procedure, and also as a guard against superficial work, let the student write out his introduction by following these steps : 1. Statement of the Proposition. For the benefit of the critic, indicate at the outset whether you have the affirmative or negative. 2. Bibliography. State (a) the books or general treatises, and (b) the periodicals and special articles you have actually consulted, with specific reference to title, author, volume, and page. The purpose of this is, first, for future reference, and secondly, to inform the critic just what read- ing has been done in the investigation of the ques- tion; thereby further references can often be suggested. It is to be understood that the bibliography at this point is not to take the place THE BRIEF 167 of specific references to authorities in the body of the brief, whenever the citation of authority is needed to substantiate any particular statement. 3. Exposition and Definition. Here begins the analysis of the question, which is continued in steps 4, 5, and 6. Since the subject of Analysis has been fully discussed in a preceding chapter, a brief recapitulation only is given here. Exposition and definition comprehend an explanation of how the subject for debate arises, a statement of any un- disputed facts necessary for an understanding of the question, and a definition of the terms of the proposition, including their meaning in current discussion. However full a statement under this heading a particular question may require, it should be accurate, clear, and pointed. 4. The Common Ground. This step requires answers to such questions as: What extraneous topics may be eliminated in the discussion? What matters connected with the proposition can both sides properly admit? 5. The Main Issues. That is, what points must be proved in order to prove the proposition? A word of caution here: the issues must be proposi- tions reading as reasons for the main proposition. Students often state the issues in practically the same form as the proposition for debate. This indicates little or no progress in the analysis. 1 68 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 6. The Burden of Proof. Tell where, in a de- bate of the question, the burden of proof lies, and why? 7. Partition of the Argument. By partition is meant a statement of what you propose to prove. This statement should be only the main headings for the subsequent argument. These headings, or propositions, will naturally be identical with, or grow out of, the statement of the issues; that is, the statement of the issues and that of the partition may be in identical form, though not necessarily so. Having stated what the real points at issue are, the partition states the main lines of proof necessary to establish these points. In actual debate a partition may not always be desirable. If the audience is prejudiced or hostile, it is some- times best not to "give away the case" in advance. But ordinarily, when the audience is impartial, or at the worst indifferent, the hearers should be told in advance of the plan of proof. They can then more easily and more intelligently follow the argu- ment. The divisions in the partition should be natural and logical; made on the same basis from the same point of view; exhaustive of the proof, but not too numerous; stated clearly and concisely; and then followed in the subsequent argument. In many questions little or no attention will be THE BRIEF 169 needed to some of the foregoing points. When the question is an unusual or intricate one, all the preceding headings will need to be carefully con- sidered and filled out. If, however, the question relates to some topic of current discussion, the im- mediate cause for discussion and the origin of the question may be known to all. But in many ques- tions of the day a preliminary statement of the facts in the case is necessary in order to get the bearings for one's proof. For instance, take the much-discussed question of the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. This would require an explanation of the idea under- lying the creation of the Senate, of the present mode of election, and a narration of the events leading up to the agitation for popular election. Again, the terms in the question may be plainly self-defining, and there may be no special points for designation as common ground. All such questions the student will need to ask himself as he takes up seriatim the points to be .considered in the introduction. One other point as to the introduction: it should be wholly non-partisan. Aside from such favorable impression of your side as may be created from the analysis of the question, reserve all argument until you come to the argument proper. Otherwise you overstep, in the first place, 1 70 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE the bounds of an introduction, and furthermore, you are much more apt to prejudice your case than to help it. Aristotle says, "Argumentation has but two essential parts the statement of the case and the proof." The statement of the case is exposition, and the more purely expository it is the stronger will be its effect. The very purpose of an argument conviction assumes that there are minds to be convinced; and a partisan and prejudicial introduction only defeats its own ob- ject. The writings and speeches of masters in debate will show their appreciation of the necessity of keeping an introduction free from all signs of prejudice and unfairness. THE ARGUMENT. Using the term in its limited sense, the name "Argument" is here given to the body of the brief, in preference to "Discus- sion" or "Brief Proper." This division of the brief has as its function the presentation of the proof. Two matters claim our attention xxv. p. 534; xxvi. p. 177; xxx. p. 265; Atlantic Monthly, Ixxxi. p. 577; xcii. p. 256; xciv. p. 577; Arena, xx. p. 445; xxiii. pp. I, 247, 321, 331, 458, 561; xxv. pp. 465, 521; xxix. p. 48; Harpers Magazine, xcviii. pp. 609, 619, 720; Century, Ivi. pp. 555, 781, 873; Scribners Magazine, xxvii. p. 739 ; World's Work, iv. p. 2344; ix. p. 5571; Political Science Quarterly, xii. p. 585; xiv. p. 240; speeches of Senators Beveridge and Hoar in the United States Senate, 1900. INTRODUCTION. Exposition and Definition. The question under dis- cussion arises as one of the results of the Spanish-Ameri- THE BRIEF l8l can War. Spain having ceded to us the Philippine Islands, the question arises, Are we to retain and exercise permanently the sovereignty thus transferred to the United States? The question is an important one, for it involves (i) a great political problem the future of the United States as a colonizing power and our consequent relation to other world powers; (2) a great economic problem the value and importance of the Philippines in commercial expansion; (3) a great social problem the relation of a superior to an inferior race; and (4) a great moral question the rights and duties of the United States in relation to the Filipinos. The term ' 'permanent control" in this question means the continued exercise of sovereignty over the Islands as a permanent policy of the United States, although it does not preclude the possibility of a certain measure of local self-government. 2. Common Ground. Both sides must agree that the United States is at present exercising sovereignty over the islands, and the negative will also probably agree that such sovereignty became vested in the United States in accordance with the law of nations; in any case, the right or wisdom of our acquisition of title is not germane to this discussion. It is also generally admitted that those who favor the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands believe that, while the United States may give to the islands a large measure of local autonomy, sover- eignty should never be relinquished; and that those who oppose permanent retention believe that the islands should be permitted to establish an independent government at the earliest possible moment, and that a declaration to this effect should be made by the United States at once. 3. Main Issues. The question, then, seems to rest on these four main issues: (i) Is the permanent retention 1 82 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE of the Philippine Islands desirable for political reasons? (2) Is it desirable for economic reasons? (3) Is it de- sirable for military and naval reasons? (4) Is it justi- fiable on moral grounds? 4. Burden of Proof. Since the affirmative is contend- ing for the continuance of a present status, the burden is on the negative to show why such status should be changed, and that some other policy will be better than the present one; while the affirmative must show either that the reasons which led to the adoption of the present policy will hold for the future, or that there are other reasons to justify a permanent continuance of such policy. 5. Partition of the Argument. The affirmative will undertake to prove : ( I ) that the permanent control of the Philippine Islands is desirable for political reasons; (2) that it is desirable for economic reasons; (3) that it is desirable for military and naval reasons; (ty) that it is justifiable on moral grounds. ARGUMENT I. The permanent control of the Philippine Islands by the United States is desirable for political reasons, because A. It is consistent with the past policy of the nation, for i. The history of the United States has been one of territorial expansion, accompanied by the retention of the acquired land, for a. This is true of the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory, of Texas, Cali- fornia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, and THE BRIEF 183 b. The method of acquisition of these lands was similar to that of acquiring the Philippine Islands. 2. The argument that the Philippines are not contiguous territory is of no force, for a. Neither is Alaska, Hawaii, nor Porto Rico. 3. The fact that our nation has for the first time acquired possessions in the Eastern Hemisphere is immaterial, for a. Steam and electricity have in modern times eliminated the former import- ance of continental boundaries. B. The permanent control of the islands will im- prove domestic politics, because ^ A better civil service will be developed, for a. Its value will be more appreciated. 2. Administrative ability will be encouraged, since a. The field for its display will be much broader. 3. Domestic issues will be raised to a higher plane, for a. A broader political horizon diminishes petty political differences. C. The retention of the islands will improve our foreign relations, for, 1. Greater respect will be shown the United States by other powers, for a. This has already been demonstrated since our possession of the islands. 2. The United States will be placed in a * 1 84 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE stronger position in its dealings with other nations, since a. The future political battles will be for commercial supremacy. II. The permanent control of the Philippine Islands is desirable for economic reasons, because A. Valuable territory will be acquired, for 1. The area is large. 2. The soil is very productive. 3. Natural resources abound, for a. The country is rich in mineral de- posits and timber (Reports of the Philippine Commission). B. Our foreign commerce will be increased, for 1. A larger trade with the islands will be assured, since a. "Trade follows the flag* 2. Trade with the rest of the Orient will be placed upon a secure foundation, for a. The islands furnish an invaluable point for distribution. b. They command the trade route of the East. c. The many good harbors and the coal deposits make a good stopping place for ships. d. Political supremacy is necessary to secure any considerable portion of Oriental trade, for i'. It is necessary in order to ob- tain necessary concessions and reciprocal trade agreements from other nations. THE BRIEF 185 3. The Eastern trade offers the best field for the development of our foreign commerce, for a. The trade with China alone is "the mightiest commercial fact of the future." C. The retention of the islands will increase domestic prosperity, for 1. American producers need larger foreign markets, for a. In many lines the home market has become exhausted, for i'. Production exceeds consump- tion. 2. American capital will find a new outlet, for a. Capital, like trade, follows the flag. D. The argument that the islands will be a finan- cial burden to us is untenable, for 1. The expenditures necessary for securing a stable government and instituting reforms in administration afford no criterion. 2. By far the greatest part of the expense has already been met. 3. There is no reason why the islands cannot eventually be made self-supporting. III. The retention of the islands is desirable for military and naval reasons, because A. They will be valuable in time of peace, for i. A base will be provided for a fleet which must always be left in Eastern waters. B. They will be invaluable in time of war, for i. A seat of unusual strategic importance will be furnished, because 1 86 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE a. Of its position, strength, and re- sources. 2. The Filipinos can be developed into an admirable fighting force wholly loyal to the United States, for a. Our experience with them thus far shows this. TV. The retention of the islands is justifiable on moral grounds, because A. It is justifiable morally so far as the United States is concerned, for 1. The United States is morally responsible for the welfare of the islands, for a. The assumption of sovereignty car- ried with it a certain moral obliga- tion. 2. In no way but by retaining the islands can this moral obligation be fulfilled, for a. Should the United States renounce control, the Filipinos would become the victim of misgovernment and the prey of grasping powers, for i'. Self-government is impossible, for ^ a'. The people are not a unit politically, geo- graphically, or ethno- graphically. b'. They have no common language, manners, or customs. c'. They are unfitted by an- tecedents and training. THE BRIEF 187 d'. The great mass of the people have no wish for independence. e'. Authorities are practi- cally unanimous on at least their present unfit- ness for self-government. 2'. Japan would soon find occa- sion to assume sovereignty over the islands. 3. No promises inconsistent with a policy of permanent retention were ever made by duly accredited representatives of our government. B. Retention is right so far as the Filipinos are concerned, because i. Their condition is better than under any other rule, for a. It is much better than it was under Spanish rule, for i'. This is conceded by all. b. It is better than it would be under the rule of any other power, for i'. The moral obligation of the United States to the islands is greater. 2'. The United States is pursu- ing, and will likely continue to pursue, a more just and gen- erous policy than would any other nation, for a'. The policy of the United States looks to the inter- 1 88 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE ests of civilization, and not primarily to exploi- tation, for i". Our dealings with Cuba and Porto Rico and also with the Philip- pines demon- strates this. c. It is better than it would be if the Filipinos were granted their inde- pendence, for i'. An honest and capable admin- istration of affairs is assured. 2'. The largest possible measure of individual liberty and local self-government will be granted. 3'. The people will be educated and elevated according to higher ideals than they have previously known. 4'. Their economic and social conditions will be greatly im- proved. 5'. They will have the benefit of contact with a superior type^ of representatives of a superior race. 6'. The corresponding evils which would result from attempted self-government will be avoided, for THE BRIEF 189 a'. This is shown by our experience with Cuba, whose people are far more capable of self- government than the Filipinos. C. Civilization generally will be promoted by the permanent retention of these islands by the United States, because 1. Civilization is retarded whenever a semi- barbarous people attempt to govern them- selves. 2. The whole trend of history shows the ab- sorbtion of the weaker and semi-civilized by the stronger and more highly civilized, and . 3. The Anglo-Saxon race is best fitted to accomplish this task with justice and wisdom, and 4. The United States is best fitted to carry civilization to the Philippine Islands, for a. No nation has higher ideals. b. Those who say that the United States Government is not adapted to colonial government are wrong, for i'. This is not true in theory, nor nor has it proven true in prac- tice. CONCLUSION. Since the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands by the United States is (i) politically desirable, because 190 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE it is in accord with our policy, will improve domestic politics, and will also improve our foreign relations; and since it is (2) economically desirable, because valuable territory will thus be acquired, our foreign commerce and domestic prosperity increased, and no financial burden thereby incurred by the United States; and since it is (3) desirable for military and naval reasons, because the islands will be valuable to us in time of peace and in- valuable in time of war; and since (4) the retention of the islands is justifiable on moral grounds as regards the United States, the Philippines, and civilization gener- ally therefore the United States should retain perma- nent control of the Philippine Islands. THE BRIEF 191 EXERCISES. 1. Select one or more speeches by masters in debate, such as Burke, Webster, Lincoln, and let the student cast them into the form of a brief. (A skeleton brief of Burke's speech on "Con- ciliation with the American Colonies" will be found in "Master- pieces of Modern Oratory," pages 340-342, and a more detailed outline is given in Denney's edition of the same speech, pages 133-137.) 2. Let the students criticize and rewrite, it may be, outside of class the following bits of brief-writing, taken for the most part from students' briefs: (A) The following introduction to a brief was written during the progress of the Japanese-Russian War on the negative of the question, "Resolved, that the complete victory of the Jap- anese in the present war would be beneficial to civilization." Bibliography. (a) Lawrence, "War and Neutrality in the Far East." (b) Articles in current periodicals and newspapers. 1. Exposition and Definition. This question has arisen on ac- count of the position and relations of the two countries now en- gaged in war. If Russia should be successful, certain results would follow. If Japan is victorious, certain other results will follow. The question has arisen, then, in regard to these results. The word "complete" as here used would mean a victory such that Japan would be able to largely dictate terms in the treaty of peace at the close of the war. 2. Common Ground. Both sides will agree that the effect on civilization will be different in case of a Japanese victory from what it would be in case of a Russian victory. 3. Main Issues. The single issue in this debate is whether a complete victory by the Japanese would bebeneficial to civiliza- tion. 4. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof rests on the affirma- tive, because they muA first show that a complete victory by the Japanese would be beneficial. 5. Partition. I. A complete victory for the Japanese would intensify the danger of the "Yellow Peril." II. This would prac- tically stop progress in Siberia. III. The loss of Manchuria or part of it would call for advancement on the Island of Japan. 192 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE (B) i. The Chinese Exclusion law should be repealed, because (a) Statistics show it. (b) Their peaceful traits prove it. 2. The Chinese are a most industrious people, for (a) Investigation has revealed it. (b) Statistics have proved it. (c) The share they have had in developing the Pacific coast region and producing wealth establishes it. (C) I propose to show that the policy of Chinese exclusion should be rigidly maintained for (i) social reasons, (2) politi- cal reasons, (3) economic reasons, and (4) because the Chinese would make undesirable citizens. (D) Arizona and New Mexico should not be admitted as separate States, because 1. It would not be to the best interests of these territories themselves, for (a) They are a natural geographical unit. (b) They are a natural commercial unit. 2. It would not be to the best interests of the nation to ad- mit them as a single State, because (a) The combined population is barely up to the re- quired number. (b) Either Territory alone is smaller than the ordinary State. (c) The total population of the two Territories is too small to justify double representation in the Senate. (E) The United States should not retain permanent control of the Philippine Islands, because 1. We broke our agreement with the Filipinos, for (a) Our generals promised to free them from Spain, for i. We needed their aid to expel and conquer the Spaniards. (b) We promised that as soon as the war was over we would let the Filipinos form their own govern- ment. 2. To hold these islands is violating our Constitution, for THE BRIEF (a) The Ninth Amendment states that all people of the United States have rights and privileges that nobody can take away. (b) We have no right to foreign territory. 3. The Democrats contend that (a) All men are created free and equal, with equal powers, hence i. The Filipino is capable of immediate self- government, and therefore (a) He should have it. (F) The white citizens of the Southern States should insure their political supremacy because they are competent, qualified and able to govern, for 1. The white race is better educated, more intelligent, and more capable than the negro race. 2. The white race has precedent in its favor, for it has al- ways held the balance of power and governed in this country. 3. The white race is the stronger race of the two, for they have always controlled the negro race. (G) On this proposition [The Chinese Exclusion Law should be extended to the Japanese] the affirmative contend (i) that unrestricted Japanese immigration is injurious to the United States; (2) that the proposed restriction would not materially affect our relations with Japan, and would be a benefit to her; and (3) that the proposed restriction is justifiable, practicable, expedient, and constitutional. CHAPTER IX PERSUASION So far as we have been considering chiefly that part of debating which has to do with the reason- ing processes, which is directed primarily to the mind, and results in conviction. But an argument which appeals only to the understanding may be barren of results. The cold logic of Brutus was easily overcome by the persuasive appeals of Antony. For the hearer to accept your reasoning is one thing, but for him to cast aside his prejudices and inertia is another thing. You want him to accept your argument in fact as well as in theory ; in other words, to act upon it, be the action expressed in the verdict of a jury, by a vote in a deliberative body, or by any other line of conduct. It would take little argument, for instance, to con- vince the ordinary citizen that he should exercise his right of suffrage; but something more might be needed to impel him to go to the polls on a par- ticular election day. That part of debating which wins the disposition of the hearers, directs motives, arouses emotions, and touches the springs of action is called persuasion. The importance of Persuasion in debate cannot be overestimated, for it is the (194) PERSUASION 195 climax of all argument proper. "Is it not," says Emerson, " the end of eloquence, to alter in a pair of hours, perhaps in a half-hour's discourse, the convictions and habits of years?" And yet, unlike the processes of pure conviction, the sources of per- suasion are too ill-defined and elusive for any sys- tematic treatment. All reasonable men reason sub- stantially alike. But men act from different mo- tives; and in the use of persuasion in debate much must depend upon the individual debater's tact in appreciating the particular motives that appertain to a jparticular audience. Generally considered, persuasion has its source in these three elements : ( I ) In appeals to the emotions, growing out of the argument proper ; ( 2 ) in the rhetorical qualities of spoken discourse how a thing is said; and (3) in the delivery the earnestness and personality of the speaker. APPEALS TO THE EMOTIONS All the elements named may contribute, of course, in appealing to the emotions, but reference is now made to those appeals which grow out of the argument proper. For any lasting effect, ap- peals to the feelings should first be founded on reason. Otherwise, such appeals are merely tran- sitory they cease as soon as the emotions aroused 196 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE are spent. Further, unless conviction either pre- cedes or accompanies an emotional appeal, the lat- ter is usually ineffective. Such is the case, at least, with an audience of even ordinary intelligence, for mere emotionalism becomes less and less potent as civilization advances. To move men, you must show them some reason for their being aroused. This fact is frequently overlooked in student debat- ing. Many so-called arguments are little more than a collation of popular phrases gleaned from parti- san newspapers. Thus, a trust is an "octopus," the Standard Oil Company " a grinding monopoly," a "robber tariff" is inflicting untold injuries on the "suffering masses," and so on, when perhaps the very question for debate requires evidence to estab- lish the truth of these question-begging phrases. Appeal to feeling should follow evidence, not re- place it ; first show the facts which make out a case for appeal. Knowledge, feeling, volition, action: this is the normal order for the normal individual. Certain exigencies in debate may needs change this order, but the general rule is that "emotion is con- ditional on apprehension, volition on emotion, ac- tion on volition." Generally speaking, for every argument, again, is a case by itself, there are three ways in which emotional appeals may be made: (i) By an ex- hibition of one's own feelings; (2) by a direct ap- PERSUASION 197 peal to the emotions of the hearers, and (3) by an indirect appeal. Personal Exhibition of Feeling. By exhibiting emotions ourselves we may sometimes arouse cor- responding emotions in others. To be effective, however, emotional demonstrations must impress the audience as being genuine, and, too, the feel- ings exhibited must have behind them a strong character and a reputation for sincerity, so that the hearers feel that a given emotional outburst is not a mere "patty-pan ebullition." Further, emotional outbursts must be spontaneous, and cannot there- fore be planned beforehand. A primary attribute of genuine feeling is the absence of all design. If a student, in preparing an address, says to himself : "Here is a good opportunity to let the audience see how moved I am," his effort is far more likely to fail than to succeed. The incident of Burke casting down a dagger in the House of Commons was felt to be theatrical, and it consequently failed of its in- tended effect. Not only must exhibitions of feeling be genuine and spontaneous, they should ordinarily be re- pressed rather than encouraged. Men generally are most moved by an impression of reserved force. It was a maxim with Webster "that violence of language is indicative of feebleness of thought and 198 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE want of reasoning power, and it was his practice rather to understate thfti overstate the strength of his confidence in the soundness of his own argu- ments and the logical necessity of his conclusions. He kept his auditor constantly in advance of him, by suggestion rather than by strong asservation, by a calm exposition of considerations which ought- to excite feeling in the heart of both speaker and hearer, not by an undignified and theatrical exhibi- tion of passion in himself." * Direct Appeal. In a direct appeal to the hear- ers' emotions the speaker says in substance: "You ought to feel so and so about this matter." This method, often essayed by the tyro in public speak- ing, is usually in itself ineffective. Men's feelings are not aroused simply by an appeal resting on the assertion that they should be. The query in the mind of a hearer always is, Why? And the emo- tions can be stirred only by an argument that shows the reason, or by concrete cases that affect the im- agination, or both. Indirect Appeal. The indirect appeal, then, is usually the most effective method of persuasion. In- stead of a personal exhibition of his own feelings, trusting to the sympathetic response of his audi- 1 Marsh, "Lectures on the English Language," p. 235. PERSUASION 199 ence, or instead of a direct appeal urging his hear- ers to feel as he does, the speaker should present the facts, incidents, and scenes which relate to his argument, so as to reproduce in others the same feelings by which he himself is moved. This is what is meant by an indirect appeal. "Deductions have no power of persuasion. The heart is com- monly reached, not through the reason, but through the imagination, by means of direct impression, by the testimony of facts and events, by history, by description. Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us!" The deeds or facts which are closely allied to one's argument, and which may properly be used to arouse feeling, should be presented and allowed to speak for them- selves. The presentation should be in sufficient de- tail to allow time to produce their effect. In his third-day's speech during the trial of Warren Hastings, Burke, in describing the cruelties of Debi Sing, must have stirred the feelings of his audience by the following vivid recital of details: But, to pursue this melancholy but necessary detail. I am next to open to your Lordships, that the most substan- tial and leading yeomen, the responsible farmers, the paro- chial magistrates and chiefs of villages, were tied two and two by the legs together; and their tormentors, throwing them with their heads downwards, over a bar, beat them on the soles of the feet with rattans, until the nails fell 2 Newman, "Discussions and Arguments," p. 293. 2OO SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE from the toes; and then attacking them at their heads, as they hung downward, they beat them with sticks and other instruments of blind fury, until the blood gushed out at their eyes, mouths, and noses. Not thinking that the ordinary whips and cudgels, even so administered, were sufficient, to others (and often also to the same who had suffered as I have stated) they applied, instead of rattan and bamboo, whips made of the branches of the bale-tree, a tree full of sharp and strong thorns, which tear the skin and lacerate the flesh far worse than ordi- nary scourages. ... At night, these poor innocent suf- ferers, these martyrs of avarice and exortion, were brought into dungeons; and, in the season when nature takes refuge in insensibility from all the miseries and cares which wait in life, they were three times scourged, and made to reckon the watches of the night by periods and intervals of tormment. . . . Days of menace, insult, and extortion, nights of bolts, fetters and flagellation, succeeded to each other in the same round, and for a long time made up all the vicissitudes of life to those miserable people. There is danger, however, of too prolonged de- tail, especially if the facts themselves are unpleas- ant. It is often best to stimulate the imagination by suggestive details, and. leave the hearers to com- plete the picture. In contrast to the foregoing, Burke omits a detailed description of the horrors of the war in Carnatic country, but gives the effects and lets them speak for themselves: For eighteen months, without intermission, this destruc- t ; on raged from the gates of Madras to the gates of Tan- PERSUASION 2O I jore; and so completely did these masters in their art, Hyder Ali and his more ferocious son, absolve themselves of their impious vow, that, when the British traversed, as they did, the Carnatic for hundreds of miles in all direc- tions, through the whole line of their march they did not see one man, not one woman, not one child, not one four- footed beast of any description whatever. One dead, uni- form silence reigned over the whole region. Adaptation of Appeal to Audience. Any ap- peal to the emotions, to be successful, must of courSe reach the particular audience addressed. It must result in action on the part of the hearers, be the action merely mental, or also physical. In any case the action desired must be so presented to the hearers as to coincide with their desires and inter- ests; and this is accomplished through certain in- termediate active principles called motives. Vari- ous attempts have been made to classify motives; as, (i) Duty to ourselves pride, prudence, self- respect, reputation, integrity, social and political ambition, etc; (2) duty to others tolerance, charitableness, love of one's family, city, State, or country, admiration of courage, perserverance, nobleness, etc; (3) duty to God, which com- prises the highest and worthiest impulses. All these are possible incentives to action, but the clas- sification is far from complete. It leaves out of consideration the lower scale of motives, such as 2O2 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE selfishness, avarice, anger, revenge, jealousy, fear, hatred, and the enumeration of the more worthy motives could be extended almost indefinitely. Men are moved by a great variety of causes. What will move one audience may fail to move another. What seems very important to one man will appear of little or no importance to another. A speaker needs to study his audience both col- lectively and individually: collectively, for the purpose of determining the general class of mo- tives to which to appeal; and individually, which must usually be done during the progress of a speech, for the purpose of determining the dif- ferent motives that actuate individual audi- tors. It is said of the great trial lawyer, Rufus Choate, that "no advocate ever scanned more watchfully the faces of his hearers while speaking. By long practice he had learned to read thfcir senti- ments as readily as if their hearts had been throb- bing in glass cases." Appeal to the Highest Motives Possible. Al- though the speaker has the whole range of motives to select from, yet conscience, as well as tact and common sense, should guide him in the selection. In the first place, no self-respecting man would ever appeal to base or unworthy motives. Moreover, any attempted appeals of this nature ordinarily de- PERSUASION 2O3 feat their purpose, for men generally, even when they have unworthy motives, do not like to be re- minded of this fact. And the real persuader must be a leader. In him the hearers must recognize an exponent of the universal struggle of man to at- tain an ideal a universal desire for virtue as an impelling motive. He must therefore not pull his audience down to the level of the lowest motives operating in them, but must bring them up to the level of the highest active motives. Generally speaking, then, always appeal to the highest mo- tives that will reach your particular audience. Reverting to our outline classification, an appeal to motives belonging in the first class duty to our- selves is frequently natural and proper. But a speaker should not rest on appeals to self-interest alone ; they should be linked to those motives lying in the next class mentioned duty to others. In any question of policy, as we have seen, these two classes of motives are almost always present. And whenever it can be shown that a proposed reform or policy accords with the duty both to ourselves and to others, the argument has far more persua- sive power than either class of motives would have by itself. So, whenever the subject lends itself to appeals to the highest motives, duty to God, the opportunity should be utilized for the purpose of persuasion. It should be remembered that the 204 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE higher the motive appealed to, the more lasting will be the appeal and the stronger the impulse to action. Hence religious motives, as history shows, witness the early Christian martyrs, the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the Huguenots, and Puritans, have furnished the most powerful in- centives to self-sacrificing and undaunted action. When aroused by spiritual motives, men will sac- rifice everything, even their lives, in performing what they believe to be their duty to God. In seeking for the highest usable motives related to a subject, the debater should aim to discover and present some underlying principle germane to the question, that will elevate the discussion from a narrow viewpoint to a broader outlook, from the transitory to the enduring, from the temporal to the eternal. Aim to introduce in the debate what has been termed an element of general truth. Try to show some deeper significance in the question than that which lies upon the surface. This has ever been characteristic of great debaters. Some- one has pointed out that Burke was free from that quality which he ascribed to Lord George Sackville u apt to take a sort of undecided, equiv- ocal, narrow ground, that evades the substantial merits of the question, and puts the whole upon some temporary, local, accidental, or personal con- sideration." It has been said of Webster that the PERSUASION 205 greatness of his fame lies largely in the fact that he never spoke except on great themes. "The highest platform eloquence," says Emerson, u is the moral sentiment. It is what is called affirma- tive truth, and has the property of invigorating the hearer; and it conveys a hint of our eternity when he feels himself addressed on grounds which will remain whenever else is shaken, and which have no trace of time or place or party." So, whenever a great theme which offers an op- portunity for an appeal to some high and con- trolling principle presents itself, seize upon this and use it both for the foundation and the cap- stone, it may be, of the whole argument. Persuasion in the Introduction. Turning now to the main divisions of the complete argument, let us see how persuasion may be used to supplement conviction. In treating of the brief, which concerns itself primarily with the reasoning processes, it was said that "the function of the introduction is to pre- pare the minds of the audience for the subsequent argument by presenting all facts and explanations necessary for understanding the question, pointing out the issues in the discussion, and outlining the proof as to those issues." But in actual debate the function of the introduction is, as Cicero says, "reddere auditores benevelos, attentos, do tile s" ; it 206 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE should make the hearers well-disposed toward the speaker, stimulate their attention, and prepare their minds for a favorable reception of what is to fol- low. In other words, the speaker must at the out- set ally himself and his subject with the interests of his audience. Nowhere in a speech is greater tact and resourcefulness required than in the opening, for unless the speaker can make the first impres- sions favorable to himself and his cause, his subse- quent argument is apt to go for naught. Burke sometimes antagonized his audience at the outset; he often lacked the tact of other great debaters in the opening passages of his speeches. He "would have been pronounced by the cautious and painstak- ing orators of the ancient world, a fool for his recklessness of all expedients of conciliation in the introductions of many of his parliamentary ad- dresses. He aggravated hostility by defying it. He often produced it by inviting it. He gave occasion for it by assuming its existence and answering in kind. On one occasion he said: 'Mr. Speaker, I rise under some embarrassment occasioned by a feeling of delicacy toward one half of the house, and of sovereign contempt for the other half.' Cicero would have pronounced him a savage." On the other hand, note the skillful appeal of Sargent S. Prentiss for himself and his client, in PERSUASION 207 the introduction to his speech in defense of Judge Wilkinson : I came before you an utter stranger, and yet I feel not as a stranger towards you; I have watched during the course of the examination the various emotions which the evidence was so well calculated to arouse in your bosoms, both as men and as Kentuckians; and when I beheld the flush of honorable shame upon your cheeks, the sparkle of indignation in your eyes, or the curl of scorn upon your lips, as the foul conspiracy was developed, I felt that years could not make us better acquainted. I saw upon your faces the mystic sign which constitutes the bond of union among honest and honorable men, and I knew that I was about to address those whose feelings would respond to my own. I rejoiced that my clients were, in the fullest sense of the term, to be tried by a jury of their peers. 3 Another excellent example of both kinds of ap- peal for both the speaker and his subject is found in the jury plea of William H. Seward in de- fense of William Freeman, a demented negro who had committed a triple murder near Auburn, N. Y., and against whom there was intense popular indignation, Mr. Seward also incurring marked hostility against himself for undertaking f!he defense : I plead not for a murderer. I have no inducement, no motive to do so. I have addressed my fellow-citizens in 8 "Great Speeches by Great Lawyers," p. 88. 208 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE many various relations, when rewards of wealth and fame awaited me. I have been cheered on other occasions by manifestations of popular approbation and sympathy; and where there was no such encouragement I had at least the gratitude of him whose cause I defended. But I speak now in the hearing of a people who have prejudged the prisoner, and condemned me for pleading in his behalf. He is a convict, a pauper, a negro, without intellect, sense, or emotion. My child, with an affectionate smile; dis- arms my care-worn face of its frown whenever I cross my My horse recognizes me when I fill his manger. But what reward, what gratitude, what sympathy and affection can I expect here? There the prisoner sits. Look at him. Look at the assemblage around you. Look at their ill- suppressed censures and their excited fears, and tell me where, among my neighbors or my fellow-men, where, even in his heart, I can expect to find the sentiment, the thought, not to say of reward or of acknowledgment, but even of recognition. I sat here two weeks during the preliminary trial. I stood here, between the prisoner and the jury, nine hours, and pleaded for the wretch that he was insane and did not even know he was on trial ; and when all was done, the jury thought, at least eleven of them thought, that I had been deceiving them, or was self-deceived. They read signs of intelligence in his idiotic smile, and of cunning and malice in his stolid in- sensibility. They rendered a verdict that he was sane enough to be tried a contemptible compromise verdict in a capital case; and then they looked, with what emotions God and they only know, upon his arraignment. The PERSUASION 209 district attorney, speaking in his adder ear, bade him rise, and, reading to him one indictment, asked him whether he wanted a trial, and the poor fool answered, No. Have you counsel? No. And they went through the same mockery, the prisoner giving the same answers, until a third indictment was thundered in his ears, and he stood before the court silent, motionless, and bewildered. Gen- tlemen, you may think of this evidence what you please, bring in what verdict you can, but I asseverate, before Heaven and you, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the prisoner at the bar does not, at this moment, know why it is that my shadow falls on you instead of his own. ... I speak with all sincerity and earnestness, not because I expect my opinion to have weight, but I would disarm the injurious impression that I am speaking merely as a lawyer speaks for his client. I am not the prisoner's lawyer. I am, indeed, a volunteer in his behalf, but society and mankind have the deepest interest at stake. I am the lawyer for society, for mankind, shocked beyond the power of expression at the scene I have witnessed here of trying a maniac as a malefactor. 4 In school and college debating the young speaker seldom has to grapple with a hostile audience. His efforts must largely be directed to appeals in behalf of his subject. In any event, a direct appeal for personal sympathy is always dangerous. It re- quires great care and tact, and must always be the dignified appeal of a strong man to his equals. But an appeal in behalf of one's subject may be made * "Great Speeches by Great Lawyers," pp. 154-155. 14 210 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE more openly. Thus, the lawyer may appeal for sympathy for his client; the legislator, for his measure; the reformer, for his cause. And here again, the attitude of the hearers needs to be an- ticipated. If the audience is prejudiced against the speaker's side of a question, the prejudice needs to be dealt with at the outset by the use, it may be, of the argument of antecedent probability, by showing that the prejudice is unfounded, or by pointing out the hearers' misapprehension as to the real merits of the case, and thus making it appear that speaker and hearers are, after all, not so far apart as might seem at first glance. Following is an example of a persuasive introduction occurring in an intercol- legiate debate. 5 The first speaker on the negative, arguing before a Southern audience in favor of the continued enlistment of negroes in the United States army, began as follows : In view of the unfortunate Brownsville affair that has occurred so recently almost in your very midst, and in the light of what has just been said, it may seem that there is but one side to this question that negroes are unfit to serve in the army and that their enlistment should at once be discontinued. And yet, upon reflection, it will doubtless be conceded that at least something can be said in support of the continuance of a policy that has been followed in 5 The Texas-Missouri Debate of 1907. PERSUASION 2 1 1 this country ever since the birth of our Nation. What we ask and what we know we will receive is simply a fair and impartial hearing of a few points which, to us, seem worthy of consideration in a discussion of this question. It may not be inappropriate to remark at the outset that Missouri is more of a Southern than a Northern State; that the negro problem is present with us as it is with you; that negroes constitute one-third of the population of the city of Columbia, where the University is located ; that Missouri was a slave State; and that it is the son of an ex-Confederate soldier who is speaking to you now. Sc. in sentiment, tradition, and in opportunities for study- ing the question the affirmative and negative stand upon common ground. Not as Northerner and Southerner, but as Southerner and Southerner, are we endeavoring to reach the proper solution of the question before us. We fully agree with the gentlemen of the affirmative that the race question is the most serious problem now confronting the American people; but, as we have faith in the future of American civilization, we believe that time will see this great question satisfactorily settled. Nor do we for a moment believe that its solution w r ill come along the line of social equality, or along the line of politi- cal equality, but rather along the lines of equality of service and equality before the law. It is because we hope that some day the Anglo-Saxon race will dominate the civilization of the world that we are contending for negro soldiers. If, in this strenuous age of commercial competition and racial rivalry, America is to contribute toward that end, she must use every element of her popu- lation to its best possible advantage. Every individual and every class of individuals must perform that work for 212 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE which they are best fitted, for this way alone lies progress, prosperity, industrial peace, and National success. 6 In treating of the brief, it was remarked that the introduction should ordinarily open with a con- structive line of argument for one's own side, rather than with refutation, but that sometimes circum- stances might demand a reversal of this order. An example of such reversal, for the purpose of meet- ing the demands of persuasion, is found in the argument of the Income Tax case before the United States Supreme Court, in 1895. James C. Carter, Esq., arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the income tax law, closed as follows : The powers of this Court are limited as well as those of Congress, and those limits are already transgressed when it finds itself even considering whether this or that view of a question of political economy, or of the wisdom of taxation, is a sound one. These suggestions are all the more weighty and im- portant in those controversies which, like the present, are calculated to arouse the interests, the feelings almost the passions of the people, form the subject of public discussion, array class against class, and become the turn- ing-points in our general elections. Upon such subjects every freeman believes that he has a right to form his own opinion, and to give effect to that opinion by his vote. Nothing could be more unwise and dangerous nothing 6 By courtesy of the speaker, Mr. W. F. Woodruff, of the Mis- souri team. PERSUASION 213 more foreign to the spirit of the Constitution than an attempt to baffle and defeat a popular determination by a judgment in a lawsuit. When the opposing forces of sixty millions of people have become arrayed in hostile political ranks upon a question which all men feel is not a question of law, but of legislation, the only path of safety is to accept the voice of the majority as final. The American people can be trusted not to commit permanent injustice; nor has history yet recorded an instance in which governments have been destroyed by attempts of the many to lay undue burdens of taxation on the few. The teachings of history have all been in the other direction. But if an overwhelming majority, in an effort to accomplish what it believes to be justice, finds itself sud- denly arrested in its course by another majority of a body of half a dozen or more who happen to hold different opinions upon substantially the same questions, but who assume to speak with a different authority, and to utter the voice of the law, the consequences can hardly fail to be disastrous to the stability of the law itself. Such a triumphant majority will find its way to the accomplish- ment of its ends over the ruins, it may be, of any constitu- tion, or of any court. We have had some experiences in our history of the futility of attempting to convert politi- cal into judicial questions, and the result has not added to the authority of this tribunal. It is the part of wisdom for a judicial body to avoid attempts at the solution of problems which must and will be finally settled in another forum. In reply, the opposing attorney, Joseph H. Choate, Esq., began his argument as follows: If the Court please: After Jupiter had thundered all 214 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE around the sky, and had leveled everything and every- body by his prodigious bolts, Mercury came out from his hiding place and looked around to see how much damage had been done. He was quite familiar with the weapons of his learned Olympian friend; he had often felt their force, but he knew that it was largely stage thunder, manufactured for the particular occasion, and he went his round among the inhabitants of Olympus restoring the consciousness, and dispelling the fears, and raising the spirits both of gods and men who had been prostrated by the crash. It is in that spirit that I follow my distin- guished friend; but I shall not undertake to cope with him by means of the same weapons, because I am not master of them. It never would have occurred to me to present either as an opening or closing argument to this great and learned Court, that if in your wisdom you found it necessary to protect a suitor who sought here to cling to the ark of the covenant and invoke the protection of the Constitu- tion which was created for us all, it was an argument against your furnishing such relief and protection that possibly the popular wrath might sweep the Court away. It is the first time I have ever heard that argument pre- sented to this or any other court, and I trust that it will be the last. Now, I have had some surprises this morning. I thought until to-day that there was a Constitution of the United States, and that the business of the executive arm of this Government was to uphold that Constitution. I thought that this Court was created for the purpose of maintaining the Constitution as against unlawful conduct on the part of Congress. It is news to me that Congress is the sole judge of the measure of the powers confided to PERSUASION 215 it by the Constitution, and it is also news to me that the great fundamental principle which underlies the Consti- tution, namely, the equality of all men before the law, has ceased to exist. If your Honors please, I look upon this case with very different eyes from those of either the learned Attorney- General or his distinguished associate who has just closed. I believe there are private rights of property here to be protected ; that we have a right to come to this Court and ask for their protection, and that this Court has a right, without asking leave of the Attorney-General or of any counsel, to hear our plea. Persuasion in the Discussion. The opening and closing of a speech are the places where persuasion is most needed. The discussion, or body of the argument, should aim first of all to prove one's case to convince. But it does not follow that persua- sion has no place here. Indeed, the ideal method of using persuasion is not to reserve for it a place by itself, but to let it permeate the whole argument. Thus the oral presentation of one's argument should be something more than a mere elaboration of the steps in the proof, as contained in the brief. The skillful debater will always aim to give his rea- soning a turn personal to his audience; so that, while in the discussion he is primarily concerned with reaching the understanding, at the same time he does not fail to touch the emotions, whenever his proof affords an opportunity. A few detached 2l6 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE sentences in Webster's argument in the White murder trial will illustrate how persuasion may be diffused throughout the body of the discourse : Should not all the peaceable and well-disposed natu- rally feel concerned, and naturally exert themselves to bring to punishment the authors of this secret assassina- tion ? Was it a thing to be slept upon or forgotten ? Did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your beds after this murder as before? . . . Your decision in this case, they say, will stand as a precedent. Gentlemen, we hope it will. We hope it will be a precedent both of candor and intelligence, of fairness and firmness; a precedent of good sense and honest purpose pursuing their investigation discreetly, rejecting loose generalities, exploring all the circumstances, weighing each, in search of truth, and em- bracing and declaring the truth when found I come now to the testimony of the father. Unfortunate old man! Another Lear in the conduct of his children. Another Lear, I apprehend, in the effect of his distress upon his mind and understanding. ... It is a point on which each of you might reason like a Hale or Mans- field. Burke's speeches are full of similar examples. Following is a single illustration from his speech on "Conciliation" : The question with me is, not whether you have a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not your interest to make them happy. It is not what a law- yer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do. Is a politic act the worse PERSUASION 217 for being a generous one? Is no concession proper but that which is made from your want of right to keep what you grant? Or does it lessen the grace or dignity of relaxing in the exercise of an odious claim because you have your evidence-room full of titles, and your maga- zines stuffed with arms to enforce them? What signify all those titles, and all those amis ? Of what avail are they, when the reason of the thing tells me that the as- sertion of my title is the loss of my suit, and that I could do nothing but wound myself by the use of my own weapons ? Persuasion in the Conclusion. Time has not changed the function of the conclusion as stated by Aristotle. He said that the object of the epilogue, or conclusion, was fourfold: First, to conciliate the audience in favor of the speaker and to excite them against his adversary; secondly, to amplify and diminish; thirdly, to arouse the emotions; and fourthly, to recapitulate. Two of these matters be- long to conviction, the other two, to persuasion. To recapitulate and to "amplify and diminish" are desirable, in order to unify and reenforce the ap- peal to reason; to gain sympathy and arouse the feelings are desirable, in order to effect the desired action. In any event, it is in the conclusion that the debater should reach the height of persuasion. Here he must aim to leave a lasting impression by marshaling all his forces and making a final appeal. In an argument of any length, a concluding sum- 2l8 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE mary is almost always necessary in order to make the proof clear and forcible. In the first place, it is necessary in order to mass and unify the argu- ments as a whole ; and again, it is necessary in order to recall to the minds of the hearers the vari- ous points previously presented, and which without some sort of repetition are likely to be slighted or forgotten. But here an important distinction be- tween the brief and the oral argument is to be noted. In the oral argument, one should not sum- marize his points by a verbatim repetition, but should seek to vary the expression, and thus make old material seem fresh. But recapitulation alone is frequently not enough. The speaker needs to take advantage of the last opportunity to win the sympathy and stir the emotions of his hearers. In summarizing, he may relate his argument, as a whole or in its sub- divisions, to the prejudices and interests of his audience, or he may appeal directly to the emo- tions. No rule can be given to determine the rel- ative amount of conviction and persuasion that should be used in the conclusion of an argument, for this must depend upon the relation of the speaker to his subject and to his audience, the rela- tion of the audience to the subject, and the amount of persuasion which has been introduced in the other two divisions of the argument. While the PERSUASION 219 conclusion frequently offers an opportunity for proper emotional appeals, it should not be over- done as witness the traditional "spread-eagle" outburst of Fourth of July orators. Common sense and experience must be the guides. The val- uable opportunity afforded by the conclusion is often wasted in needless repetitions that only weary the hearers, and by emotional appeals that, by reason of their excess and non-adaptability to those addressed, amuse rather than move. The con- clusion should be "brief without incompleteness, concise without obscurity, direct, forceful, compel- ling men to seize, hold and act upon the truth es- tablished, or to abandon the error overthrown." 7 Different types of persuasive conclusions are shown in the following examples. The conclu- sion of Webster's jury address in the White mur- der trial contains a brief summary followed by a dignified appeal to high motives: Gentlemen, I have gone through with the evidence in this case, and have endeavored to state it plainly and fairly before you. I think there are conclusions to be drawn from it, the accuracy of which you cannot doubt. I think you cannot doubt that there was a conspiracy formed for the purpose of committing this murder, and who the con- spirators were; that you cannot doubt that the Crownin- shields and the Knapps were the parties in this conspiracy; 7 MacEwan, "The Essentials of Argumentation," p. 262. 220 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE that you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar knew that the murder was to be done on the night of the 6th of April; that you cannot doubt that the murderers of Captain White were the suspicious persons seen in and about Brown Street on that night; that you cannot doubt that Richard Crowninshield was the perpetrator of .that crime; that you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar was in Brown Street on that night. If there, then it must be by agreement, to countenance, to aid the perpe- trator. And if so, then he is guilty as PRINCIPAL. Gentlemen, your whole concern should be to do your duty, and leave consequences to take care of themselves. With consciences satisfied with the discharge of duty, no consequences can harm you. There is no evil that we cannot either face or fly from but the consciousness of duty disregarded. A sense of duty pursues us ever. It is omnipresent, like the Deity. If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed, or duty violated, is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. If we say the dark- ness of duty, to pain us wherever it has been violated, and obligations are yet with us. We cannot escape their power, nor fly from their presence. They are with us in this life, will be with us at its close; and in that scene of inconceivable solemnity which lies yet farther onward, we shall still find ourselves surrounded by the conscious- ness of duty, to pain us wherever it has been violated, and to console us so far as God may have given us grace to perform it. Following is the conclusion of one of Lincoln's speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas debates: Henry Clay, my beau-ideal of a statesman, the man PERSUASION 221 for whom I fought all my humble life Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all ten- dencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our Independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its anntal joyous return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this 1 coun- try! To my thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in this com- munity, when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge Douglas is going back Jo the era of our Revolution, and, to the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. When he invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he "cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up," that it is a sacred right of self-government, he is, in my judgment, pene- trating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people. And now I will only say that when, by all these means and appliances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing pub- lic sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views, when these vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiment^ whe* they shall come to repeat his views and to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty questions, then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scot* detision, which he endorses in ad- vance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the States old as well as new, North as well as South. 222 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE My friends, that ends the chapter. The Judge can take his half hour. The following conclusion of an argument before a jury is yet more purely persuasive : It was an old Roman Commoner, with shaggy hair and grizzly beard and bent form and ragged clothes, who nearly three thousand years ago, said: "Romans, I am from your debtors' prison. Once I traded on your streets, and borrowed and paid again. One day I was surety for a friend who failed, and I, too, failing to make good the debt, was hurried to the prison cell. Romans, I am free now. It is not for myself I speak thus, but lest others go where I have been, I would abolish such a human curse!" His story moved all Rome! That prison was abolished, and more than thirty years ago, in PennJ sylvania, James Buchanan abolished imprisonment foj debt by a powerful appeal in his State, and here in our State the intelligent people wiped it from our statute books, and still a barbarous relic of false pretenses re- mains. And here is the Roman Commoner [my client] whf pleads by his looks and acts, "I would abolish such a curse." What has he done? Deep in trade, he met every dollar ever due, even to the day of his leaving for Canada ; and still the great big greedy firms bear down n him with iron hands, to crush him and not tnly tt htld all he has, but would have you rob him of the last bright jewel of his life his good name, his honor and brand him as a fraud and bring him in t* prfve he is a fraud ! This is the grandest audacity I ever saw. It is nft enough to take his goods and break him up, but they take PERSUASION 223 his boy's mortgage, his exemption that the State allows, and all he had, and cry for more! This is not fair. It is wrong. It is cruel. It is barbarous. It is inhuman. It is absolutely cruel. It is mean, gentlemen ! They claim he secured us on all he had, while they are his friends. They his friends! Well, gentlemen, when I am fifty-five, and want a friend, and have had one who trusted me to goods and money, one I confided in, and I secure him, and others get jealous and arrest me, try to put me in the debtors' prison, drive me from home, seven long months in poverty and rags, try to buy me to lie and swear to lying statements, and at last promise to pay my friend, save some for my boy, and I come home and find their attachments have taken all, and all is gone! which shall I chose for a friend? This is worse than border ruffians do. . . . Restore him his character, gentlemen; and think in after years, how you hardened not your hearts. 6 RHETORICAL QUALITIES There are certain rhetorical qualities which should characterize matter to be addressed to a hearer, as distinguished from that to be addressed to a reader. These qualities may be grouped un- der the threefold classification of ( i ) Concrete- ness, (2) Direct Discourse, and (3) Emphasis. Concreteness. The concrete as opposed to the abstract, the specific as opposed to the general, the 8 Donovan, "Modern Jury Trials," p. 671- 224 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE particular example of a thing as opposed to a gen- eral statement regarding a class of things these are especially desirable in oral discourse. We have noted the necessity of facts and the desirability of examples, as means of proof; but concreteness, as an element of persuasion, serves the further pur- poses of clarifying the proof and of stimulating in- terest. Facts and illustrations should always either precede or follow abstract theories and general statements. One of the six rules laid down by Colonel Higginson for speech-making generally may well be followed literally by the debater: "Plan beforehand for one good fact and one good illustration under each head of your speech" Among the manifold sayings attributed to Lincoln, the following tallies closely enough with his meth- ods to be true: "They say I tell a great many stories. I reckon I do, but I have found in the course of a long experience that common people, take them as a run, are more easily informed through the medium of a broad illustration than in any other way, and as to what the hypercritical few may think, I don't care." Illustrations, as we have seen, are ntt necessarily argument, but they make an argument clearer anil otherwise more effective. A single anecdote, tr story, or illustration has often proved mtre effec- tive than much abstract reasoning, however Itg- PERSUASION 225 ical and sound. If the illustration has humor in it, all the. better; but the wise debater will not go out of his way to be humorous, or hunt for far-fetched illustrations. He must be careful to make sure that an illustration is apt, otherwise a dangerous opening is left for a different application by an op- ponent. "Illustrations rightly used assist argu- ment, help the hearers to remember, stimulate the imagination, rest the audience by changing the faculties employed in listening, reach through dif- ferent avenues different hearers, and bridge difficult places by teaching parabolically truth to which men would refuse to listen if presented directly. To be effective they must be various, .of ten homely, accu- rate, and apt, and prompt." 9 And to quote Lin- coln again: "I believe I have the popular reputa- tion of being a story-teller, but I do not deserve the name in its general sense, for it is not the story it- self, but its purpose, or effect, that interests me. I often avoid a long and useless discussion by others or a laborious explanation on my own part by a short story that illustrates my point of view. So, too, the sharpness of a refusal or the edge of a re- buke may be blunted by an appropriate story, so as to save wounded feeling and yet serve the purpose. No, I am not simply a story-teller, but story-telling 9 Lyman Abbott, "Henry Ward Beecher," p. 361, '5 226 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE as an emollient saves me much friction and dis- tress." 10 A study of the methods employed by successful lecturers and revivalists, such as John B. Gough, Dwight L. Moody, and Sam Jones, shows that much of their power lay in the emotion aroused by their vivid stories and dramatic illustrations.. Na- poleon, in his Egyptian campaign, made a concrete appeal to his troops by pointing to the pyramids and exclaiming: "Soldiers, forty centuries look down upon you !" After the defeat of the Union army at Bull Run, General Garfield quieted the ter- ror-stricken mob in New York by his oracular "God reigns and the government at Washington still lives." Governor Rusk dispersed a different mob in Milwaukee by declaring: "If these streets are not cleared in two minutes, I'll order the mil- itia to let daylight into every one of you." Mr. Burchard's "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" speech defeated Blaine for the Presidency. And so illustrations might be multiplied to show the effectiveness of translating a general argument into a concrete statement. A speaker who couches all his statements in general terms will soon make any audience drowsy, while concrete cases, by arousing distinct images in the mind, will at least keep the 10 Silas W. Burt, in the Century Magazine for February, 1907. PERSUASION 227 hearers awake. Instead of saying that the British Empire is world-wide in extent, orators are fond of saying that the sun never sets on the English flag; or, as Webster once expressed it, an empire that 1 'has dotted over the surface of the whole globe her possessions and military posts, whose morning drumbeat, following the sun and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continu- ous and unbroken strain of the martial airs of Eng- land." So, images of individuals specific in- stances loom up larger in the imagination than those of classes. The general term calls up an in- definite image, the particular term a definite image. Instead of speaking of "alien races," the effective debater will say "Chinese and Italians." Instead of discoursing on agricultural conditions in general, he will mention corn or potatoes or pigs; the homelier the concrete example, so that it be apt, the bet- ter. Herbert Spencer advises us to avoid such sen- tences as, "In proportion as the manners, customs, and amusements of a nation are cruel and barbar- ous, the regulations of their penal code will be se- vere," and to say instead, "In proportion as men delight in battles, bull-fights, and combats of gladi- ators, they will punish by hanging, burning, and the rack." During the Chicago riots of 1894, when President Cleveland was being criticized for em- ploying Federal troops to ensure unhindered mail 228 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE service, a speaker appealed to the imagination of his hearers and aroused them to enthusiasm by us- ing this concrete statement: "If necessary, every regiment in the United States army must be called out, that the letter dropped by the girl Jenny, at some country post-office back in Maine, may go on its way to her lover in San Francisco without a finger being raised to stop it!" Similarly, a speaker attempting to show that with the aid of a ship canal New Orleans would become the ship- ping port for the Middle West, used the following illustration: "Hills and valleys aside, if you were to kick off a barrel of flour at Minneapolis, it would roll to New Orleans." The direct presentation or concrete illustration of an object, instead of a description of it, makes an argument more comprehensible and impressive to the average mind. When a lawyer, for ex- ample, brings a suit for damages against a railroad company for an injury sustained by his client at a grade crossing, he presents to the jury maps or photographs of such crossing, also the torn pieces of clothing resulting from the accident, and, it may be, the actual injury inflicted upon his client. In like manner, President Roosevelt attracted unusual attention to his special message to Congress re- garding the Panama Canal, by submitting as a part of the message numerous photographs illus- PERSUASION 229 trating various phases of the problem of construc- tion. So, when the Pure Food bill was before Congress in 1906, Representative Mann, of Illi- nois, procured packages containing impure food- stuffs and had them on a table before him during his argument; and it was claimed that this method of concrete presentation did more to turn the tide in favor of the bill than any other one thing. Concreteness is especially necessary in dealing with statistics. In the establishment of one's proof statistics must often be employed, but in debate, as distinguished from the written argument, they should be "heard and not seen." To recite a table of figures it is not only u dry" to a listener, but usu- ally unintelligible. The debater should select the point essential to his argument, and put this in a brief and interesting form. Figures should usu- ally be presented in relative terms, or in terms of percentage. In any event, some standard of com- parison should always follow statistics stated in the abstract. For example : "The farm value of the corn, wheat, and oats produced in the United States in 1896 amounted to $934,000,000; in 1906, it aggregated $1,912,000,000. The value of farm animals increased from $1,728,000,000 in 1896 to $3,675,000,000 in 1906. Thus we see that farm values have more than doubled in a period of ten years. For every dollar possessed 230 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE by the American farmer in 1896 he could get two dollars in return in 1906. And in the wages paid to labor, in manufacturing, and in our foreign trade, prosperity during this period has moved along on the same double track lines." 11 Again, figures should almost always be stated in round numbers; small numbers and fractions detract from the vividness. Rhetorically speaking, fifty thousand dollars is a larger sum than $50,138.47; half a million dollars is far more comprehensible than $500,239.62. The relation of the oral argument to the brief is largely a problem in concreteness ; and it is a problem demanding great care and, usually, con- siderable practice. In all argumentation clearness is essential, and this has presumably been secured in the brief. But the brief is only the foundation and framework for the finished argument. Now, in completing the structure to continue our fig- ure there are these two extremes : first, in making it so plain and severe that it is unattractive, or so jagged and seamy as to expose the framework; and, secondly, in making it so ornamental so adorning it with foliage and flowers and accessor- ies that the solidity and proportions of the 11 Adapted from the speech of Hon. Joseph -G. Cannon in open- ing the Congressional campaign of 1906. PERSUASION 23 1 . structure are completely hidden. On the one hand, then, the general outline of one's proof should be made apparent. The oral argument will ordinarily follow the order of the brief, and the points to be enforced and their logical connections must be made plain to the hearers. This is necessary for securing clearness, and it is a necessity that the in- experienced debater is apt to overlook. In most arguments the structure is not clear enough; the hearers are not made to understand, at each step in the proof, just what progress has been made just how a particular argument is related to argu- ments preceding and following. But while struc- ture needs to be emphasized, it should not and need not be at the sacrifice of rhetorical form and finish. One's proof is not to be presented to an audience simply by a fuller statement, in a bald and literal style, of the headings of the brief. Such a method might arrest the attention of a specialist in logic or mathematics, but would ut- terly fail to convince or persuade the average listener. In short, the ideal relation of the oral argument to the brief would be such that the hear- ers can listen to the argument with the ease and interest with which one listens to a good conver- sationalist, and at the same time can follow its structure as readily as that of a logical syllogism or a geometrical demonstration. 232 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE Direct Discourse. Another distinctive charac- teristic of spoken discourse is that it partakes of the nature of direct conversation, as of man to man. In a written argument the audience is un- known, or indistinct; in debate, the audience is usually known in advance, and is always known and is to be recognized at the moment of speak- ing. This direct contact of hearers and speaker necessitates, on the part of the latter, an attitude of directness. The speaker must keep constantly in mind, and must so impress his hearers, that he is addressing that particular audience, not only in the mass, but as individuals. This relation of speaker to hearers should result in the frequent use of di- rect discourse, and this, in turn, in the use of direct, short sentences, of the present tense, and of the in- terrogatory. The direct, short sentence is an aid to clearness, and it is the conversational style. This does not mean, of course, the disconnected, "chippy" style affected by some, and it does not preclude the use of the periodic sentence in making a summary or in leading up to a climacteric con- clusion ; it simply means that long, involved, over- formal sentences, which sometimes might be tol- erated in an essay, should never be used in a speech: the hearer has no chance to review state- ments at his leisure, but must be made to grasp the thought, with the least possible mental effort, as PERSUASION 233 the speaker proceeds. If a debater, then, bears in mind that the best speaking is simply direct, strong talk, and so frames the expression of his argument in his best conversational style, he will not go far amiss. And then, if you put a statement in the present tense and in the second person, you at once emphasize this conversational relationship you make the hearer a partner in the discourse, with all the interests of partnership. Then again, if you ask a man a question, simple respect compels his attention; the question-asking method comes to him with far more directness than the same state- ment put in the third person and in the declarative form. Note, for example, the difference in its ef- fect upon the average listener between saying, "It has been claimed by some that the policy proposed has only a practical and immediate bearing, but it can be shown, however, that such is not the case;'* and this form: "Do you say that this measure deals only with the case now before us? Let us see about that." The rhetorical question in debate conduces to variety and incisiveness. So, the ques- tion-asking or "Socratic" method as between the debaters themselves involves the application of this same principle of directness, and has the further advantages of pointing out the issues, compelling a direct reply, and casting the burden of proof. 234 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE Emphasis. As related to argument, emphasis puts stress upon the significant points in the proof. The main issues are in some way to be so placed before the audience as to leave a definite impress. Among the ways of accomplishing this are by fre- quent summaries and proper transitions, and by the employment of iteration, energy, and move- ment. We have noted the need of a summary in the conclusion, but in an oral argument of any length intermediate summaries, at the conclusions of the main divisions of the proof, are usually necessary. It is to be borne in mind that even the most atten- tive listener cannot readily carry in mind the proof in detail without some aid in the way of occasional recapitulation. The reader can look back and re- view, when necessary; the hearer must get the thought as the speaker proceeds, else not get it at all. A summary enables the hearer to review, in concise form, just what has been shown up to a given point. Generally speaking, the paragraph structure of the finished argument will correspond with the main headings of the brief; and a good general rule is, to let the last sentence of a para- graph state in a summary form the main thought embraced in such paragraph. This should not be done in a formal and stereotyped fashion; these concluding sentences should be varied in form, now PERSUASION 235 a pure summary and now incorporating the per- suasive element, as the nature of the proof de- mands. Then, in closing up a larger division of the arguments, as, the I, II, III propositions in the brief, a separate paragraph should often be incorporated for the purpose of summarizing the entire proof up to that stage of the argument, and so emphasizing the salient points. "The essentials of a good summary are: to include every impor- tant point made; to show clearly their relations to one another; to give each its due emphasis; to provide one or more, as circumstances require, with persuasive significance; and to leave perfectly clear the meaning and purposes of the ideas taken as a group." Following is an excellent example of the concise, simple, and direct style of summary that is usually most desirable for use at the inter- mediate stages of the proof: These are some of the serious and threatening evils of the present practice of treating the inferior posts of ad- ministration as party prizes. It exasperates party spirit and perverts the election. It tends to fill the public ser- vice with incapacity and corruption, destroying its repu- tation and repelling good men. It entices Congress to desert the duties to which it is especially designated by the Constitution, and tempts the Executive to perilous intrigue. 12 12 George William Curtis, "Orations and Addresses," ii. p. 43. 236 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE The following from the "Letters of Junius" is a good rapid summary of a preceding discussion, with a touch of the persuasive element added: This, sir, is the detail. In one view, behold a nation overwhelmed with debt; her revenues wasted; her trade declining; the affections of her colonies alienated; the duty of the magistrate transferred to the soldiery; a gallant army, which never fought unwillingly but against their fellow-subjects, moldering away for want of the direction of a man of common abilities and spirit; and, in the last instance, the administration of justice become odious and suspected to the whole body of the people. This deplorable scene admits but of one addition that we are governed by councils, from which a reasonable man can expect no remedy but poison, no relief but death. Closely allied to the summary, and not infre- quently a part of it, is the transition. The sum- mary looks backward, the transition forward; or, if you please, the transition first glances backward, and then looks forward. "A transition is a form of speech by which the speaker in a few words tells his hearers both what he has said already and what he next designs to say. Where a discourse consists of several parts, this is often very proper in pass- ing from one to another, especially when the parts are of considerable length; for it assists the hear- ers to carry on the series of the discourse in their mind, which is a great advantage to the memory. PERSUASION 237 It is likewise a great relief to the attention to be told when an argument is finished and what is to be expected next." 13 In an argument, as distinguished from other forms of composition, the opening sen- tence of a paragraph should indicate the transition by sort of a combined summary and partition. This must, of course, be done briefly ; but as a gen- eral rule, though by no means an inflexible one, let the first sentence of a paragraph state the connec- tion between the new line of argument and that which has immediately preceded it, and indicate what the subject of the paragraph is to be. This, again, aids the hearers in following you, and so is one means of emphasis. Thus, George William Curtis, in an argument in favor of civil service re- form, begins a paragraph with this sentence: But while these are the necessary results of the present system of admission, both upon the service itself and upon the character of those who are employed in it, there are evils to Be considered still more serious. Iteration is another important means of empha- sis, and it is much more allowable in oral than in written discourse. You want the hearers to get the strong points in your argument, and if there is any reason for thinking that a given point may not have been made clear or that its importance is 13 Ward, "A System of Oratory," ix. p. 290. 238 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE not properly appreciated from the first presenta- tion, say it again and again, seek for another way of approach, pound away by the use of varied il- lustration for here the principle of concreteness can well be applied. In his reply to Lincoln, in their second joint debate, the following repetitions by Douglas, for example, would hardly have been allowable had the argument been prepared for readers only: Thus you see every member from your Congressional district voted for Mr. Lincoln, and they were pledged not to vote for him unless he was committed to the doc- trine of no more slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then committed to those propositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lin- coln was pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Republican representative from this Con- gressional district violated his pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for him. I ask you, Which horn of the dilemma will you take? Will you hold Lincoln up to the platform of his party, or will you accuse every representative you had in the Legislature of violating his pledge of honor to his constituents? There is no escape for you. Either Mr. Lincoln was committed to those propositions, or your members violated their faith. Take either horn of the dilemma you choose. There is no dodging the question. 14 "Bouton, "The Lincoln and Douglas Debates," pp. 59-60. PERSUASION 239 Anyone who has listened to the arguments of the most successful trial lawyers must have noted that iteration is a common device for gaining em- phasis. Early in Greek oratory, indeed, its value was recognized: A striking trait of Isaeus [420-350 B. c.] in the province of argument is iteration; and the preference of emphasis to form which this implies is worth notice as suggesting how the practical view of oratory was begin- ning to prevail over the artistic. Sometimes the repetition is verbal an indignant question or phrase occurs again and again, where Isocrates would have abstained from using it twice. More often it is an argument or a state- ment which the speaker aims at impressing on the hearers by urging it in a series of different forms and connections. Or even a document cited at the outset, is read a second time, as if to make the jury realize more vividly that a circle of proof has been completed. 15 It should be understood that the best method of iteration is not the merely verbal, but rather the method described in the preceding quotation that of presenting an argument u in a series of dif- ferent forms and connections" Iteration means a repetition of the thought, and not of the form of expression. It consists in going over the same ground, but not the same course, so far as the ver- bal form is concerned. Otherwise, it descends into 15 Jebb, "Attic Orators," ii. p. 297. 240 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE mere tautology. Variety, here as elsewhere, is to be sought; the question being, "How can I pre- sent this point in some other way so as to make it clearer and more emphatic?" Further, it is only the important points that are to be emphasized by iteration. The debater must keep in mind the per- spective of his argument as a whole and observe the law of proportion. Emphasis of relatively un- important arguments detracts from the emphasis of important ones. Again taking the paragraph as the unit of the thought development, the stronger arguments are the ones to be placed first and last in the paragraph, and are to be dwelt upon with greater fullness of evidence and reenforced by any necessary iteration. There is, of course, another side to this matter. There is danger of being so repetitious as to be tiresome, and to so "overprove" even important points as to insult the intelligence of an audience. A friend once asked Daniel Webster, "How did you come to lose that case?" and the reply was, "I overproved it." It is always a nice question to determine just when the point of greatest emphasis is reached, for to go on elaborating what is obvi- ous, is weakening. For the purposes of argumentation, energy and movement as elements of emphasis may be classed together. Energy may be largely aided, of course, PERSUASION 241 by the manner of delivery, but speaking now of form of statement, it should be the speaker's con- stant endeavor to make his style as sententious as possible. The debater must study and cultivate the art of putting things. He must make his points stick. Hence the value of the epigram. A constantly recurring question should be, "How can I make the expression of this point more strik- ing?" "To energize knowledge is the office of persuasion." Movement is the complement of energy. The hearers must be made to feel that, as the argument proceeds, some real progress is being made, and that toward a definite point. The drift and purpose of the whole argument, and of each division of it, must be made apparent as the proof is developed. The summary and transition are aids to this end, but there must be logical pro- gress. The proof must move along, must go steadily forward, not back and forth, not round and round, not by leaping of gaps. It one were to journey to a given point, he would take as direct a course to it as possible; and yet much student de- bating resembles the movements of a dog that might accompany our traveler on his journey pursuing a zigzag course, turning hither and thither, and here and there barking up a tree. The debater must follow closely the course as staked out by the main issues. Digression and discursive- 16 242 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE ness are foes to movement. Burke was sometimes wont to err in this regard. Morley says of him : In the process of a long discourse he was never satis- fied with proving that which was principally in question, or with enforcing the single measure which it was his business to enforce he diverged to a thousand collateral topics he demonstrated as many disputed propositions he established principles in all directions he illuminated the whole horizon with his magnificent, but scattered, lights. Having too many points to prove, his auditors in turn forgot that they had undergone the process of con- viction upon any. The last sentence suggests a final admonition regarding emphasis. A student is apt to err in "having too many 'points to prove." Especially when one's time is limited there is danger of prov- ing at too many lines of argument. It is far better to select a strong argument and prove it, and let minor arguments go, if necessary. Weight counts far more than numbers. Rhetorically, there is all the difference in the world between an enumeration of arguments and a chain of proof. That is to say, emphasis is of far more importance to the suc- cess of an argument than exhaustiveness. DELIVERY The manner of delivery, important as this is as a means of persuasion, is not within the scope of PERSUASION 243 this book. Two matters in connection with this subject, however, may properly be noticed here: ( i ) The method of preparation for an oral argu- ment; and (2) the sincerity and earnestness of the speaker. Method of Preparation. Having drawn a brief of a question for debate, shall a speaker write out his argument in full and memorize it, in whole or in part, or shall he only use the brief as a general guide, and trust to the extempore method at the moment of speaking? Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and so much de- pends upon individual experience and capability that there has been, no doubt, much useless theor- izing about this question. No dogmatic rule can be laid down that this or that method is the best for every occasion and individual. 16 But whatever method is used at the moment of delivery, proper preparation for debating in general, and for any debate in particular, requires practice in reducing one's thoughts to writing. Practice in writing out an argument in full, with the careful weighing of words and the application of all the rhetorical principles previously discussed, should always pre- cede any attempt at extemporaneous presentation; 16 For a fuller discussion of this subject, see the author's "Ex- tempore Speaking." 244 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE for writing conduces to orderliness, exactness, force, and finish, and also an important item when a speaker has a time limit to economy of words. Further, whether the speech as written be memorized word for word or not, it is far more likely to come to the speaker in the orderly form in which it was written than if no manuscript had been prepared in advance. Just what use may be made of the manuscript must depend upon the in- dividual. It is always a question between accur- acy and finish on the one hand, and freedom and fluency on the other. In formal debates, where the line of argument for each debater has been agreed upon, and there is limited time in which to present it, it is best, as a general rule, for the speaker to get the form as well as the substance of his argu- ment pretty well in mind. But the debater must acquire the ability to depart from his prepared speech, when necessary. Of all the forms of pub- lic address, debating especially requires that the speaker be flexible, and able to cast aside a cut-and- dried speech when occasion demands. His intro- duction, for example, must frequently be deter- mined by the state of the discussion at the time he enters it; and although much of his refutation may be planned in advance, he cannot depend upon that alone, but must often reply directly to an op- posing argument. Let the student, then, at least PERSUASION 245 in his initial efforts, write out his argument word for word; let him memorize it, if need be, to use as a sheet anchor for his sailing while confidence is being acquired; but let him gradually learn to speak extempore, wholly, if his experience and ability warrant this method, but at least in part, as the exigencies of debate may demand. Sincerity and Earnestness. Sincerity in pro- fessed beliefs and earnestness in their presentation are prime essentials for persuasive debating. It is fundamental that, if you are to produce certain be- liefs in others, you must hold those beliefs your- self. And the earnestness of a man with convic- tions will go far toward making his speech per- suasive and covering up many flaws in his argu- ment. People in general hold their opinions so loosely that a man who believes anything with his whole heart is sure to make converts. "In argu- ment," says Emerson, "the most important is the dry light of intelligence; but in persuasion the es- sential thing is heat, and heat comes of sincerity." Real earnestness will be indicated by these two paradoxical characteristics positiveness and mod- esty. A debater should be an advocate, not a judge. His convictions on a given question should lead him to a sure, positive conclusion regarding it, and this attitude of positiveness should be ap- 246 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE parent in his debating. The weak-kneed, wishy- washy, vacillating style accomplishes nothing. How often have we heard debates where a speaker says, in substance, "Some say this about this ques- tion and some say this. I rather think this is the way we should look at it" and he ends by leaving the hearers somewhat uncertain as to just where he stands on the question, because he is apparently not altogether certain himself. Effective debating requires that the speaker leave the impression that he has reached an unqualified conclusion about a question and that there can be no doubt about the correctness of his position. And this very posi- tiveness, born of earnest conviction, will carry with it the quality of modesty. That is, the burden of the speaker's plea will be, not "Hear me for my- self," but "Hear me for my cause" He will sink the individual, and put forth his subject-matter, and let that speak. This does not mean, of course, that one should not have the courage even the physical courage of his convictions ; it means that for the most effective debating a man's argument should be kept in the foreground and his person- ality in the background. There are always a small percentage of our public men who persist in the too frequent use of the pronoun "I," and who mar the effect of their public discussions by an appar- ent effort to produce the impression that they are PERSUASION 247 of more importance than the subject under discus- sion. This same attitude shows itself in student debating when a speaker says, "/ think so and so about this point, and / think that the argument of my opponent is untenable," etc. while the unut- tered comment of the audience is, "Who cares what you think? Show us facts and arguments, and we will decide for ourselves what we shall think." In actual life one would of course argue for that side of a question that accords with his convictions. In school and college debating, as in the practice of law, this may not always be the case, but it does not follow that the speaker may not be both sincere and earnest. He is not to decide a debatable ques- tion in advance, but is to leave that for others; he is to present the proof appertaining to his side, and vindicate it before his hearers. And herein lies another distinction between school and college debating, as it is usually carried on, and the real discussions of real life: in the one case, the pri- mary object is to win the debate; in the other, the primary object is to find the truth. It may be an- swered that it all amounts to the same thing. Pos- sibly so, but sometimes not. The ambition to turn out a "winning team" often leads, as in athletics, to professionalism and efforts to win at any cost, even by "trick plays." Thus one of the foremost 248 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE teachers of argumentation in this country, Profes- sor George P. Baker, of Harvard, has pointed out that intercollegiate debating "is becoming more and more a highly developed special form of de- bate an intellectual sport." It by no means rep- resents all forms of public discussion, nor all kinds of debating; and the decision of the judges is, after all, only an incident; especially so since no absolute standards for judgment have been or can be laid down. In any case, when school and college de- bating goes beyond the point of friendly rivalry; when a victory is so emphasized that the training derived from honorably striving for it is lost sight of; when a warlike desire to vanquish a foe is greater than the desire to convince and persuade men of a truth, and the guiding principles of sin- cerity and earnestness are thus disregarded, then such contests become of doubtful value. In this connection, two admonitions may well be heeded regarding what may be termed the ethics of debate: (i) Be honest, and (2) Be respectful to your opponent and to his argument. I. The necessity for honesty arises in two ways : in the presentation of your own arguments, and in the handling of those of your opponent. A debater, for instance, if often tempted to "doctor" evidence, as in the statement of statistics or the PERSUASION 249 quotation from an authority in such a manner as to make them appear to prove something quite different from what they really prove. Not that one should argue the other side of the case leave that for the opponent. It is neither necessary nor proper in debating, any more than in other things in life, always to disclose the whole truth; but the point is, when anything is told, it should be the truth. And he who attempts to gain an unfair ad- vantage by violating this principle most usually only cheats himself, for let a single such case be pointed out by an opponent, and the audience at once becomes suspicious that "he who is false in one is false in all." Again, whenever you have occasion to restate an argument of your opponent, state it fairly. In this respect the amateur in de- bate needs to specially watch himself. In the first place, it is foolish to say that your opponent said so and so when the hearers know better. In the second place, a desire to erect straw men to knock over often leads a careless debater to misrepresent not intentionally, perhaps an opponent's posi- tion regarding a mooted point; but this is also fatal, for any appearance of unfairness in the handling of your opponent's argument only preju- dices the audience against your own argument. The fault arises from what John Quincy Adams, in his "Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory," calls 250 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE the error of answering yourself instead of your opponent. In Lecture xxn he says : But the most inexcusable of all the errors in confuta- tion is that of answering yourself instead of your adver- sary, which is done whenever you suppress, or mutilate, or obscure, or misstate his reasoning, and then reply, not to his positions, but to those which you have substituted in their stead. This practice is often the result of mis- apprehension, when a disputant mistakes the point of the argument urged by his adversary; but it often arises also from design, in which case it should be clearly detected and indignantly exposed. The duty of a disputant is fairly to take and fully to repel the idea of his opponent, but not his own. To misrepresent the meaning of your antagonist evinces a want of candor which the auditory seldom fail to perceive, and which engages their feelings in his favor. When involved in controversy, then, never start against yourself frivolous objections for the sake of showing how easily you can answer them. . . . There can be no possible advantage in supposing our antagonist a fool. The most probable effect of such an imagination is to prove ourselves so. 2. Observation of student debating, as well as of public discussions generally, teaches the ne- cessity for the cultivation by the debater of an at- titude of respect toward an opponent and his argu- ment. Remember that a person opposing you in argument is not an enemy, but an opponent; not a falsifier of truth, but one who is in error, and whom you are to set right. He is not to be van- PERSUASION 251 quished, but made to see the truth. Furthermore, have consideration for the ideas of another: ''Every man with a new thought may be a Colum- bus in disguise." In any case, he is entitled to a respectful hearing. It is said of Pericles that when interrupted in a speech "he gave way and never answered sharply, nor used his position to the other's discomfiture. In his speeches there was no challenge, no vituper- ation, no irony, no arraignment. He assumed that everybody was honest, everybody just, and that all men were doing what they thought was best for themselves and others. His enemies were not rogues simply good men who were temporarily in error." 17 Non-recognition of this principle is shown whenever a student uses such expressions as, "He gets up here and foolishly asserts so and so," "He harps about this point," "We now have him crowded to the wall he is completely cornered." Avoid any attempt to be a "smart" debater, using any of the stock jokes usually associated with the country-school debate; as, "The gentleman speaks as though he really believes what he says," or "He is like a bird flying along a rail fence you can't tell any one moment which side he is on," etc. But it may be perfectly plain to the audience "which "Elbert Hubbard, in Little Journeys for January, 1905. 252 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE side he is on," in which case such remarks are worse than useless. Other exhibitions of a lack of due respect and of a proper attitude toward those on the other side are shown when a speaker dra- matically challenges his opponents by addressing them alone, accompanied, it may be, with a quasi- withering look or gesture; or flaunts an authority in their faces; or otherwise conducts himself in an hysterical fashion, when there is no especial cause for excitement and when the refutation would be far more effective if presented in a re- spectful and dignified manner. Courtesy, aside from being a fundamental qual- ity of the gentleman, in debate helps to win an au- dience far more than students often realize. Ridi- cule and irony are seldom helpful. Irony that springs from personal spleen and malignant con- tempt for those against whom it is directed, is neither justifiable nor effective. There are times, to be sure, when irony may be as a "terrible and fiery finger, shriveling falsehood from the souls of men," but it is a dangerous weapon, and should be used only in extreme cases. It may happen, of course, that one needs to answer a fool according to his folly. Sometimes a case may be, as the law- yers say, "laughed out of court." But when it be- comes necessary to make fun of an opponent's ar- gument, do so good naturedly. As a general rule PERSUASION 253 beware of the ad hominem argument. Anyhow, the use of personalities is petty, in poor taste, and is trying to an audience even of the most ordinary intelligence; people generally are growing less and less tolerant of slander and personal abuse. And above all, in the stress of a hotly contested debate, a participant should watch his temper. It has be- come a truism that whenever in an argument a man gets angry, he is as good as beaten. "Argu- ments cannot be answered with insults; anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examina- tion of a great and important question, be serene, slow-pulsed and calm." If not "calm," at least self-controlled. In fine, the guiding principle in debate should be the subordination of partisanship and personalities to a search for truth. In all these ways, then, by appeals to emotions related to the argument and adapted to the audi- ence, by the use of the rhetorical qualities of con- creteness, direct discourse, and emphasis, and by the manner of delivery, persuasion may be made to supplement and reenforce conviction. 254 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE EXERCISES 1. For practice in adapting persuasion to a particular audience, take some such proposition as: Our State Legislature should ap- propriate $ to this institution for [a designated purpose]. Write out an argument to be presented, say, to the legislative committee to whom this matter has been referred. Now suppose you were to present the same line of argument to a country audi- ence during a political campaign: how would you revise your first speech? 2. Put the following statements and arguments in concrete form by the use of a specific example, an illustration, an anec- dote, or some form of figurative language: (a) A member of a legislative body should not serve as an attorney in any manner for a public service corporation. Since corporations of this class are likely to be subjects for legislation, an attorneyship for such corporations is incompatible with faith- ful legislative service. (b) As the twig is bent the tree is inclined. (c) In politics, as in other relations of life, honesty is the best policy. (d) Murder will out. (e) Eloquence results from a conjunction of the man, the sub- ject, and the occasion. (/) The mass of mankind cannot be instructed or influenced by abstractions. (#) Diligence is the price of success. (/;) In times of peril strong men come to the front. (i) Our multi-millionaires are a menace to society. (/') Ours is a government of public opinion. (k) "America is another name for opportunity." 3. Take paragraph 30 of Burke's speech on "Conciliation with the American Colonies" ("Masterpieces of Modern Oratory," pages 24-25), and let the student note the logical sequence of sentences by underscoring the words of explicit reference which indicate such sequence. 4. To illustrate persuasion arising from the adaptation of material to a particular audience, analyze and discuss with the class the extracts from the Lincoln-Douglass debates ("Master- pieces," pp. 142-151). Further examples in the same volume may be found on the following pages: 192-193, 214-218, 258- 259, 263-264, 327-328; and an illustration arising from the re- lation of the speaker to his subject will be found in the opening of Webster's address (pages 65-66). CHAPTER X METHODS IN SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DEBATING As distinguished from debating generally, the practice for training involved in the debates of school and college demands special consideration as to the organization and conduct of such debates. Whether in a class exercise, a debating or literary society, or an intercollegiate debate, the methods of procedure are essentially the same. General Organization and Conduct of a De- bate. Custom has fixed about three speakers as the number on each side, with a given time limit for speaking, and varying rules as to rebuttal speeches. There being three debaters, say, on a side, no one speaker is called upon, nor should he attempt, to cover the whole case for his side un- less by way of partition or general summary. That is, there must be u team work," each member of the team having a definite task to accomplish. It is therefore necessary that the speakers on each side should look to a careful organization of their argument as a whole by a threefold division, each speaker being assigned some one main line of ar- (255) 256 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE gument. The division should be, first, exhaustive; that is, the whole field of the argument should be covered; and, secondly, logical, that is, the divis- ions should be related to each other by natural se- quence, and such relation should be made plain to the audience as each speaker on a side presents his particular argument. Whenever necessary, an in- terpretation of the question, if practicable, should be agreed upon in a preliminary conference, in order that all quibbling over the meaning of terms may be avoided. In class exercises the author has found it a good plan to conduct debates in accord- ance with the following rules of procedure : 1. The first-named affirmative and negative speakers are respectively the leaders for each debate, with the second-named speakers as alternates. 2. One week prior to any debate the respective leaders will confer with their colleagues and divide the argument into as many main divisions as there are speakers, assign- ing points and references from the brief previously pre- pared. 3. Immediately preceding the debate each leader will hand to the instructor a brief written outline of the com- plete argument, with the respective assignments; and each speaker will make in advance a written outline of his particular argument and hand the same to the in- structor when called upon for the oral presentation. 4. The arguments must be presented without notes. Speakers will be allowed six to eight minutes each, ac- cording to the number participating, a one-minute warn- SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DEBATING 257 ing bell being rung. The affirmative leader will have three minutes for rejoinder. Extempore three-minute speeches in rebuttal, by unassigned members of the class, may be given, as time permits. It will be seen that Rule 2 above implies that at least the leaders shall have briefed a question in advance. This requirement is essential for pre- venting superficial work, and it is desirable, of course, that all those assigned for a given debate shall have briefed the question. In any event, no debater should make the mistake of preparing his particular line of argument solely. True, his main work is that of presenting and defending his par- ticular division of the proof, but he should also know the case as a whole. Thus will he be able not only to see clearly the relation of his particular argument to the whole case for his side and to make such relation clear to the audience, but also prepared to rush to the defense of a colleague when the exigencies of the debate so demand. THE WORK FOR EACH SPEAKER. With the debate organized as above indicated, let us exam- ine necessarily in a general way a little more in detail the work for each speaker. First Affirmative Speech. The opening by the 17 258 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE affirmative leader must be largely introductory and expository. He must first arouse interest in the sub- ject for debate, show how it is related to the inter- ests of the audience, make clear the meaning of the question, point out the main issues, show how the affirmative side proposes to establish its case, and then move into the first division of his proof. In other words, he should cover first the essential points as outlined for the introduction of his brief. But the opening speech should be something more than merely introductory; it should take up and develop at least one line of argument, so that some real progress is made in the proof before the nega- tive side takes up the discussion. An affirmative leader is sometimes apt to spend so much time in his introduction that he has no time left for posi- tive proof. He must make a clear and .plausible prima facie case, and then reenforce this by evi- dence bearing on at least one of the main issues for proof. In closing, it is frequently a good plan, if the question lends itself to this method, to sub- mit certain questions or propositions which the negative are bound to answer or prove in order to meet the case you have made out. First Negative Speech. The opening by the first negative speaker must almost always be a di- rect reply to the first speaker for the affirmative. SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DEBATING 259 To that end, he must quickly decide his answers to such questions as: Is the introduction by the af- firmative acceptable? Do you agree with his in- terpretation of the question? Is his analysis satis- factory, especially as to the common ground, the issues, and the burden of proof? Does the par- tition of the affirmative leader cover the case? Is the proof he has offered directly opposed to your assigned line of argument? If not, can you safely leave it for one of your colleagues to an- swer in detail? If so, deal it one blow, and ex- plain to the audience that you leave the details of refutation to a colleague as belonging to his divi- sion of the negative proof as a whole; that is, do not give the impression of dodging the question by an arbitrary postponement. Now outline the case for the negative and move into the proof of your assigned division. In closing, propound, in turn, it may be, questions of the affirmative which you conceive they are bound To answer in order to establish their case. The Second Speeches. The speakers second in order, affirmative and negative, must elaborate and carry on. Do you accept the task imposed by the last speaker? If not, readjust the case, showing your right to do so. Rapidly summarize your col- league's preceding argument and, when necessary, 260 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE strengthen it against the attack of the preceding speaker. Take up your division of the proof, 'showing its relation to the argument of your col- league. Summarize your own and your colleague's proof up to this point, and make it clear to the hearers that the proof to be offered by the col- league who will follow completes a logical and strong case for your side. The Third Speeches. Each of the last speakers in direct debate has both to elaborate the final points and to conclude. He must complete the proof as first outlined, close up any gaps that have been left by his colleagues or made by his oppon- ents, summarize the whole proof for his side, and leave as vivid an impression as possible regarding the strength of his side as compared with that of his opponents. To "amplify and diminish," in concluding, is a very effective method. The con- clusion should not only sum up, but it should also show that the final points complete a strong case that they clinch the proof. Rebuttal Speeches. It will be seen that the rules to govern class exercises, as previously stated, provide for a brief speech in rejoinder by the af- firmative leader. The rules for intercollegiate de- bates vary as to the provisions for second speeches, SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DEBATING 261 sometimes a representative from each side, and again each member of the teams, has a speech in rebuttal. In the latter case the points to be dealt with by each speaker are determined in part in a consultation with his colleagues ; but it is to be re- membered that the first business of any speaker in rebuttal is to defend and strengthen his particular division of the proof the necessity for team work must never be lost sight of. It should also be re- membered that a speech in rebuttal should intro- duce no new matter; that is, it is not permissible to present new lines of proof, although new evi- dence may be introduced to sustain a controverted point which has been presented in the direct de- bate ; Further than this, little can be said of any real value in addition to what was said in the chapter on Refutation. It may be worth while re- peating here, however, that rebuttal which degen- erates into scattering objections makes little total impression; that the repetition of a number of minor points carries no weight ; and that an attempt to make any sort of a detailed reply to a mass of ar- guments in a few minutes, is futile and confusing. What is needed is to select the fundamental points, show that they are fundamental, that they have been proved, and that therefore the proposition is proved. Rebuttal, like direct proof, must be massed on main points. And there is also danger 262 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE of mere assertion in rebuttal, no less than in direct proof. It will ordinarily not do to say, for ex- ample, "My colleague has already met this point," but it is necessary to remind the hearers, by rapid review, just how he has met it, and why his proof should be accepted in preference to that offered against him. The suggestions offered in this chapter are, after all, only suggestions. They are by no means in- tended to furnish a system to which all debates must conform. The necessity for a well-organized plan, however, so that the work of each debater dovetails into that of his colleagues, cannot be too strongly emphasized, for the lack of such organi- zation is the bane of much student debating. The affirmative speakers must establish a line of proof all leading to the same end they must make out a case. The speakers on the negative, too, as we have previously seen, must usually do something more than simply attack the proof offered by the affirma- tive, they must also make out a case to replace that of the affirmative. Each side should ordinarily hew close to the line previously marked out. It may sometimes happen, of course, that one side may have to abandon its prepared line of argu- ment in order to meet the case as presented by the other side, but such instances are rare. SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DEBATING 263 But while successful team debates have rigid re- quirements as to organization of the proof and di- vision of labor, good debating must, on- the other hand, necessarily be flexible. In tracing the gen- eral progress of a debate we noted the necessity for a speaker's quickly deciding how he should meet a given argument on the other side, and how fully he should meet it, always bearing in mind that he must leave time for his own constructive proof. He who has not learned to depart, when- ever the state of the discussion demands it, from a cut-and-dried speech, is at a great and usually a fatal disadvantage. True, in most questions a thorough study of both sides will reveal the lead- ing arguments pro and con, so that one may pre- pare rebuttal largely in advance. But general preparation only is possible, for one never knows just what points he will be called upon to refute, nor just how they may best be treated, until they are presented by the other side in actual debate. And it is this very uncertainty, this necessity of quickly adjusting methods of attack and defense, that makes debating the most flexible, the most difficult, and withal the most stimulating of all forms of public speaking. 264 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE EXERCISES. Discuss assigned class debates for the purpose of determining how well the foregoing principles have been carried out. Similar exercises may be devoted to a study of the Lincoln-Douglas de- bates ("Masterpieces of Modern Oratory," pages 133-146, or Bouton's edition of these debates, will furnish convenient texts), and of the Hayne-Webster debate ("The Great Debate," River- side Series). APPENDIX t QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE The following questions in the various fields of poli- tics, economics, sociology, education, law (including some moot court cases), history, and current events have been tested, for the most part, in class exercises. It will often be found advantageous to limit general propositions to a particular locality or State. POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT I . A young man casting his first vote at the next Presi- dential election should vote for the candidate of the party. 2. United States Senators should be elected by direct vote of the people. 3. The discrimination against the Chinese, in our im- migration laws, is unjustifiable. 4. The Chinese Exclusion Law should be extended to the Japanese. 5. The white citizens of the Southern States are justi- fied in taking all peaceable measures to insure their politi- cal supremancy. 6. Negroes should neither be enlisted nor commis- sioned in the United States regular army. 7. The Australian ballot system should be generally adopted in the United States. 8. Government by commission, similar to that of Galveston, Texas, should be generally adopted by the cities of the United States. (265) 266 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 9. The President of the United States should be elected for a term of six years and should be ineligible for reelection. 10. The several States should adgpt the initiative and referendum. 11. The suffrage should require an educational quali- fication. 12. Women who pay taxes should have the right to vote at municipal elections. 13. Compulsory voting should be introduced by the various State Governments. 14. Independent political action is preferable to party loyalty, as a means of securing reform. 15. The predominance of one political party in the Southern States is opposed to the best interests of those States. 1 6. A nation advanced in civilization is justified, in the interests of humanity at large, in enforcing its author- ity upon an inferior people. 17. The United States Government is unsuited to the administration of colonial dependencies. 1 8. The Indian Agency System of the United States Government should be abolished. 19. The United States should maintain a larger navy. 20. Conditions demand a further centralization of power in the Federal Government. 21. In actual practice, a "liberal construction" of the United States Constitution has always proved beneficial. 22. The United States should resist by force if need be the colonization of South America by any European power. 23. An alliance between the United States and Great Britain, similar to the latter's alliance with Japan, is desirable and expedient. QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 267 24. Arizona and New Mexico should be admitted as separate States. 25. The annexation of Canada to the United States, if peaceably effected, would be to the best interests of both countries. 26. Cuba should be annexed to the United States as soon as practicable. 27. The deportation of all negroes in this country to one of our island possessions offers the best solution of the race problem. 28. The government of all cities in America should be modeled after that of Glasgow, Scotland. 29. The United States Government should establish a parcels post. 30. The Federal Government should inaugurate and carry out a comprehensive plan for the improvement of our inland waterways. ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY 31. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should conclude reciprocity tariff treaties with foreign countries, along lines prescribed by Congress. 32. The United States should exclude all immigrants who cannot read and write in some language. 33. Government in the United States should create commissions with power of compulsory arbitration of disputes between employers and organized labor. 34. The adjudication of disputes arising between capital and labor should be made a part of our adminis- tration of justice. Granted: (i) that labor unions may be forced to incorporate, if necessary, and ( 2 ) , that courts of suitable rules of procedure be created, if desirable. 268 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 35. The taxation of the intangible assets of private corporations is desirable and practicable. 36. The United States Government should assume control of the anthracite coal mines. 37. The National Government should cooperate with the various States, or civil subdivisions thereof, in the permanent improvement of public highways. 38. Consumers generally should organize to protect themselves against the exactions of labor unions and trusts. 39. Labor unions do not subserve the best interests of laboring men. 40. Members of labor unions are justified in resorting to the strike for preventing the employment of non-union laborers. 41. Interference with strikes by judicial injunction is a menace to the liberties of the working classes. 42. Trusts should be suppressed. 43. The cities of the United States should own and operate their street railway systems. 44. Each of the several States should have a civil ser- vice law providing for the selection, by competitive ex- amination, of all appointive officers other than heads of departments. 45. The time has now arrived when the policy of levying a purely protective tariff should be abandoned by the United States. 46. Subsidies should be paid for the development of the American merchant marine. 47. The United States and the several States should have a graduated income tax. 48. The United States and the several States should have an inheritance tax. QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 269 49. The single tax system, as advocated by Henry George, is practicable. 50. The New Zealand system of taxation of real estate should be adopted in the United States. 51. The products of the Philippine Islands should be admitted to the United States free of duty. 52. A Federal Insurance Commission should be cre- ated with power to classify insurance risks and to fix the premiums to be charged therefor; to designate the char- acter of securities that may be taken; and to prescribe the manner in which life insurance companies may invest their surplus. 53. The Norwegian system of liquor selling should be adopted in the United States. 54. The New York system of high license combined with local option is the most practicable method of deal- ing with the liquor problem. 55. The State Dispensary System offers a better solu- tion of the liquor problem than State prohibition. 56. The prohibition of the liquor traffic is preferable to any system of license, wherever public opinion sanctions the passage of such a law. 57. From a purely economic point of view, the liquor traffic is a source of profit to the United States Govern- ment. 58. Eight hours should be the standard time for a day's work. 59. Each of the several States should establish and maintain an institution similar to the George Junior Re- public. EDUCATION 60. Women should be admitted to all American uni- versities on equal terms with men. 270 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 61. Excepting English, the fully elective system of studies should be introduced into all American univer- sities. 62. Compulsory manual training should be introduced into all grammer and high school curriculums. 63. A city is the best location for a college. 64. The college course leading to the degree of Bach- elor of Arts hould be reduced to three years. 65. Commercial courses of study should be incorpo- rated in all college and high school curriculums. 66. The honor system should prevail in all college ex- aminations. 67. The education of the American negro should be industrial rather than liberal. 68. No study should be prescribed in a college cur- riculum primarily because of its value as a means of mental discipline. 69. Is the study of Greek and Latin essential to a liberal education? 70. The German university methods should be adopted in the United States. 71. Military tactics should be taught in the public schools. 72. Football should not be encouraged by those having charge of educational institutions. 73. "Association" football is preferable to the Rugby game. 74. Freshmen should be excluded from all university athletic teams. 75. Freshmen should not be received into college fra- ternities. 76. College and high school fraternities and sororities are more harmful than beneficial. QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 271 77. Each of the States should have a compulsory edu- cation law. 78. This State has not an efficient system of public schools. 79. Each of the cities and villages in this State should have and enforce a curfew ordinance. LAW 80. Congress should have the exclusive right of legis- lation regarding marriage and divorce in the United States. 8 1. The United States Supreme Court should reverse its Income Tax decision of 1895. 82. In the Hayne- Webster debate, so far as it related to the origin and meaning of the United States Consti- tution, Hayne had the better argument. 83. An easier method of amending the United States Constitution should be adopted. 84. Life imprisonment, with a restricted power of par- don by the executive, should be substituted for capital punishment. 85. Circumstantial evidence should be sufficient to convict a saloon-keeper for violation of the excise laws. 86. A lawyer is not justified in defending a man whom he knows to be guilty. 87. The penal statutes in this country should be so re- vised that the reform of the criminal is the sole object. 88. Expert testimony in criminal procedure should be abolished. 89. The grand jury system should be abolished. 90. A married woman should have the sole control of her separate property. 272 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 91. In criminal actions three- fourths of a jury should be competent to render a verdict. 92. Any person aiding or abetting in mob violence amounting to a crime if committed by an individual, should be criminally prosecuted ; and to that end, protec- tion should be furnished by State or Federal troops, whenever necessary. 93. In every case of alleged crime wherein the penalty is capital punishment or life imprisonment, the nearest judge in any court of record should have power to im- mediately summon a grand jury to investigate and a petit jury to try; and no appeal should lie from the ver- dict except on the certificate of the trial judge of probable cause for appeal. 94. A member of Congress or of a State Legislature should not serve in any manner as agent or attorney for a public service corporation. 95. Excepting for deliberate and intentional self-in- jury, an employer should be held unconditionally liable for accidents to his employees. 96. The Pennypacker anti-libel law of Pennsylvania is an unjustifiable infringement upon the freedom of the press. 97. The Torrens land title system should be generally adopted. 98. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison (i Cranch, 137), is not well founded. 99. The facts did not justify the decision reached in the case of Munn vs. Illinois (94 U. S., 113)- 100. A offered a reward of $1,000 for the arrest of one C, who had committed burglary. B, in ignorance of the reward, arrested C. Can B recover from A the reward offered? QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 273 101. A number of college students were playing base- ball in a customary place and manner on the college campus. A batted a ball pitched by B. The ball fell in an adjacent public street, and while running for it C scared a team driven by one Brown, causing them to run away. Brown sued B for resulting damages. Can he recover ? 1 02. A railroad company erected a roundhouse near a city church. The church services were interrupted by the smoke and noise of the trains and the members were otherwise seriously discomforted. The church brings suit against the railroad company for damages. Can it re- cover ? 103. A city was by its charter invested with the ex- clusive control of its streets, alleys, etc., and with power to make all necessary improvements thereon. A child nine years old fell into an uncovered fire cistern in the city and was seriously injured. The parents of the child sue the city. Can they recover ? 104. A employed B for a contingent fee of $200 to procure a pardon for C, then a convict in the penitentiary. B offered the wife of one of the Board of Pardons one- half of the fee to assist him in getting the pardon, and she accepted the proposition. She did not inform her husband of the agreement. She secured a recommenda- tion from the Board and the pardon was granted. Can B recover the proffered fee? 105. A draft is endorsed: "I know the bearer, Mr. Smith, and that this paper will be honored. (Signed) Henry Jones." Can Jones be held liable? 1 06. A general statute of New York forbids a private corporation taking realty either by purchase or devise, while under the laws of Texas this is permitted. A party 18 274 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE dies leaving land in Texas to a private corporation in New York. Can the latter take such land ? 107. A places in the hands of B, a real estate agent, a tract of land for which to find a purchaser. B enters into a contract, as agent for A, with C to sell him the land. A repudiates the contract as not binding on him, and sells the land to another party. C then sues A for damages for breach of contract. May he recover? 1 08. A State statute forbids the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors, students, and habitual drunkards. A student over twenty-one years of age brings suit to compel a saloonkeeper to sell to him, upon the ground that the statute is class legislation and repugnant to the Federal Constitution. Can he maintain the action? 109. A large mastiff, owned by one Fitzhugh, while following his master along the street, ran into the barn of an express company, and while in the barn was at- tacked by a bulldog, owned by the express company. Fitzhugh entered the barn, and with several of the em- ployees of the express company tried in numerous ways to separate the dogs, but was unable to do so. The battle was going against the mastiff, and Fitzhugh, seeing that if the fight continued longer his dog would be killed, shot and killed the bulldog. Can the express company recover from Fitzhugh the value of the bulldog? no. Defendant made written offer, May 16, 1884, to buy a certain block of stock in a corporation "at any time after January I, 1886, if at that time you desire to have me do so. Not because I want the stock, but solely from a feeling of friendship." Plaintiff accepted the offer July 9, 1886. Is defendant bound? in. Plaintiff, when two years old, was taken into her grandfather's home and treated as a member of the QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 275 family. Evidence established that she performed heavy household work, and occasionally worked out on the farm. After residing with her grandparents until she attained the age of twenty-three years, she brought suit for her services during the preceding twenty-one years. Can she recover? 112. To terminate an engagement of marriage, the fol- lowing agreement was made: "I promise to pay to Bertha Hunter $3,000 for the release of promising to marry her, as soon as she is married. J. M. Bray." Plaintiff afterwards married, and then brought suit for $3,000 on the written contract. Can she recover? 113. Husband and wife, while a divorce suit was pend- ing between them, entered into agreement that husband would thereafter pay the wife a certain amount monthly, in consideration of which the wife agreed not to make defense in the divorce case. The wife fulfilled her part of the contract, a divorce was granted the husband, and the wife then sought to enforce the contract. Can she do so? 114. Defendant entered into acontract with plaintiff to complete a race track by a certain day, or in case of de- fault, to pay $100 per day liquidated damages for delay. Plaintiff sued, setting up the contract and its breach. Defendant admitted the breach, and offered to pay the actual damages, which, as he claimed, were less than $100 per day. Is this a good defense? 115. A sells property and takes several purchase money notes. For a valuable consideration he assigns one of the notes to B. Does B get a preference lien over the notes held by A? 276 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE HISTORY AND CURRENT EVENTS. 1 1 6. The Norsemen discovered America. 117. In our war with Mexico, the United States was an unjustifiable aggressor. 1 1 8. The Spanish-American War was unnecessary and unjustifiable. 119. England's aggressions in Africa were justifiable. 1 20. The French Revolution was justifiable. 121. Napoleon III was personally responsible for the Franco-Prussian War. 122. Richard III was a worse monarch than Charles II. 123. Henry VIII was not justified in suppressing the monasteries. 124. The English system of government is preferable to that of the United States. 125. Switzerland has a better form of government than the United States. 126. The imprisonment of Napoleon at St. Helena was justifiable. 127. Was the execution of Major Andre justifiable? 128. Did Aaron Burr aim at an independent empire? 129. Lincoln's plan of reconstruction was preferable to the Congressional plan. 130. The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed. 131. Webster was justified in his attitude toward the Clay Compromise. 132. John Brown's raid did more harm than good. 133. The English parliamentary system should be ap- plied to the government of the States. 134. The taxation of the English colonies in America, QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 277 which led to the Revolution, was in accordance with the British Constitution. 135. English interests demand the adoption of Cham- berlain's colonial tariff policy. 136. The United States should unite with -other powers in expelling the Turk from Europe. 137. President Tyler's veto of the National Bank Bill was in accordance with sound public policy. 138. President Jackson's theory, that the executive is constitutionally independent of the other two departments of government, is correct. 139. The administration of Andrew Jackson did more harm than good to this country. 140. Queen Elizabeth was a worse woman than Mary Queen of Scots. 141. Slavery caused the annexation of Texas to the United States. 142. Should Christian Scientists be licensed as medical practitioners ? 143. Senator Reed Smoot should have been deposed from his seat in the United States Senate. 144. In the first joint debate of the Lincoln-Douglas series, Lincoln had the better argument. 145. Senator Beveridge's proposed bill relative to the products of child labor should become a law. 146. Unjust methods were used by the French govern- ment in effecting the separation of Church and State. 147. The methods used by Mrs. Carrie Nation, in her anti-saloon crusade in Kansas, were justified. 148. Mr. Bryan's idea, that the ownership of trunk- line railways by the United States Government will ulti- mately prove desirable, is correct. 278 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE 149. The school authorities of San Francisco were justified in segregating Japanese pupils. 150. The time has now arrived when a national pro- hibition party should be organized and vigorously sup- ported. INDEX ABBOTT, Lyman, quoted, 40. Adams, J. Q., quoted, 250. Alden, quoted, 14, 119. Amplifying and Diminishing, 138-. Analysis of the Question, 30-60; Steps in, 32. Antecedent Probability, argument of, 92; tests of, 100. Appeal, direct, 198 ; indirect, 198; adaptation of appeal to audience, 201 ; to highest mo- tives possible, 202. Argument, defined, 15. Arguments, kinds of, 91-124. Argumentum ad Hominem, 143 ; ad Ignorantiam, 144. Aristotle, quoted, 170. Arnold, Matthew, quoted, 17. Assumptions, 64. Authority, argument from, 105; tests of, 107. BAKER, quoted, 14, 132. Beecher, quoted, 40. Beveridge, J., quoted, 86, 99, 151. Begging the Question, fallacy of, 140. Brief, The, 158-190; a legal brief defined, 160; general characteristics of a good brief, 161 ; main divisions of, 165 ; form of, 173 ; Rules for brief- writing, 177; Skeleton form of a complete brief, 178 ; Specimen brief, 180-190. Burden of Proof, 52-60. Burke, quoted, 50, 85, 114, 123, 139, 199, 200, 204, 216. CARTER, James C., Esq., quoted, 212. Choate, Joseph H., quoted, 213. Choat, Rufus, quoted, 82, 202. Cicero, quoted, 206. Clearness, 162. Coherence, 163. Common Ground, The, 42. Composition and Division, 145. Concreteness, 223. Conviction, 15. Curtis, Geo. Wm., quoted, 235, 237- DEBATE, advantages of, 9; ele- ments of, 13; defined, 15; subjects for, 19-28; proper questions for, 24; ethics of, 248 ; methods in school and college, 255-263 ; questions for debate (Appendix), 265-278. Definition, metfiods of, 33-42. Dilemma, The, 137. Direct Discourse, 232. Douglas, quoted, 238. EMERSON, quoted, n, 195. Emotions, appeals to the, 195. Emphasis, 234. Erskine, quoted, 115. Evidence, defined, 62; tests of, 73-87. (279) 280 SCIENCE AND ART OF DEBATE Example and Analogy, argument by, 112; tests of, 116. FALLACIES, Special forms of, 139. GREENLEAF, quoted, 79. HADLEY, President, quoted, u. Higginson, Colonel, quoted, 224. Hoar, Senator, quoted, 136. IGNORING the Question, 142. Introduction, The, 165. Iteration, 237. JEVONS, quoted, 14, 15. Jordan, David Starr, quoted, 65. "Junius," 236. LINCOLN, quoted, 31, 48, 49, 160, 220, 225. MACAULAY, quoted, 78, 142. MacEwan, quoted, 219. Main Issue, The, 43. Marsh, quoted, 198. Mill, John Stuart, quoted, 39, 118, 119. NEWMAN, quoted, 199. Non Seguitur, fallacy of, 146. North, John Henry, quoted, 75. OUTLINE, why necessary, 158; different kinds of, 159; dif- ferent types of, 172. PARTITION of the Argument, 168. Persuasion 16, 194-253 ; in the Introduction, 205; in the Dis- cussion, 215; in the Conclu- sion, 217; rhetorical qualities , in, 223. Presumptions, 53. Proof, defined, 62-70; defined, 62 ; vs. assertion, 63 ; varying degrees of, 66; direct, 91-124. Proposition, A, necessary in de- bate, 19; defined, 20; stating the, 21. QUESTIONS of Fact, 68; of Pol- icy, 69 ; for debate, 265-278. Quintillian, quoted, 35. RESIDUES, method of, 121 ; tests of 124. READING and Classification, Pre- liminary, 150-156. Reductio ad absurdum, 134. Refutation, 127-146 ; defined, 127; rules of, 128; Lincoln's method in, 129; special meth- ods of, 134. SCHURZ, Carl, quoted, 46. Sears, quoted, 93. Seward, Wm. H., quoted, 207. Sidgwick, quoted, 14. Sign, argument from, 101. Sincerity and earnestness, 245. Summary, need of in debate, 234 THAYER, quoted, 54. Transition, defined, 236. UNITY, 164. VAN DYKE, HENRY, quoted, 36, 67- WEBSTER, quoted, 31, 50, 77, 83, 93, 102, 103, 130, 134, 141, 216, 219. ^jffSsT** Vc^ s *U^ H V" 1 - 1 - r,OV^ OI L 10 S . T^ 6 J t yg 02358 267355 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY