H I LLINO I S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Brittle Books Project, 2012. COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION In Public Domain. Published prior to 1923. This digital copy was made from the printed version held by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It was made in compliance with copyright law. Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign by Northern Micrographics Brookhaven Bindery La Crosse, Wisconsin 2012 BULLETIN OF THI E UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ew Ser ies No. 73. University Extension Series No. 12 The UJniversity of Oklahoma Quarterly Bulletin THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND DEBATE A Student's anual OF DEBATING AND PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE Norman, Oklahoma September 1 91 4 This Bulletin is a combination of Bulletins Nos. 469, 487, 391 of the University of Wisconsin, used by permission of the Extension Divison. PRICE TEN CENTS The University Bulletin, published by the university, is issued every three months onthe fifteenth as follows: Mrch, June, Septem -_...M , un , ep. m ber, and December. Entered at the postoffice at Nortman, as second las matter, under act of July 1 1894. clsm te, u dr.actof July,16.18.4 I BULLETIN' OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA New Series No. 73. University Extension Series No. 12:,:: UNIVERSITY EXTENSION PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND DEBATE NORMAN, OKLAHOMA September 1913 This bulletin is a combination of three bulletins of Extension Division of the University of Wisconsin, and reprinted by permission They were written by Professor Rollo L Lyman, Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, University of Wisconsin, Part I has been changed somewhat to adapt it to Oklahoma conditions. CONTENTS Part I Organization and Procedure Part II Principles of Effective Debating Part III How to Judge a Debate INTRODUCTION. The Extension Division of the University of Oklahoma de- sires to assist in the organization and successful management Sof debating clubs in 'country school houses, in small towns, in Shigh schools, and wherever there are persons interested in the Sdiscussion of public questions and in the educational and cul- tural uses of debating. S This handbook for debating clubs is an effort in carrying out this purpose. With a very few changes it is a reprint by per- -mission of three bulletins of the Extension Division of the r University of Wisconsin written by Prof. Rollo L. Lyman of " that University. This has also been adopted by the extension . 4ivisions of Kansas and other states, and its republication here seems to be the very best service we can render' in this line to the State of Oklahoma. This will be followed by "Debate Collections," each of which will contain a subject for debate, a bibliography of it, and re- N4prints of the best portions of editorials, magazine articles, etc., on both sides of the question. As before announced, these col- lections will be loaned to clubs and individuals at a small rental. It is manifestly impossible for the Department of Public ADiscussion to look up references and furnish materials on any - subject which may be sent them, its appropriation is utterly in- sufficient for that; but it will accumulate materials for as large )a range of subjects as its means will permit, and a more br less extensive bibliography can always be furnished. Since those 'subjects on which materials have been collected are all live, im- -portant questions, clubs cannot do better than to take them as they are published. No organization or management, however perfect, can con- fer all the benefits of a debating club. Equally important are mental attitudes and disciplines which must receive constant r r attention. S I. The Open Mind. There are two sides to every question. jNo one is competent to discuss or judge a question unless he -can do full justice to both sides. It is a common observation that a debater becomes convinced of the side assigned him. If chance had put him on the other side, he would have carried the 3 opposite conviction all his life. The writer once knew a young man who was assigned to the negative in debatng the Existence of God. He never outgrew the effects of it. Often a debater must advocate a side contrary to his conviction. It must be defended or the question could not be debated. What can be done for those wh6 are called upon to debate the wrong side? One suggestion is that a debater should defend only the side he believes to be right. But suppose all the debaters favored one side. On that plan how could each get his turn in debating, or a debating society be possible? We must distinguish here between conviction and mere prejudice. We can have no intel- lectual respect for a man's conviction unless he has adequately studied both sides; otherwise his "conviction" is more or less prejudice. But if he has fully studied both sides he is much less likely to be injured by debating against his convictions. On every vital, important question, there should be two or more debates; the first one formal, when the debaters are as- signed sides without regard to their convictions. Their work is chiefly informational and opens up the subject by an adequate presentation of both sides of it. This should be followed by one or more informal debates in which each speaker supports his own convictions. In this debate the participants in formal debate should not take part unless they take the opposite side from the one formerly espoused. Of course there is danger that studying both sides impartial- ly may leave debaters "on the fence;" but this cannot be charged to fair and candid study so much as to lack of will power or de- cision. We must train ourselves to keep our minds open to con- viction. II.* Courtesy. More clubs will be broken up by lack of courtesy, by disputes and quarrels arising in the heat of debate than all other causes combined. It is important, then, to lay great emphasis on the courtesies of debate. All personalities should be rigidly excluded. Every one who participates in a public meeting surrenders such personal or individual rights or privileges as may be necessary for its peace and efficiency. The individual must make concessions or be excluded from social life. While humanity reaches its culmination in great assem- blies, it reaches the opposite when an audience degenerates into a mob. Every just minded member of an assembly must recog- nize its right to protect itself against degeneration"and destruc- The social mind is only manifested where there is agree- The social mind is only manifested where there is agree- ment, like-mindedness, harmony. "Blessed are the peacemak- ers" is fundamental. Humanity, as well as the Beatitudes, cul- minates ipn the peacemaker. This is why courtesy is so pata- mount in public assemblies; and the debating club is a great op- portunity for such social culture. Any offensive personality should of itselt suspend the of- fender and he should make ample amends before he is reinsta- ted. If a debating club is to live and render useful service, all discourtesies and offensive personalities must be prevented at any cost. The presiding officer should-and any member may- promptly call any one to order who indulges in any degree of personalities. Patience, tact, self-control, fairness, courtesy, are absolutely indespensable to the success of a debating club; and the opportunity it affords for their cultivation is one of its chief values to a community; while lack of diligence in enforcing the utmost courtesy may result in distressing controversies which may injure a community for years. The more important and vital the questions debated, the stronger personal convictions will be, and the greater the danger of acrimonious personalities, and the more important the above suggestions. III. Formalities. Experience has also abundantly proved the necessity. of certain formalities, such as rising to speak, ad- dressing the chairman, avoiding the direct use of names,* etc. *In Congress one speaker can never refer to another by name. He must say "The Gentleman from Oklahoma," etc., or" "The Gentleman who preceded me." or "My distinguished opponent, or colleague," etc. So in a debating club one might say 'The Gentleman-or lady-from Sec. 15," etc. Any refer- ence to personal appearance, even though complimentary, is grossly out of order. The debating club should be a preparatory school for great as- semblies, and since these formalities and courtesies must be ob- served there, they, should be scrupulously observed in debating clubs. SUGGESTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION OF CLUBS IN COUNTRY SCHOOL HOUSES. 1st and 2nd Meetings. The first aim should be to give such notice of the first meeting that everyone in the school district shall know of it, and no occasion be given for rival meetings. The first meeting should be announced by the teacher of the public school, if that is in session, after permission has been obtained from the directors to use the school house. The call for the meeting should state the hour of beginning. When the time arrives, some one nominates a temporary chairman and calls for a vote and declares the result. The tern- 5 porary chairman then calls for nomination of a temporary sec- retary who is then elected. The meeting is now organized. The chairman states the object of the meeting, or if he pre- fer he may call upon some one else to do so, and then calls for a general expression of opinion with regard to the organization of a debating club. (We can furnish some points for this dis- cussion if desired.) After sufficient discussion some one moves that "we organize a debating club." As a rule the adoption of a constitution is a real peril to a beginning society. It is diffi- cult if not impossible to interest all the members in it and it often gives rise to a great deal of tiresome and sometimes acrimonious discussion. The best plan is to adopt a provisional Constitution, and let the permanent constitution grow out of experience. The best action for the first meeting would be to appoint a Committee on Constitution and By-Laws. This Com- mittee, if it so decide, may recommend later that this Constitu- tion, given in this handbook, be made the permanent constitu- tion. A collection of cash and pledges should be taken at this meeting for the stport of the club, and a Program Committee appointed to report at the second meeting a program for the third and fourth meetings. It should be announced at this meet- ing that the election of permanent officers would take plaen at the second meeting and that each officer elected would be ex- pected to make a speech for the good of the cause. The elec- tion and this would make a good program for the second meet- ing. The 3rd Meeting. It is assumed that the Program Commit- tee has promptly sent for debate bulletins and collections of materials on some five and interesting subject. The Extension Division of the University of Oklahoma will not only furnish collections qf materials which on the whole cannot be surpassed, but will furnish them at a considerably lower price than inferior materials can be obtained elsewhere. No one should presure to debate a question without ade- quate preparation and this is impossible without sufficient ma- terials. Each club should subscribe for at least two sets ef debating materials-one for each side-and should if possible subscribe for enough so that each debater might have one. In every community there are thoughtful citizens who would like to subscribe for these sets of debating materials for the sake of the full information they afford on both sides of many public questions. Such private subscriptions together with the club 8 MODIFICATION OF TERMS OF LOANING MATERIALS 1. Our first announcement was based upon an agreement with the H. W. Wilson Co., Minneapolis, Minn., who were to furnish the book on each debate subject and its supplementary bulletin. This firm has now removed to New York and we will publish the bulletins ourselves. 2. Many debating clubs are finding that the book and bulletin combined furnishes more material than is needed for ordinary debates. The book is only needed in the larger debates between different clubs. 3. The following modifications are therefore announced: Bulletine without the books will be furnished free to All debating clubs as long as the legislative appropriation lasts. 4. The prices heretofore announced remain unchanged, but apply to a collection of book, bulletin, and such other materials as we may be able to gather. subscription would enable many communities to secure ten (10) or more sets at club rates, as follows: For 2 Weeks Each Additional Week One single set___ -----------25c_------------------10c Two, or less than 5 sets-. 20c each__----------_ 8c each Five, or less than 10 sets _..15c each..------------ 7c each Ten, or more sets . .----------13c each--------------6c each Unless these are rented at first for more than two weeks they must be returned promptly at the end of that time, for they are always promised to another Club at the expiration of any rental. If they are not returned promptly a find is imposed of 5 cents a day for each copy. The time may always be extended provided the application for extension reaches us at least three days before expiration of the time to be extended. The Program Committee should order these sets of materi- als in ample time so that they can be given out to prospective debaters at the time the debate is announced. If we are kept informed as to the regular meeting dates we will mail the sets of debating materials in time to be received befre such, dates, and the rental period shall begin on such dates and no charge will be made for the time before such materials were received. If, for example, the materials were ordered for October 1-14 and they were mailed September 25, there would be no charge till October 1. CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS. (The following provisional Constitution and By-Laws will ordinarily be sufficient to begin with. It can be amended from time to time as experience suggests. It is designed especially for clubs in country school houses but may be readily adapted to any debating club.) CONSTITUTION OF THE .------- LITERARY SOCIETY. Preamble. We, the undersigned, appreciating the advantages to be de- rived from an associatiors which shall give practice in debate, discussion, composition, declamation, elocution, and parliamen- tary practice, do herdby organize ourselves into a literary asso- ciation for such purpose, and agree to be governed by the fol- lowing Constitution, By-Laws, and Rules of Order. ARTICLE I.-Name. Section 1. This association shall be called--___.. Literary Society or Debating Club of School District Number ------, -__-----_____County, Oklahoma. ARTICLE II.-Officers. Section 1. The officers of this society shall be a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and tensor; and these shall constitute the Program Committee. Section 2. Election of Officers. The officers of the society shall be elected by ballot on the first Fridays of October, De- comber, February and April. The regular meetings shall end with March. The April meeting shall be for election of offi- cers, planning for the next year, and a social time. Those elec- ted in. April shall hold through the summer and make the neces- sary arrangements for the next year. Section 3. Vacancies. Each officer shall serve till his suc- cessor is duly elected. Vacancies may be temporarily filled by appointment by the President until the next meeting of the So- ciety. " Section 4. Duties of Officers. The duties of these officers shall be such as commonly appertain to these offices. The Censor shall report at the close of each meeting such correc- tions, criticisms, and comments as he or she may deem proper. ARTICLE III.-Membership. Section 1. Any person may become a member of this society as hereinafter provided. Section 2. The President elected at the October election shall appoint a Committee of five on Membership who shall in- vestigate and report on all propositions for membership. It shall hold office throughout the year. Section 3. Proposals for membership shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Membership Committee which shall report on them at the next meeting. All members recommend- ed by the Membership Committee shall be voted on by ballot. If not more than five votes appear against him, he or she shall be declared a member on signing the Constitution and paying the initiation fee of $__.. Section 4. Any member who shall be guilty of improper conduct may, at any regular meeting, be sispended or expelled by a two-thirds vote of those present. A proposal for expulsion shall be in writing and state the offense charged, and shall lie on the table one week before action. ARTICLE IV.-Meetings. Section 1. Regular meetings shall be held on Friday evening of each week between October and March inclusive at 7:30 o'clock. Section 2. Special meetings may be called by the President, 8 but every member must be informed of such meeting, unless it be announced at a regular meeting. ARTICLE V. Section 1. This society shall have power to make laws for the conduct of its meetings, levy taxes upon its members, and perform any other acts not inconsistent with its Constitution and By-Laws. Section 2. One-third of all its members shall constitute a quorum; and one-fifth shall have power to meet and adjourn. If that number should not be present, the President may call a special meeting, as provided in Article IV, Section 2. Section 3. Amendments to this Constitution shall be in writ- ing, lie upon the table for a week, and a vote of two-thirds of the members present shall be required for their adoption. BY-LAWS. ARTICLE I. Section 1. The order of Exercises for a regular meeting shall be as follows: 1. Calling the Roll. 2. Reading and approval of Secretary's minutes. 3. Inauguration of new officers. 4. Initiation of members. 5. The Program of the evening as reported by the Program Committee. 6. Report of Censor. 7. Report of Program Committee for next meeting. 8. Business. Election of Officers, etc. 9. Adjournment. Rules for Debate. Section 2. There shall be two kinds of debates, formal and informal. A. In Formal Debates there shall be three speakers on each side appointed by the Program Committee. The first speaker on the affirmative shall have seven minutes to open the debate. The following speakers ten minutes, each speaking alternately negative-and affirmative. Finally the first speaker shall have five minutes to close the debate. The order of the speakers shall be that assigned by the Pro- gram Committee, unless the speakers on either side agree upon a different order. B: In Informal Debates, each member desiring to speak on 9 the question shall submit to the President his name in writing indicating the side he wishes to support. From the names so submitted, the Program Committee shall arrange a program alternating affirmative and negative as far as possible When the advance notices to speak are exhausted, anyone may speak as recognized by the President. Judges of Debate. Section 3. Judges of each formal debate shal! be appointed by the Program Committee and announced at the beginning of the debate. There shall be an odd number of judges, either three or five, as the Program Committee may determine. ARTICLE II.-Delinquencies. Section 1. If any member shall be absent from three regu- lar meetings; or shall fail to oerform any exercise assigned to him, the secretary shall report such delinquency at the next meeting in addition to the minutes. Such report shall lie on the table till the next regular meeting, after which time, if no ex- cuse shall have been presented by the delinquent and accepted by the society he shall be under a fine of twenty-five cents for each delinquency. Section 2. For using improper language, refusing to obey the President when called to order, a member shall be repri- manded, fined, or suspended. Section 3. For any other disorderly acts the Censor may impose a fine of not less than ten cents nor more than one dol- lar. Section 4. All dues and fines shall be promptly reported to the Treasurer who shall present a bill for the same. If within two weeks after such notice the said dues or fines are not paid, the member stands suspended, but the society may extend the time of such payment. Any suspension shall become permenent after four weeks unless the cause of the suspension has been removed by obedi- ence, payment of fines, etc., to the satisfaction of the society, unless such time is extended by vote of society. ARTICLE III.-Taxes. Section 1. The society shall have the power at any time, by a vote of a majority of the members in good standing, to lever a tax equally upon all active members of the society. ARTICLE IV.-Miscellaneous. Section 1. All officers, and speakers for public occasions, shall be chosen by ballot. 10 Section 2. No member can honorably sever relations with the society while indebted to the society. Section 3. The word "weeks," wherever it occurs in the Constitution or By-Laws, shall be construed to mean regular meetings of the' society. Section 4. Adjourned meetings shall be considered regular meetings in so far as business transacted is concerned. Section 5. The session of any regular meeting shall not be extended beyond ten p. m., unless with the consent of a ma- jority of the members present. Section 6. No question which has been once decided wheth- er in tlh'e affirmative or negative, shall again be brought before the society, except on reconsideration, and the word "question" shall be so construed as to include propositions for membership. Section 7. Members excused from active duty shall have all the privileges of the honorary members, except that they shall not be exempt from paying fines and taxes. ARTICLE V.-Amendments. Section 1. Any article! or section of these By-Laws may be amended, suspended, or annulled, by a two-thirds vote of the active members present at any regular meeting. 'ARTICLE YI.-Standing Rules. Section 1. This society shall be governed by "Robert's Rules of Order," as parliamentary guide in all cases where it does not conflict with the standing rules of this society given in this Article VI. Section 2. Any rule of order may be suspended temporarily by a vote of the society, or may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any meeting. Section 3. The rules observed by the society shall govern, as far ash practicable, the proceedings of the "committee of the whole," except that a member may speak oftener than twice on the same subject. Section 4. No member shall speak more than twice on the same question,1 nor more than three minutes at a time.2 Section 5. When one-fifth of the members present call for 1The terms "motion" and "question" are, practically Interchangeable. After a motion has been regularly made, and stated by the ehair, it becomes a ques- tion for the society to consider and decide. 2An exception noted in Art. VI. Sec. 3. SFor ayes and r.oes see D, Page 14. 4See C. page 20. 5This is usually the rule. *See A. page 16. the ayes and noess upon any question, they shall be ordered, and when taken shall be recorded in the minutes. Section 6. Any motion, except a subsidiary motion,' shall be reduce to writing,5 if any member of the society desires it. Section 7. When a question is under debate no motion should be received except" d. To adjourn. b. To lay on the table. c. For previous question. d. To postpone to a time certain. e. To commit. f. To amend. g. To postpone indefinitely. These motions shall take precedence in the order in which they are named. Section 8.. When any subject is before the society, the pre- vious question7 being called for and decided in the negative, the pending subiect is left before the society to be acted upon as if the previous question had not been moved. Section 9. A motion to adjourn," to lay on the table,9 for the previous question,'0 for indefinite postponement" shall be de- cided without debate. Section 10. All incidental questions of order'2 arising after a motion to adjourn has been decided in the affirmative, or after a motion has been made for previous question, and pending such motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, with- out debate. Section 11. Any member may appeal from the decision of the chair; but the question on any appeal shall not be put un- less such appeal be sustained by one-fifth of the members pres- ent, when the Chair shall state the question thus: "Shall the de- cision of the Chair be sustained?" This question shall be treat- ed like ordinary questions, but the President shall be allowed to debate it without leaving the chair. Section 12. The minutes, as read by the Secretary, may be corrected, but not amended., . RULES OF ORDER. In the preceding section certain rules of order have been in- cluded in the By-Laws of the suggested Constitution. These are intended, however, to cover only some of the more important, 7See 2. page 20. 8See 1, page 16. 9See C1 1, page 20. lOSee C, 2, page 20 11See C, 7, page 22. 12See B, page 18. 12 doubtful or disputed rules. A much larger body of rules and precedents has grown out of the customs of deliberative assem- blies. There are several manuals covering the usually accepted rules, any one of which a debating society may adopt for its own deliberation. Robert's "Rules of Order," is usually accept- ed as standard, and any society should possess this handy little manual. Even this brief and rather simple book contains much that is unnecessary for the usual procedure. It may then not be out of place to set forth in this pamphlet the essential prin- ciples of parliamentary procedure. Motions. As all business is introduced to the society in some fort of a resolution or motion, it is absolutely necessary for the pre- siding officer to know the rules which govern the relations be- tween the different kinds of motions. The members also shouldd become familiar with these rules. Indeed one of the objects of a society is to give training and experience in parliamentary practice. In the discussion which follows, only a limited num- per of the most important motions are covered, the ones ordi- narily called into use. Many exceptions and variations even in the rules here discussed, must be omitted, the purpose of this pamphlet 4eing merely to get a working basis for society pro- cedure. General Terms. A. Quorum. The usual practice in any deliberative society is to require the presence of one-half of the active membership to transact any business, except to adjourn, which may be done by any number. B. Committee of the Whole. When any question conies before the society requiring elaborate discussron, the society resolves itself into a committee of the whole. This must be done by motion. There is usually no restriction on debate, un- less society constitution regulates, in committee of whole. When the motion for this committee is made, the President appoints some member as chairman of the committee. The only motions in order in this committee are to amend, to adopt, and to rise. The committee cannot adjourn, merely rises and reports to the society. When the President takes the chair, the chairman of the committee reports. C. Voting. The President, when all debate on a question is finished, states the question, "It has been moved that * * * All in favor will vote aye. All opposed, no." After the vote, 13 "The motion is carried, or lost," as the case may be. If any member of the society thinks the chairman is mistaken as to the result of the vote, he calls for a "Division." The President then asks all in favor of the motion to rise. Then all opposed. The Secretary counts and announces the decision. In case of a tie vote, the chairman voting, the motion is lost. Voting by ballot is sometimes required by the constitution, as in the election, of members. The President appoints tellers, who distribute ballots. D. Ayes and Noes. By a majority vote the society may order the Secretary to call the names of members to vote on any notion. If in favor a member votes "Aye," if opposed, "No." After the ballot the Secretary reads the names of those voting on the prevailing side, that corrections may be made if neces- sary. The ayes and noes are not in order in committee of the whole. E. Reports of Committees. Under the regular order of the day the chairman of a committee secures the floor and says, "The committee on * * * begs leave to report that * * * (gives report), all of which is respectfully; submitted." A minority of a committee, differing from the majority, may also present a report in the same manner. The minority report to be of avail, must be substituted by vote of the society for majority report. A motion to dispose of the report of the committee in any of the various methods,' is in order. The report of a special com- mittee, once received, dissolves the committee. On a motion to re-commit, the committee may act again. CLASSES IN MOTIONS. Motions are usually divided into four general classes, "Prin- cipal," "Privileged," "Incidental," and "Subsidiary." Their gen- eral relation to each other is as follows: A. Privileged Motions. (Page 16.) 1. To adjourn. (Page 16.) 2. Questions of privilege. (Page 17.) 3. Orders of the day. (Page 17.) B. Incidental Motions. (Page 18.) 1. Questions of order and appeal. (Page 18.) 2. To withdraw motion. (Page 18.) 3. To suspend a rule. (Page 19.) 4. To reconsider.2 (Page 19.) C. Subsidiary Motions.8 (Page 20.) S 20.) 14 2. Previous question. (Page 20.) 3. To postpone to time certain. (Page 21.) 4. To commit, refer, or re-commit. (Page 21.) 5. To amend. (Page 22.) 6. To postpone indefinitely. (Page 22.) D. Principal Motions. (Page 23.) Any motion which brings original business before the house is known as the principal motion, or the main question, after it has been put by the presiding offier. It is the general rule that when the main question is regularly before the house, no other question can arise, unless it be either a privileged, inciden- tal, or subsidiary motion. These are called secondary questions, as distinguished from principal or main questions; their sole purpose is to help dispose of the main question, until they are decided. Among themselves, some of these secondary ques- tions take the place of others. Their order of preference is Privileged, Incidental, Subsidiary questions. Some of the sec- ondary questions, when decided, have no effect on the main question: these when passed dispose of the main question, tem- porarily or finally; if rejected they leave the main question as before. The table following page 34 shows the general relation of the motions, in the order of their rank or preference. A more detained examination of each of the more important motions fol- lows immediately. PURPOSE OF MOTIONS. The object or purpose of each of these various motions is usualy evident from the name or the nature of the motion itself. It may be well, however, to arrange them in groups showing their main usages. A. If a member of the society desires entirely to shut off further action on a subject, he makes one of the following mo- tions: 1. To lay on the table. (Page 20.) 2. To postpone indefinitely. (Page 22.) B. If a member desires to put off to some future time the action on any matter, he makes a motion: 1. Postpone to a time certain. (Page 21.) 2. To lay on the table. (Page 20.) 1Reports of Committees may be, 1. Adopted; 2. Rejected; 3. Laid on de table; 4. Amended; 5. Postponed; 6. Committed; 7. Re-committed, 2The motion to reconsider is not usually classed with the Incidental Mo- tions. For the purpose of simplicity this unusual grouping has been made here. aNone of these questions can supersede one of higher order. They are nama- ed here in order of rank. 15 C. If a member desires to stop further discussion and bring a matter at one to vote, he makes a motion: 1. For the previous question. (Page 20.) 2. To limif debate. 3. If a member desires to have some motion pass, but in a modified or altered form, he makes a motion a. To commit, refer, or recommit. (Page 21.) b. To amend. (Page 22.) 4. If a member desires that the action; of the society already taken on some matter be changed, he makes a motion a. To reconsider. (Page 19.) 5. If a member desires something to be done for the comfort or the rights of the society, or any of its members, or if he desires the rules of order being broken to be observed, he makes a motion. a. For a question of privilege. (Page 7.) b. He rises to a point of order. (Page 18.) 6. If a member wishes to have the ruling of the chair- S man reversed he makes a motion a. To appeal from the decision of the chair. (Page 18.) SPECIFIC MOTIONS. A. Privileged Motions. Called "Privileged" because they are entitled to precedence over all other motions. They are in order at all times, and any other matter of business must yield to them. 1. To Adjourn. (unqualified.) a. Requires second. b. Quorum not necessary. c. Majority carries motion. d. Cannot be debated, amended, committed, postponed, reconsidered, laid on the table. e. Is not subject to previous motion. f. Cannot be renewed unless other business intervenes. g. Next meeting takes up business in regular order. h. If qualified as to time or in any way, motion to adjourn ceases to be privileged, and be- comes a main question. .Form. Member: "I mave that this meeting do now ad- 16 1. Questions of Privilege. Concern the rights and privileges of the assembly and of its members. Supersede all motions except to adjourn. A mem- ber makes a statement of what he believes is a mat- ter of privilege. The chairman then makes a rul- ing, which stands unless an appeal is taken from the decision of the chair. A vote of confidence or of censure, or of reference to a committee may follow. a. Does not require a second. b.. Majority carries motion. c. Can be amended, debated, committed, post- poned, reconsidered, laid on the table. d. Is subject to previous question. e. Does not affect main question. Form. Member: "I rise to a question of privilege." Chairman: "State your question." Member: "I am charged with__ " Chairman makes a ruling, which is subject to appeal from decision of chair. 3. Orders of the day. The order of business is usually fixed, known as the Regular or General Ordlers, and the meeting must follow it. But by a two- thitrds vote any matter of business may be set for a certain time, when all other matters must yield to it. When the time set has come, a member may call for Orders of the Day, for it not taken up at the time set, the business loses preference. This is known as "Special Orders." The following rules apply to Special Orders. a. Does not require second. b. Require two-thirds vote for passage. c. Not debatable. d. Cannot be amended, committed, postponed, reconsidered, or laid on the table. e. Is not subject to previous question. f. Special orders take precedence over general orders. g. .An affirmative vote is to remove the ques- tion under consideration from the society. Form. (Special Orders) Member: "I call for Orders of the Day." Chairman: "Will the meeting now proceed with the orders of the day?" 17 Form. (Special Orders) Member: "I move that -------be made a special order for 2:00 p. m." B. Incidental Motions. These motions are entitled to pre- cedence over all, except privileged questions, and must be dis- posed of when they arise. They yield to privileged questions. 1. Questions of Order and Appeal. The rules and orders of any assembly must be enforced by the presiding officer without question or delay. Points very frequently arise when there is supposed to be a breach of order. When such a point arises the chairman makes a ruling, which stands as final, unless the assembly takes the matter into its own hands by "an appeal from the decision of the chair." The rules governing such a motion are as follows: a. Must be seconded. b. Requires majority vote. c. Usualy not debatable. d. Cannot be amended, committed, postponed. e. When debatable yields to the previous ques- tion. f. Can be re-considered. g. Cannot be renewed after once decided. h. When debatable can be laid on table, thus sustaining the chair. i. Leaves the main question as before. j. Not in order when another appeal is pending. k. In case of tie vote chair is sustained. Form. Member: "I rise to a point of order." Chairman: "State your point." Member states his point; chairman makes ruling. Member: "I appeal from the decision of the chair." Chairman: "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?" 2. To Withdraw Motion. When a motion is regularly made and seconded it cannot be withdrawn, ex- cept by a vote of the assembly. This is accomplish- ed by a motion that the member be allowed to withdraw his motion. a. Does not require second. b. Requires majority vote. c. Cannot be debated; amended, committed, postponed. d. Not subject to previous question. e. Can be reconsidered. f. Can be laid on the table. g. When withdrawn cannot be renewed same day. h. If carried, removes motion from considera- tion, if lost, leaves it as before. 3. To Suspend a Rule. Whenever it is necessary to depart from the regular order of business, a motion to suspend a rule is in order. In case there is no objection to doing a thing contrary to rule, there is no need for a motion. The Constitution and By- Laws cannot be suspended. a. Requires a second. b. Requires two-thirds vote. c. Cannot be debated, amended, committed, postponed, reconsidered, laid on table. d. Cannot be renewed at same meeting. e. Undebatable question cannot be made de- batable by suspending rules. Form. "I move that Rule - requiring -- ------ be sus- pended." 4. To Reconsider. It is a general principle that when a point has once been duly passed upon, it cannot be reconsidered. Any assembly can, however, vary this rule by carrying a motion to reconsider. A vote to reconsider a main question must be made by some one who voted on the prevailing side when the motion was carried, else a minority might indefi- nitely prolong debate. If the motion to reconsider is lost, the main question is disposed of; if the mo- tion to reconsider is carried, the main question is again before the house. The motfon to reconsider is in order at any time, except when another ques- tion is before the house. Even when another ques- tion is before the house, a motion to reconsider may be made; it cannot be voted on, however, un- til the pending question is disposed of. a. Requires second. b. Majority vote. c. Is debatable if main question is; opens main question to debate. d. Cannot be amended, committed, postponed, reconsidered. 19 e. Is subject to previous question, does not af- fect main question. f. Can be laid on table, not tabling main ques- tion. g. No question can be twice reconsidered. h. Cannot reconsider motions to adjourn, to suspend rules, to reconsider. i. If carried, the original question is again be- fore the house as if it had never been acted on. Form. Member: "I move to reconsider the motion- . " C. Subsidiary Motions. There are questions which help to dispose of main questions; and have to be becided before the main question to which they apply. They yield to privileged or incidental ques- tions. The object is to postpone or modify action on main question, definitely or indefinitely. 1. To Lay on the Table-(to take from the table.) This motion is usually resorted to when it is desir- ed to put aside a question for a short time. A mo- tion laid on the table may be taken from it when- ever the assembly so desires. a. Must be seconded. b. Requires a majority vote. c. Cannot be debated, committed, amended, postponed. d. Not subject to previous question. e. An affirmative vote cannot be reconsidered; a negative can be reconsidered. f. Cannot be laid on the table. g. Lays on the table the principal motion and all secondary to it. Form. Member: "I move that be laid on the table." 2. Previous Question. This motion applies only to debatable questions. Its object is to shut off fur- ther debate and to bring the main question to a vote at once. The operation of an affirmative vote is to put the main question without delay before the house. The previous question can be applied to one, or to several questions pending, as to post- pone, commit, amend, questions of privilege, or the main question. a. Must be seconded. b. Requires two-thirds vote. 20 c. Cannot be debated, amended, committed, postponed. d. Is not subject to previous question. e. Cannot be reconsidered if lost; can be recon- sidered if carried. f. Instantly closes the debate till disposed of, bringing principal question to vote at once. g. Can be laid on table-carries with it entire subject-main and secondary motions. h. If lost, leaves the main question as before. Form. _Member: "I move the previous question." Chairman: "Shall the question -_ be now put?" 4. To Postpone to Time Certain. When the house is willing to consider a motion, but not at th:: time when it is made, a motion to postpone to a definite time is in order. a. Must be seconded. b. Requires majority vote. d. Can be amended as to time (not merits of main question.) e. Cannot be committed or po:;r:)ited. f. Is subject to previous question-but this does * not affect main question. g. Can be reconsidered. h. Can be laid on table. i. A question postponed to time certain, can be taken up before that time arrives, by a two- thirds vote. Form. Member "I move that .--------. be postponed until S o'clock." 5. To Commit, Refer, Recommit. When an assembly is not ready, does not wish to vote on a question, it may be sent to a committee.for consideration and report. The motion to commit may be applied to any principal motion, amendment, or question of privilege. When this motion is carried it takes the whole subject to the committee. When once com- mitted, no motion can be made concerning the main question, except to receive report of the committee, to recall from the committee, or to reponsider. a. Must be seconded. b. Requires a majority vote. c. Can be amended, but only by changing com- mittee. 21 d. Cannot be committed or postponed. e. Is subject to previous question. f. Can be reconsidered. g. Can be renewed. h. Can be laid on table, taking entire subject. Form. Member: "I move that --------be referred to__ committee." 6. To Amend. In general a motion to amend is sub- ject to the same rules as the question to which it is applied. If a main question is committed, post- poned, or laid on the table, it takes all amendments with it. An amendment is always put before the main question. An amendment to an amendment cannot be amended. If one amendment to an amendment is not satisfactory it must be voted down and another substituted. An amendment may be made by "adding," "striking out," "insert- ing," or "substituting." a. Requires second. b. Requires majority vote. c. Is debatable, if main question is. d. Can be amended (once only). e. Can be committed with main question. f. Can be postponed with main question. g. Subject to previous question. h. Can be reconsidered. i. Can be laid on table, taking entire question. j. Not in order after previous question, post- pone, or lay on table is carried. Form. Member: "I move to amend by --------.. 7. To Postpone Indefinitely. A motion to dispose of a matter finally. a. Requires a second. b. Requires majority vote. c. Can be debated-opens main question to de- bate. d. Cannot be amended. e. Can be committed. f. Can be postponed. g. Is subject to previous question. h. Can be reconsidered. i. Can be laid on the table. j. Yields to postpone indefinitely. Form. Member: "I move that ....--------be indefinitely post- poned." 22 MonIONs N ORDER OF RANK (A) See 1. To Adjourn (3) page 26 See 2. Question of Privilege page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 See 3. Orders of the Day (Special) page 27 See 4. Appeal from Decision of page Chair. Questions of Order 28 See 5. To Withdraw motion page 29 See 6. To Suspend a Rule (4) page 29 See 7. To Reconsider (5) page (B) pa29ge See 8. To Lay on the Table (7) Sagee To Take from the Table 30e See 9. Previous Question (6) page 31 See 10. To Postpone to Certain page Time 31 See 11. To Commit, Refer or Re- page com m it (8) 32 _ See 12. To Amend (9) page 32 See 13. To Postpone Indefinitely(11) page 32 14. The Principal Motion See page 33 Must it e Sec- onded? Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Does it Open Is it Debat- Main Ques- Can it be Can it be Can it be able? tion to De- Amended? Committed? Postponed? Late? Majority No Majority Yes Two- thirds No -Yes- Majority each member may sp'k once Majority No Two- thirds Majority Majority Two- thirds Majority Majority Majority Majority Yes IMajority No Yes, if main question i6 No No Yes-as to time Yes Yes, if main[ question is Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No . . . . . . . . . . -. . .. . . . . . . . ..- - -. . . --- - - - - -. . .. . . . . . . . . No No No No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- - No No No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No Yes No No No Yes No Ye No No No No No No No No No ----- No- No No No es-as to time No No ----i- Yes No No -t Yes-not an Yes-takes Yes-post- amendment principal pones main to an amendt motion question . . . . - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -. . . .- . -. . . . . . Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N- No Yes-affects only recon- Ns sideration No-neg. vote No Yes- affirm. vote No Yea Yes-does not apply to main Yes question Yes-forces vote at once Yes Yes-forces vote at once Yes Yes-does not affect main Yes question Yes Yes No Yes-does not table main question No Yes-tables entire subjeci Yes Yes-tables entire subjeci Yes-tables entire subjeci Yes Yes What Majority for Pas- sage? Is it subject Can it be Can it be to Previous Reconsid- Laid on the Question? ered? � able? F Y No No Na otth i Yes Yes Yes No Ye3 No Yes-sus- 1 es Yes tains chair if carried .. . . . . . .. . . ..No Y es ..-- No Yes No No effect . . . . ... . .. ... . .. -... . .. .. Yis No effect Tables main Yes question and all secondary to it Compels imme- Yes diate vote on main question 2 Postpones en- Yes tire subject to time specified Commits main Yes question and all secondary to it No See note Removes main Yes question for ses- sion Yes Can it be Renewed? es-after herbusiness ntervenes Yes No No Yes (A) Motions are arranged in the order of their rank (except Reconsider.) Each can supersede one of lower order-none, except amend can supersede one of higher order. (B) Reconsider usually classed as "miscellaneous" motion. It is in order at any time. Can be applied to every other question except adjourn and suspend rules, and affirmative vote on lie on the table. How does it Affect Main Question- Main question first in order next meeting Merely suspen's action on main question See Note (1) Merely suspen's action on main question Does not affect it __ _ 1- I f [1] An affirmative vote on the orders of the day removes the main question from con- sideration; a negative vote dispenses with the business set for special time. [2] When the previous question is moved or an amendment and adopted, debate is closed on the amendment only. [3] Quorum not necessary to adjourn. [4] Cannot suspend Constitu- tion or By-Laws. [5] Must be made by one who voted on prevailing side on main question. [6] The previous question ap- plies only to debatable questions. [7] Motions once tabled must be removed by motion to take from the table. [8] Motion to commit cannot be made after previous question has been ordered. [9] To amend Constitution or By-Laws requires t w o- thirds vote. Motion to amend not in order after previous question, postpone or lay on the table has been ordered. [10] Motions, as a general rule can be renewed after any other motion altering the state of affairs has inter- vened. [11] Postponed in d e fi nitely yields to all secondary questions except amend. _____ i 11 V 1\ V- - --- D. Principal Motion. Any matter of business, regular- ly introduced before an assembly, is in the form of the principal motion, or the main question. When before the house, privileged, incidental, or secondary motions may be introduced: a. Requires second. k. Requires majority vote. c. Can be debated. d. Can be amended. e. Can be committed. f. Can be postponed. g. Can be reconsidered. h. Is subject to previous question. i. Can be laid on the table. j. Cannot be introduced, when any other mo- tion is before the house,-yields to all other motions except new principal motions. 2S PART II. PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE DEBATING. INTRODUCTION. Prepared by Prof. Rollo L. Lyman, of the University of Wis- consin. Reprinted with few changes by permission of the Ex- tension Division of the University of Wisconsin. We have offered suggestions as to the organization and procedure of debating societies. Methods of procedure for the first few meetings, a model constitution and by-laws, an out- line of essential rules of order, and convenient table of motions in order of their rank are all contained in this pamphlet and may be useful to those who are planning to organize a new society. The purpose of Part II is to discuss briefly the principles which underlie effective debating. First, there is set forth, the value of debating as a disciplinary study; second, suggestions as to the proper methods of investigation and of accumulating ma- terial for debate; third, an outline of the principles of analysis, evidence, and rebuttal fundamental in good debating. The central purpose in all of this work done by the depart- ment, is to arouse, interest in the discussion of public questions, especially among the young people of the state. "Tell me, said Goethe, "what your young men of twenty are thinking about, and I will tell you the future of the state." Very many of our public men believe that nothing could be done which would more effectually train the young citizens tn civic and na- tional affairs, than the formation and maintenance among them of a large number of active debating societies. I. EFFECTIVE DEBATING. Disciplinary Value. The disciplinary value of debating may be discussed under four heads: 1. Training in self control; 2. Formation of cor- rect habits of speech; 3. Organization of the power of thought; and, 4. Ability to recognize sound reasoning. I. TRAINING IN SELF CONTROL. A concrete instance will illustrate the discipline in self con- trol. In Harvard C611ege, a few years ago, there was a 'varsity football player who desired to participate in an intercollegiate 24 debate. He entered the contests through which the members of the 'varsity debating team were to be chosen. When his name was called to mount the platform in the first contest, this young man, who could dash fearlessly into a mass of Yale interference on the gridiron, was so overcome by nervousness that he faint- ed in the aisle and had to be carried from the room by his friends. He returned,, however, revived by the fresh air, grit- ted his teeth, clenched his hands, ignored his trembling knees and blanched face, and by sheer will power, forced himself through the first contest. 'On through the tryouts he went, gaining courage, poise, self-reliance in each trial. Finally he was awarded a place on the Harvard team, which later won a decisive victory from Yale. The victory over Yale, though it may have been especially pleasing to a Harvard football man, was of comparatively little importance. The real value to him lay in his victory over himself. This young man, together with hundreds of others who have had similar experiences, will tes- tify that the training he received in debating was of as great practical value to him as any other single detail of his educa- tion. The real significance of training in the art of public debate becomes clear, .when one considers the trend which modern education is taking. "Education," says someone, " is the or- gonization of the power of behaving successfully, in view of differing emergencies." The emphasis of educators is being transferred from the acquisition of knowledge to the acquisition of the power of doing things. Not knowing, but acting, is of primary importance to young people who are to take an earnest part in the world's activities. Education does not consist en- tirely nor primarily of what one carries away in the shape of knowledge. A large part of dducation is the power a man ac- quires over material things, and over himself, and his ability to mould or to change the opinions of his fellow men. Giving therefore, all due credit to those studies which open up the world of letters and science and leirn.ing, we still may safely claim a lasting value for a study of public speaking. Correctly followed out, this study teaches how to acquire self-confidence and control; how to make up one's own mind on public ques- tions; how to give practical oral or written expressions to one's own constructive thinking. This, then, is the province, an hon- orable and useful one, of the study of public speaking; to teach a young man or woman how to think out a problem, and how to present it to meet the needs of other people. 2s 2. FORMATION OF CORRECT HABITS OF SPEECH. It is not especially necessary to emphasize here the second- ary benefits which come from debating. Slovenly speech, im- perfect articulation, inaccurate pronunciation, to say nothing of the faults of incorrect grammar and limited vocabulary, are defects which indicate usually a lack of culture. Youth is the time when these shortcomings should be corrected. The abili- ty to speak clean, pure, finished English in a pleasing and con- fident manner is one of the greatest assets a man can possibly possess. A study which will insist that "for" is not "fer," that "government" is not "gov-er-munt," ought to have equal stand- ing with another study which insists that "o" is not "e" in some word of a foreign language. The disciplinary value may be said to be equal, with the balance of practicability very largely on the study of English. Moreover, a boy who learns that a harsh, rasping voice, or a deep, bellowing voice, is a defect which he can by effort overcome, is gaining some valuable information. Again, a boy who tries repeatedly to conquer his trembling knees when standing before his classmates or society mates, who attempts to look them fearlessly in the eye, and to express to them clearly and forcefully his thoughts, such a boy is bet- ter fitted to face an employer with a request, or to ask a school board for a position, or to act as assistant counsel for some older lawyer. Youth is the time to acquire. Many a public man today laments the error of his youth, by which he failed to get control of his hands and feet, his facial muscles, and his vocal apparatus while he was a boy with time for such matters, be- fore he had by habit confirmed himself in his bad ways. Train- ing in these essentials can be obtained in debating societies. In any town there are plenty of men and women who, when approached by young people asking aid, will gladly give their criticism and assistance. 3. ORGANIZATION OF THE POWER OF THOUHT. But the greatest return from debating society work is in the power of thought. Professor Baker of Harvard insists that his public speaking courses are courses in constructive think- ing. In other studies-language, mathematics, history-in the elementary studies at least, the mairn mental effort is in grasp- ing the thoughts of other men. Only in the original research which characterizes the advanced stages of these subjects, is the power of originating thought largely developed. On the other hand, the essence of debating work is originating thought. 2s A student is assigned a topic of local or state importance; he formulates his opinion after diligent research in all the sources of information open to him; he then places his ideas in such a way that others may grasp them. The fact that he has to act independent of instructor or textbook or formula, relying only on his own ingenuity and resource, develops in him the power of seli-reliance in his thinking. Here, then, is the greatest value of our literary societies and of debating work) This point may well receive concrete illustration. Suppose that immediately after the administration of President Roose- velt recognized the Republic of Panama, a student were asked to write an argurment on the qustion: "Resolved, that the recognition of the Republic of Panama was justified." He is told to look upon himself as an intelligent voter who wishes to know whether or not he should sanction the action of the ad- ministration. He goes to the sources of information, finds out the history of Panama, the previous relations between Colum- bia, Panama, and the United States. He studies the treaties which have bound these countries. Then he turns to the au- thorities on international law. He discovers the grounds on which recognition of a rebellious state is considered justifiable. He studies the precedents of recognition in the previous history of the United States. Then he turns to the official documents and other sources to find out exactly what was the provocation of Panama's revolt from Columbia; how strong the armies of the rebels and of the mother state wee relatively; what the charac- ter of the rebels was; what was the likelihood of Columbia's subduing the rebels, and similar facts. He then first takes the point of view df the supporters of the administration and for- mulates an outline of arguments in favor of the action of the administration, then from the viewpoint of the opponents of the administration he formulates an outline against the recognition. With the main contentions of both sides before him, he sees where the real clash in opinion lies. He determines which side has the preponderance of truth. He is now ready to argue. Believing firmly that the administration was or was not justifi- ed, as the case may be, he now arranges his thought in logical and sequential form. He masses his evidence on the essential issues in such a way as to demonstrate clearly the truth as he sees it. He is then told to consider the mental attitude of a man who holds the opposite view, and to rearrange and re- phrase his argument so as to meet the prejudices, opinions, and preconceived ideas of the other man. If he has carried out all 27 of these involved delicate processes, the student has grown in the power Qf research, in the power of constructive thinking, in the power of presentation. He has done mucn to organize the power of successful behavior in one difficult problem. He has learned something, depending on the fullness and ability of his work, of greater or lesser educational value. 4. ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE SOUND REASONING. There is another decided benefit to be derived from the study of debating; it teaches one to be on his guard while read- ing editorials or public letters, or while listening to any public speech. It enables one to cull out of public addresses those things which are not worthy of belief, and enables him to de- tect fallacious reasoning. The public have thrust upon them an incalculable number of public documents and addresses, only a fevw of which may be said to be sound, sane, sensible, convinc- ing discussions of public questions. Too many people are un- able to appreciate a sound argument when they hear it. Wit- ness the thousands who are ready to follow political dema- gogues in every campaign. The young man who has learned to watch carefully his own reasoning is not apt blindly to ac- cept the fallacious teaching of public leaders. The advantages, then, of work along these lines, may be briefly summed up as follows: The student gains in self con- trol, physical and mental. He learns, in his learning period, to articulate and to pronounce accurately and to vocalize accept- ably. He learns by practice how to acquire information on dif- ficult subjects; how to formulate sound judgments upon which to rest his convictions. He acquires the abilfty to grasp the central issues in any problem; how to present the truth as he sees it, to other men. Finally, he has acquired the power of distinguishing between what is creditable and what is not worthy of belief in all public discusisons. This is the educa- tional province of our debating work. It is worthy the effort of every teacher who desires to see his students grow in the power of "doing." Such work ought not to be neglected by any young man or woman in Oklahoma. In a hundred towns are public libraries which can furnish rooms for debating societies. Men and women who appreciate what this work can do for the state are needed to start such societies and by their continued interest to sustain them. That would be public service worth while. 29 II. THE ARGUMENT (*) ITS VALUE AS THE FUNDAMENTAL FORM OF PUBLIC ADDRESS. Having thus set forth the value of debating, it is our pur- pose now to outline the essential principles of good argumen- tation as the form of all good public address. When a man argues, he attempts to make others see the truth as he sees it. He is presenting proof that his view is right. He must support his statements with proof that shall convince fils hearers. But he must do more for he must present his evidence in such a way that his hearers, having been convinced, may feel an inclination to do more than say, "Yes, the speaker is right." They must say, "Yes, he is right, let us do as he advises." He must arouse in his hearers a determination to act. It is far easier to con- vince a man that the policy of his political party is wrong, than it is to persuade him to change his vote from that party, if he has long adhered to it. The effective public speaker is not the one whose hearers are pleased with his beautiful voice, charm- ed by his delightful manner and entertained by his address. "You," said Demosthenes to his great rival orator, Aeschines, "You make them say 'how well he speaks.' I make them say, 'Let us march against Phillip.'" The effective debater must not be content with pleasing; his purpose in speaking is ac- complished only when he actually produces a cthange in the actions of his audience. This is done by first convincing them that he is right, then by persuading them to act. In this sense all public addresses are exactly like debating. Whether one is giving the truth to other minds in an after- dinner speech, in a legislative address, in a sermon, in a eulogy, or in any of the other forms of public address, in each and every one he must apply the -same principles of conviction and persuasion which underlie sound argumentation. In short, the only distinction between the various forms of public address, is the adaptation of each to the particular circumstances under which it ,is delivered. It is high time that we discard the old *The principles of effective argumentation are set forth in this section as they are taught by Professor Geo. P. Baker of Harvard College. Professor Baker's methods are closely followed by all teachers of argubentation. The most reliable textbooks are: 1. The Principles of Argumentatioh, Baker & Huntington, Ginn & Co. 2. Argumentation and Debating, Foster, Houghton, Miffin & Co. 3. Argumentation and Debate, Laycock and Scales, The Macmillan Com- pany. 4. Briefs for Debate, Brookings & Ringwalt, Henry Holt & Co. 5. Forensic Oratory, Robinson. 6. Art of Debate, Alden, Henry Holt & Co. 7. Argumentation, Perry, American Book Company. 29 idea that "Oratory" is to be distinguished from the other forms of public address. The orator of today, is the good debater; adapting himself and his subject, to differing occasions and various audiences. The orator is a man who presents a truth effectively. And to present a truth effectively, either in writ- ten or in oral discourse, one must know the principles which produce conviction and those which underlie persuasion. Hence in studying the principles of effective argumentation, we study the fundamentals of all good public address III. ARGUMENTATION. An effective argument is composed of three parts, an intro- duction, an argument proper, and a conclusion. A. INTRODUCTION. The introduction is that part of the argument which cuts the whole case down to a few central or vital issues, upon which the decision of fair-minded men should rest. The good debater is not content to talk on the subject; he must go right to the heart of the case and discuss only the essentials. For instance, one debating the question, "Resolved, That immigration should be restricted by a literacy test," when he comes to debate finds himself grouping his arguments about the following central points: 1. Have illiterate immigrants pauper and criminal tenden- c nd. Are illiterates hard to assimilate? 3rd. Do they lower the standard of American life? 4th. Can a literacy test be effectively applied? Analysis. But these issues have not been chosen arbitrarily. They have been determined by a process of thought called analysis. It is this preliminary examination of the whole case, which re- sults in the selection of a few central issues, which must be found in the introduction. The various steps of analysis which precede good debating are five in number, (1) The origin of the question; (2), The definition of all doubtftul terms; (3), The clash of arguments; (4), The exclusion of extraneous, admitted, or waived matter; (5), A clear statement of the central issues in the discussion. 1. ORIGIN OF QUESTION-FIRST STEP IN ANALYSIS. T he starting point of any argument lies in the real or in the alleged existence of a human need. Some evils are complained 30 of. The first purpose of the argument is either to prove the ex- istence or the non-existence of those evils. If it is proved or ad- mitted that evils exist it becomes the purpose of argument to show that a certain remedy will remove those evils. For in- stance, take the question of municipal ownership of gas plants. The first thing a debater should ask himself is, why are we dis- cussing the question? He will find that citizens are complain- ing that private companies are charging too high rates for their gas and that the service rendered is poor. Before he can argue for municipal ownership or against it, hle must show be- yond doubt that the alleged evils do or do not exist as the case may be. Take as another example the case of railway rate-making by a commiqsion. The debater asks, what is the origin of this dis- cussion? Why are people interested in it? He finds that justly or unjustly, people are complaining that railroads are charging too high rates, and are giving poor service. It is further alleg- ed that railroads are giving rebates and discriminating rates, making it possible for large trusts to crush out competition. A disinterested, unprejudiced investigator insists upon first find- ing proof that these evils exist. If they do not exist, there is no debate. If proved to exist, then the question centers on the advisability of rate fixation by the proposed commission, as a means of removing existing evils. In the question as to restriction of immigration by the liter- acy test, when the debater asks, why are we interested in this question he finds the following origin of the question: 1. The volume of immigration has increased to over 1,000,- 000 a year. 2nd. These immigrants, largely from Southern Europe, are ignorant and illiterate. 3rd. Many consider illiterate immigrants undesirable in that: a. They have criminal and pauper tendencies. b. They crowd in cities and are hard to assimilate. c. They lower the standard of American life. 4th. Numerous bills have been introduced in Congress es- tablishing a literacy test. Thus, it is that the very first step for a debater to take is to answer for himself the questions: Why are we interested in this subject? Is there some evil admitted to exist, or alleged to exist? If this evil exists, is the proposed remedy satisfactory, or do some people object to it because another remedy is bet- ter? 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS-SECOND STEP IN ANALYSIS., The careful debater will next make certain that in his propo- sition there are no terms of doubtful meaning. If there are, he will at once make their meaning clear. An audience should know at once' exactly what the program is for which a debater stands. For instance, suppose one is arguing the question, "Resolved, That a commission should be given the power to fix railroad rates." Two terms at once need explicit definition. "A commission" is doubtful. The debater must carefully de- fine the nature of the commission, the number of its members, the scope of its other powers, etc. Then, what is this power of "fixing rates ?" In a recent Wisconsin-Micnlgan University debate each team had a different interpretation for this term. Wisconsin contended that "fixing rates" meant the substitution of a definite rate, for the rate complained of. Michigan argued that "fixing rates" meant the substitution, not of a definite rate, but of a maximum rate. Michigan showed that the Wis- consin interpretation was based on the Esche-Townsend bill of 1904, two years old, while their interpretation was based on the Dolliver bill of 1906. In two years the meaning of the term "rate fixation" had been changed. Thus it is that in the his- tory and development of the discussion lies the best method of defining all doubtful terms. Another illustration will show how easy it is for a debate to go astray, by a failure of the debaters to get the same meaning of terms. In the annual "joint debate" of 1905 between two of the leading literary societies of the University of Wisconsin, the question was, "Resolved, That a system of compulsory working-men's insurance should be established in the United States." At the close of the debate certain people were heard to complain that the two teams had been discussing entirely dif- ferent meanings of the term "compulsory insurance." Athenae seemed to insist that "compulsory insurance" meant that the employers should be compelled to insure their laborers. while Philomathia seemed to insist that the term meant that work- ingmen should be compelled to insure themselves. If the two sides did actually cling to these different meanings, there really was no debate. If the opponents are not talking for and against the same program there is no debate. Take the question of restricting immigration by a literacy test. Evidently it is important that opponents discuss the same meaning of "literacy test." The thing to do is to find out what 32 provisions of exclusion are found in existing laws. It will be discovered that the present immigration laws exclude all idiots, insane persons, paupers, or persons suffering from at loathsome or contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of fel- ony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, persons known to possess anarchistic views, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another or who is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown that such per- son does not belong to one of the foregoing classes, or to the class of contract laborers. All such classes brought to this country, together with those who shall become public charges within two years, shall be returned at the expense of the steam- ship company, or the person or persons bringing them. De- pendents upon a qualified immigrant include his wife, minor children, and grandchildren having no other support, his par- ents and grandparents unable to support themselves. If the present laws contain these provisions, the next thing to be determined is what the last bill, passed by Congress in 1896 and vetoed by President Cleveland, proposed as the liter- acy test. After examining this law the investigator finds that he is debating the advisability of requiring all immigrants over sixteen, years of age to be able to read and write in their own language. If, therefore, he finds his opponents arguing on a test which requires all adult immigrants to read the English language, it is easy for him to show that they, not he, are argu- ing beside the point. His definition of the doubtful term stands, because it has the authority of Congress behind it. 3. CLASH OF ARGUMENTS-THIRb STEP IN ANALYSIS. Another indispensable step in the good preparation of a de- bate is technically called the "clash of arguments." This mreans a careful balancing over against each other of the leading argu- ments on both sides of the question. Young students most fre- quently go astray, by disregardinig the other side entirely in the preparation of a debate. In reality it is even more important to know the opponents strong arguments and be prepared to meet them, than it is to know one's own case. A young debat- er, or an older one for that matter, can do nothing better than to take two sheets of paper, upon one list place the strongest argu- ments for the affirmative; upon the other place min logical order the arguments of the negative-then placing the two papers 33 side by side he can tell where the real vital difference in opin- ion lies. The issues in the debate, the points which he must prove in his constructive case, and those which he must dis- prove in refutation will appear in this "clash in opinion." Upon the fullness and accuracy with which he sees the strength of each side, will his analysis cut the case down to the real is- sues. The following illustration shows how a young debateir can well work out the clash in opinion, on the question, "Should the elective system be adopted in the high schools of the Unit- ed States?"1 AFFIRMATIVE CONTENTIONS The elective system should be adopted, for 1st. Each. high school pupil is beter able to choose for himself than are the school authorities for all, for a. There are no studies essential for all, b. Pupils do not seriously neglect the stiudies most often called essen- tial. c. There are many safeguards which inhibit foolish elections. 2nd. No other plan is as satis- factory as the elective system, for a. The group system is too rigid. b. A partially elective system is insufficient. 3rd. The elective system is su- perior because it stimulates teachers to do better work. 4th. The elective system is the strongest for building character, because it honors the will and trains in free choice. NEGATIVE CONTENTIONS The elective system should not be adopted for 1st. Those in charge of public high schools chn choose better for all than can each pupil for himself, for a. There are certain studies es- sential for all pupils. b. Pupils do not elect these studies. c. Pupils will choose foolishly. 2nd. There are compromises su- perior to the elective system. a. The group system is superior. b. A partially prescribed system is superior. 3rd. The elective system is ob- jectionable because it prompts teachers to make their courses easy. 4th. The prescribed system is of greater moral worth because it en- forces disagreeable tasks. 1Argumentation and Debating. Foster, page 44. Houghton, Mifflin Co. Once more take the question of "literacy test." Suppose one is called upon to support the affirmative. It is well for him to make out a list of his essential arguments. Then plac- ing opposite this list a blank sheet, write out the counter argu- ments which a skillful opponent will make. The affirmative maintain that il- The negative oppose the exclu- literate immigrants should be ex- sion of illiterate immigrants be- eluded because: cause: 1st. The volume of immigration 1st. The present volume of im- interferes with American laborers, migration is needed for a labor 2nd. Illiterate immigrants are supply. very likely to become public bur- 2nd. The illiteracy test is not dens. a just test. 34 3rd. Illiterate immigrants aggra- a. It is a test of opportunity vate the slum evil. only in Europe. 4th. Illiterate immigrants lower b. Illiterate immigrants do not the standard of life among Ameri- as a class become criminals or pau- cans. pers. 5th. The literacy test will help c. The illiteracy test shuts out a in enforcing present restrictive laws. great number of desirable men in order to shut out a few undesfr- ables. d. Illiterate immigrants do not as a class increase slum evils. 3rd. The test will not be effec- tive because it will be evaded. a. It will be only a temporary barrier. b. It will prevent cooperation with Canada and Mexico. 4th. If there are evils connected with illiteracy among immigrants, these will be remedied by recent legislation providing: a. Distribution bureaus. b. Increase of probationary je- riod from one to two years. The clash in opinion, then, is extremely useful, in showing exactly where the difference in argument lies. In the immigra- tion question, it will be seen that some arguments clash vital- ly; upon these issues, then, it is more than likely that the real debate will turn. 4. EXCLUSION OF EXTRANEOUS, ADMITTED, OR GRANTED MATTER. This is called the fourth step in analysis. In the public dis- cussion of almost any question the careful thinker finds much matter which seems extraneous to the real issues. Most qpes- tions of economics or politics are intimately associated with many other questions. To disregard all side issues is absolute- ly necessary. In the railway rate question the poor debater may waste half his time arguing about "over capitalization" of railroads, not seeing that this matter is usually admitted even by those who oppose rate regulation. If not admitted, it can be shown to have vital connection only with the question of high rates, being entirely extraneous to the issues of discrimina- tion of rates and rebating, which are the most important issues. Moreover, in almost every subject there are certain argu- ments which cannot be disputed. These are classed as "admit- ted matter." In the Nebraska-Wiscorin inter-collegiate de- bate of 1905, Nebraska argued for fifteen minutes, proving that 36 accidents on railroads are increasing in the United States at an alarming rate. They found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having wasted fifteen minutes, for Wisconsin ad- mitted at once that accidents are increasing, preparing to argue that the method of relieving this evil suggested by Nebraska was inadvisable. Careful analysis will prevent just such waste of time. Again, an argument closely connected with the question may be voluntarily passed by, in order to treat adequately certain more important issues. In the railway rate discussion, the per- sonnel of the commission which is to fix rates, and the ex- pense of maintaining it are certainly closely associated with the case, and in an exhaustive treatment of the subject would have to be taken up. However, many a good debater would waive these questions, yield a point, in order to devote his time to the real issues discriminating rates and rebates. Examine the clash in opinion on the immigration question (page 18). Observe that the affirmative argument "5. Literacy test will help in enforcing present restrictive laws," may well be eliminated from the issues, because it is extraneous to the real discussion. So in almost every debate, there are a large number of more or less pertinent arguments which bear upon the topic, but which do not touch the vital isues. These side arguments, a skillful debater will avoid, by carefully eliminating them from the debate in his preliminary analysis. 5. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL ISSUES-LAST STEP IN ANALYSIS. We hope that it has been made plain that all these various steps of analysis are work preliminary to good debating and that they must be taken by a careful debater after he has ac- quired all the information possible on his subject. After study- ing the origin of the question, making clear and sure the mean- ings of terms, examining carefully the case of the other side, rigorously excluding all matters which may be omitted from the discussion, the debater should have left the center, the heart, the vital issue in the case. These we may call special issues. It is well to state these to one's self in the form of questions, for instance: 1() Are the railroads really granting rebates today? (2) Can the Elkins law be enforced to stop 8 . them? (3) Could a commission change one rate without ser- iously disturbing a large number of other rates? etc. The main issues resulting from the clash of opinion on page 16, are given as follows:* *Argumentation and Debating: Foster, page 44. Houghton, Mifflin Co. 1st. Can each high school pupil choose better for himself or can the school authorities choose better for all? (Which depends on the subordinate issues?) a. Are any' studies essential for all high school pupils? b. Will pupils with free choice seriously neglect these studies? c. Are the safeguards of the elective system sufficient to. prevent foolish choices? 2nd. Is any other plan as satisfactory as complete election? a. ls the group system satisfactory? b. Is the system of partial elections as satisfactory? 2rd. Is the elective system superior to any other in its ef- fect on teachers? 4th. Do the moral benefits of free choice claimed for the elective system outweight the moral benefits of drudgery claim- ed for the prescribed system? The main issues in the restriction of immigration question seem to be as follows: *See Clash in Opinion, page 34. 1st. Does the present volume of immigration of illiterates seriously interfere with American labor? 2nd. Have illiterates, pauper and criminal tendencies? 3rd. Are they hard to assimilate? 4th{ Do they lower the American standard of living? 5th. Can the test be made effective? 6th. Is recent legislation, having no literacy test, sufficient to remedy existing evils of immigration? The first part of an argument, then, the introduction, should contain enough of this process of analysis, to show the audience why the issues, chosen by the debater, are the correct ones. The various steps of analysis given above, are: (1) The origin of the question; (2) Definition of doubtful terms; (3) Clash of arguments; (4) Exclusion of extraneous, admitted, or waived matter; and (5) A clear statement of the central issues. These various steps represent processes of thought, through which all careful thinkers go, before they determine what the central ideas of their address shall be. Not all of the steps of analysis 37 need appear in the actual debate, but not one step can safely be ommitted from the preliminary thinking of the debater. No better advice can be given to any student of public address, than to tell him to analyze his question thoroughly, before starting to write his speech, to choose a very few points, not over three or four. Being sure that these are the vital issues, let him mass his evidence and argument around them. Thus it is that the purpose of the introduction is simply to get ready to debate. The debate itself is left to the second part of the argument, the argument proper. B. ARGUMENT PROPER. ARRANGEMENT OF PROPOSITION. The second division of a well constructed argument is the argument proper. Having found the special issues and made them clear to the audience, the debater now proceeds to take them up one at a time and to present his evidence upon them. Suppose that one who is debating the literacy test for immigra- tion had determined! upon the issues as given on page 21. Let him now take six sheets of paper, upon the top of each one of which, let him write a proposition which shall correspond with his view of one of the special issues. He will then, supposing him to be on the negative, have six sheets of paper, headed separately as follows: 1st. The present immigration does not seriously interfere with American labor. 2nd. Illiterate,imiigrants do not have alarming criminal and pauper tendencies. 3rd. The immigrants concerned are not hard toc assimilate. 4th. Illiterate immigrants do not seriously lower the Amer- ican standard of living. 5th. The illiteracy test will not be effective. 6th. Recent legislation, without a literacy test, will go far toward relieving present conditions. It is perfectly evident that if these negative contentions can be established convincingly, the affirmative will have little ground to stand upon. Now it must be kept in mind that it is not effective debating, merely to talk about these points for the alloted time. Each proposition must be proved. The careful debater will know accurately just how much effective evidence he has at his disposal on each point. He will have determined before the debate just what is the best order and arrangement in which to present his proof. The best way to accomplish this 38 is to take each one of the six sheets of paper, and tabulate, clas- sify, and arrange on it all the evidence which is appropriate. For example, his first sheet may read as follows: The literacy test will not be effective, for 1st. It will be evaded by smuggling over the border, for a. It is impossible to guard 3,500 miles of border line. b. Authorities point out that even present laws are evad- ed in this manner. 1. Commissioner of Immigration, 1899-1900. 2. Investigation Commission of 1882. c. Chinese law effective until recently when steamer lines began to go to Mexico, because Canada shut out Chinese. 2nd. Canada will not cooperate in any immigration restric- tions if we insist on this restriction, for a. Canada wants settlers. b. Canada was ready to agree to treaty some years ago that was more moderate. 3rd. Test will not be effective in shutting out undesirable nationalities. a. It shuts out only a part of the Italians, etc. b. Italians, etc., are fast learning to read and write, c. Only effective legislation is to legislate direct. His second sheet may read thus: Illiterate immigrants do not have alarming criminal and pau- per tendencies, for 1st. Illiterate immigrants do not become public charges as proved by a. Statistics of New York City show: 1. Italians are only .65 per cent paupers, 1.4 per cent of workhouse inmates, 2.5 per cent con- victs in the city. 2. English with same population have 4.4 per cent paupers, 4.4 per cent workhouse inmates, 3.3 per cent convicts. b. Statistics in Census of 1890, which show: 1. Germans in the United States have per mil- lion population, 2,436 paupers, 1,065 prisoners. 2. The Poles have only 1,486 paupers per mil- lion population. 3. English, 2,163 paupers per million population. 4. Italians, 817 paupers per million population. 5. Portuguese, the most illiterate of all, have the lowest crime rate. 2nd. Literacy test shuts out 21 per cent of the foreign born criminals, but lets in 79 per cent. It shuts out 1,000 illiterate men in order to ex- clude three prisoners and eight paupers. 3rd. Illiterates do not swell slums,) because: a. Illiterate foreigners are 12.4 per cent of the popu- lation of the country, while only 9.34 per cent are in cities of 25,000. b. Thirty-eight per cent of illiterate foreigners over 15 years of age are in cities of 25,000. c. Forty-eight per cent of literate foreigners over 15 years of age are in cities of 25,000. 4th. Illiterate nationalities, not inferior races, because: a. Their history proves them worthy. b. They improve in America. c. The present feeling is only the customary prejudice. d. They are developing peoples. 2. EVIDENCE. As has been said( above, the real effectiveness of the debate depends upon the convincingness of the proof, which is pre- sented upon the essential issues. No one, therefore, can hope to be an effective debater, who is ignorant of the essential prin- ciples which govern the handling of evidence. He must know (a) how to find evidence, (b) how to value evidence, (c) how to present evidence. . 1st. How to Find Evidence. Where can I get suggestions? How can I acquire informa- tion and evidence? These are questions, which every young de- bater and many older ones, are continually asking. When questions of public policy, such as are usually debated, are put before the average young person he commonly finds himself at a loss for reasons by which to justify a position on one side of them or the other. He sees none of the ramifica- tions of the subject, does not perceive its precise adjustment to other subjects which must be considered with or separated from it, and does not appreciate, consequently, the re-adjust- ments involved in the changes proposed on resisted. The would-be debater must get into contact with the facts that bear upon the question. The statesman who frames laws and votes upon them, may act first t*on a general impression gained from personal experience. But personal impressions are 40 notoriously narrow, biased, and incorrect, so the government of the United States, 'the government of each state, and many cities and municipalities have experts which in the aggregate number in the tens of thousands, employed to compile the laws, to tabulate and interpret the statistics, and to investigate and devise remedies for the abuses in connection with a multitude of subjects of public importance. Upon the reports of these ex- perts the statesman puts his main reliance. Any citizen of this nation has exactly the same access to the facts presented in these reports as the legislator. These government reports are legion, in number. Many of them are veritable mines of infor- mation. While they are not scattered broadcast over the coun- try, they are distributed free wherever it seems that some wor- thy end may be accomplished. To facilitate the access of the public to the information thus published, the United States Superintendent of Public Documents, issues at the close of every Congress a catalogue naming and describing each gov- ernment document that has been published during the past two years. This catalogue, entitled, "Catalogue of the Public Docu- ments of the-.. th Congress" may be obtained from the Sup- erintendent, by any public library, either upon the request of the librarian or upon such request fortified by the influence of a congressman. This catalogue is issued as a monthly pamphlet as well, and may be obtained regularly in the same manner. The documents described in these catalogues may be obtained in the same manner as the catalogue itself. The document of greatest importance is the United States Census. It is the one great source of statistics, aind a complete set should be in every library if debating is to be fostered in the community. In the state of Wisconsin, volumes of statistics are com- piled yearly. No catalogue of these volumes is published, but the familiar Blue Book will show the different departments, bu- reaus, and commissions connected with the state government. Each of these publishes a report at least once in two years, and a request addressed to the head of any department will always secure the report as long as the supply lasts. City reports may be secured similarly, whenever they are published. Next to these official documents in importance, as a stimu- lant to original thought, and as a source of facts, are the writ- ings of interested men in magazines and newspapers. Poole's Index, the Cumulative Index, the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, are catalogues of the articles appearing in the is- sues of all general periodicals. One of these guides is sure to 411 be found in any library that takes any number of magazines. If the question for discussion be a current topic, a close reading of the newspapers and a clipping of the data which appears, will give a surprising amount of information. The Gleaner's Library of Beloit, Wisconsin, saves clippings on all the current subjects, and lends them for a small charge. This library affords the easiest and quickest means, perhaps, of getting newspaper opinion. The H. W. Wilson Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota, have also a large collection of useful material for debaters which it lends for a small fee. Sooner or later, in the study of almost any question, one will discover some society for the prevention or promulgation, re- striction or encouragement of something or other connected with the question. These societies are always glad to furnish their partisan literature. In every high school library there should be found one of the following books: 1. Brookings & Ringwalt: Briefs for Debate. Longmans, Green & Co., New York. 2. Askew: Pros and Cons. Swan, Sonnenschein & Co. Paternoster Square, London. 3. M)atson: References for Library Workers. A. C. Mc Clurg & Co., 215-221 Wabash Ave., Chicago. It is not our purpose to commend a slavish copying of the outlines of argument which they contain. Their purpose is to serve merely as models, but the bibliographies that are sub- joined are of prime usefulness, being well selected, pointed, comprehensive, and above all, ready made. With these sources of material in mind, it is now in point to indicate some method of study. If the subject for debate is of a nature purely local, interviews of men representative of either side, with a close reading of the local newspapers, will take the place of the course of study about to.be outlined. If the question i4 of general interest, however, it seems best to begin work by reading magazine articles so as to get a general im- pression of the scope of the question: of the meaning of the terms used in the various points of view from wnich it may be looked upon. Many debaters of standing take no notes except upon facts palpably necessary during this general reading, wishing to gain simply a general impression and grasp of the subject. Later, however, they take down striking expressions, strong para- graphs, and suggestive facts and arguments. They never crib 42 the language of the articles; they may quote it, giving the credit to whom it belongs, but more especially they mean to use these strong expressions as models for their own efforts, and as a means of charging themselves with the indispensable high potential of feeling upon the subject. The careful note- taker always takes down the pages and volume from which his reference is taken in order that he may refer to the setting in which it was found. From this general reading, however, some confusion of mind will generally result, from the multiplicity of ideas. The student should now be able to draw up the Origin of the Question (see page 13), define the terms (Ibid.), outline the Clash of Opinion (Ibid.) and determine the special issues. The student should not read all his magazine references first; a few should be read as already indicated, the rest in connec- tion with and as an interpretation of the more scientific treat- ises, such as the government reports, scientific publications, and the Census statistics which he will read atter making out the brief already described. These last mentioned sources should be the main reliance of the debater in securing the evi- dence and formulating his argument. The facts stated in these are first hand information and the opinions are unbiased by pri- vate interest. Upon this solid ground let his argument be builded. 2nd. How to Value Evidence. There are two kinds of evidence which a debater must know how to distinguish. a. Testimonial Evidence is that which is drawn from the opinions of authorities, or the direct statements of fact by witnesses. b. Circumstantial Evidence consists of inferences drawn from facts; in other words it consists of reasoning about facts. The distinction between the two kinds of evidence is well brought out by Professor Huxley in the following illustration: "Let us suppose that several boys go to a pool of water to swim. One of these is seen by his companions to dive into the water and he does not arise. His death is reported. This is called testimonial evidence. The boy was seen to drown, you are told, and your judgment concede the fact readily. But is the proposition proved? * * * The authorities, later, drag the pool and find a body. The body is taken to the morgue, and the keeper there, an expert on such matters, makes the startling assertion that, instead of a few hours, the body must have been 43 immersed for several days. He concludes this from circumstan- tial evidence. The keeper has no positive knowledge that this particular body has been under water so long. Still he has seen thousands of bodies and none has presented such an appearance after so short a period." * * * In the first instance the state- ment of the boys is testimonial evidence, sometimes called di- rect evidence. In the second instance the reasoning drawn from the fact as to the appearance of the body, is circumstantial evidence, sometimes called indirect evidence. a. How to Value Testimonial Evidence: If a witness testifies that illiterate immigrants in the city of New York tend to become paupers, how much belief shall one give to his statement? Evidently the value of his affirmation depends on four things. a. Is the witness an expert or an authority on the subject of immigration? A debater must always be sure that his hearers are willing to accept the statements of his authorities as worthy of belief. A man may be an authority on one subject, say the manage- ment of street railways, and know practically nothing about im- migration. If a United States Commissioner of Immigration witnesses as to the effect of illiterate immigration, his testi- ibony is ordinarily more valuable than that of an unknown slum worker; but the slum worker's statement is often more worthy of acceptance than that of the pastor of a wealthy city church; the pastor's statement ordinarily would be more valuable than the affirmation of a business man of Wall Street. Thus in every case the debater must carefully determine the right and the ability of his witness to testify. On almost every subject it is possible to find witnesses who give directly opposing testimony. Evidently that debater is stronger, who makes his audience feel that his witness is more creditable. b. Is the witness honest? Is he prejudiced? Secretary Taft applied this test to the evidence given by a certain Tracy Ribinson, a citizen of Colon, who had made dam- aging assertions concerning the work of the United States gov- ernment in Panama. "His animus against the government is because it devoted its first attention to the expenditure of mon- ey in Panama, and thus raised the value of property in that city; and secondly, that in the enforcement of health regulations by the sanitary department in Colon, he found it necessary to complain that his vested rights were being interfered with. He was willing to have sanitary regulations enforced against his 44 neighbors." Evidently the statements of a man so prejudiced against the United States government, must be accepted with reservation. Another interesting illustration is afforded by the two conflicting statements of two rival newspapers each report- ing one of the speeches of Senator La Follette in the United States Senate. One paper supports, the other opposes, Senator La Follette. He had a splendid audience, espect- The galleries were thronged long ally in the galleries. Here was, in before the hour for the Wisconsin the front row, Mr. and Mrs. Rowe, a man to begin. The corridors were former law partner of La Follette, packed with people who waited, many Lincoln Steffens, and the LaFollette of them, three hours in the hope of children. Senators gave only indif- getting inside. The seats of the Re- ferent attention to the speech. publican senators who left were tak- en by members of the House. Demo- cratic senators gave close attention. c. Is\ the testimony consistent with other known facts? Is it consistent with itself? For instance, it is contrary to all human experience that a gentle, timid, kindly, old woman should commit a revolting murder. Again, if A testified that he saw a blow struck with a sharp edged weapon, and it is proved that the wound must have been made by a blunt club, A's testimony is inconsistent with known facts, and must be discredited. Again, to be valuable, testimonial evidence must be consistent with itself. If a witness can be shown to give contradictory evidence, he is largely dis- credited. d. Under what conditions and circumstances was the testi- mony given? Was the evidence given freely or under compulsion? If a man accused of wrong is compelled to testify against his will, he has incentive to lie. If he is evidently trying to assist inves- tigators to find the truth, if he willingly presents his records and his books, his statements are more open to belief. Secretary Taft thus applied this test to the statements of a magazine article, the writer of which stayed only twenty-eight hours in Panama. "Assuming that after landing and docking, the writer at once began work, it is not unfair to say that his opportunities for observation were limited to twenty-eight hours, including day time and night time. It would seem not to be a long period in which to look into and determine the 45 character of engineering difficulties of the greatest construc- tive enterprise yet undertaken by man." b. How to Value Circumstantial Evidence: There are three common forms of circumstantial evidence: a. Generalization. b. Argument from causal relation. c. The argument from resemblance. a. Generalization is made when a general conclusion is bas- ed upon the observation of many instances. For instance, the morgue keeper, referred to in the illustration on page 27, hav- ing examined thousands of drowned people, has observed that several days under water produces a similar appearance in all bodies. This is generalization. If a witness testifies that illit- erate immigrants become paupers, he makes a general statement based upon the observation of an indefinite number of indiv- dual immigrants. If he has known only three instances, his generalization is not sound. If he has known several hundred his generalization may be sound. But suppose the seteral hun- dred he has known are admitted to be the very worst type of immigrants. Then his generalization is less credible, for the in- stances observed are not typical,-they are not fair samples of illiterate immigrants. To test a generalization, let the debater ask: (1) Has the witness observed enough instances? (2) Has he observed typical instances? b. Argument from causal relationship. This is the most common form of argument. If one passes along a road, and finds the trees broken, houses and barns blown down, men and horses lying dead, destruction and devastation on all sides, he immediately concludes that some form of terrific windstorm has swept through that section. He sees the effect, and reasons back to the cause. On the other hand, suppose he sees rapidly approaching him a cloud of peculiar shape and size, having a strangely ominous appearance. He recognizes it as a cyclone cloud, and reasois that if he is in the path of the storm, the havoc caused by it may injure him. He knows the cause and reasons to the effect. Simple as this reasoning seems, it is nevertheless one of the most difficult forms to handle. A man who argues that the panic of a certain year was the result of an agitation for free silver during the previous year, argues on the causal relationship; but he is fallacious, forgetting that most effects are the results not of one, but of many contributing causes. When, therefore, one finds himself tempted to use an argument from causal relation, let him ask: 1. Is the cause 46 assigned sufficient to produce the alleged results? 2. Are there any other contributing causes? 3. Are there any causes at work likely to produce opposite results? c. Argument from resemblance. Lincoln used the argu- ment from analogy when he said to those who were urging more active measures in prosecuting the Civil War: "Gentlemen, suppose that all the property you were worth was in gold and you put it in the hands of Blondin, the famous rope-walker, to carry it across the Niagara Fails on a tight rope. Would you shake the rope while he was passing over it, or keep shouting to him, 'Blondin, stoop a little more. Go a little faster.' No. I am sure you would not. You would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hand off until he was safe- ly over. Now, the government is in the same situation. It is carrying an immense weight across a stormy ocean. Untold treasures are in its hands. It is doing the best it can. Don't badger it. Just keep still and it will gets you safely over." In this case it will be noticed that the analogy does not prove, it merely illustrates; but it makes the reasoning extremely con- vincing. Frequently one hears "Municipal Ownership was suc- cessful in Glasgow-why not in our city?" or "Compulsory arbi- tration is successful in New Zealand, why not in the United States? These are attempts to use the argument from resem- blance. Now the value of such a statement depends first upon proof that compulsory arbitration actually was successful in New Zealand. But secondly, upon the similarity of conditions between New Zealand and the United States. A skillful debater will point, out two vital differences in condition, which render it extremely doubtful, whether compulsory arbitration, even if successful in New Zealand, would be equally effective in the United States. In the first place, New Zealand has less than 1,000,000 inhabitants, the United States over 90,000,000. But secondly, and more important, in New Zealand, the labor unions are compelled to incorporate, thus making them amenable to legal methods; in the United States, the unions not being in- corporated, have no legal existence, and therefore, it is impos- sible to enforce decrees of arbitration boards. In short to test an argument for resemblance, ask (1) Are the general conditions similar? (2) Is there dis- similarity in any essential particular? 3rd. How to Detect Errors in Reasoning. In the valuation of evidence one must constantly be on guard against erroneous reasoning. An unsound mode of arguing, 47 which seems convincing, but really is not, is called a fallacy. If the young debater will memorize the following list of the most common fallacies, and will diligently examine both his own argument, and that of his opponent, to detect errors which resemble the illustrations given below, he will go far toward protecting himself against unsound reasoning. a. Fallacies: 1. Hasty generalization. 2. False analogy. 3. Non-causal relationship. 4. Begging the question. a. Arguing in a circle. b. Assertion. c. Arguing from ambiguous evidence. 5. Ignoring the question. a. Beside the point. b. Shifting ground. c. Part to whole. d. Objections. Tests: a. Hasty Generalization. (See page 46.) Tests (a) Have enough instances been examined? (b) Are the instances typical ones? b. False Analogy. (See page 47.) Tests (a) Are the general conditions similar? (b) Is there dissimilarity in any essential particu- lar? c. Causal Relationship. (See page 46.) Tests (a) Was the cause assigned sufficient to produce the result? (b) Were there other contributing causes? (c( Are there any causes likely to produce oppo- site results? d. Begging the question. The three most important forms of the fallacy "Begging the Question," may be distinguished as follows: a. Arguing in a Circle. In this fallacy the debater assumes as true without presenting any proof, a point which is equival- ent to the conclusion he wishes to reach. For example, a stu- dent trying to prove that Mr. Kipling was not a great poet said, "Many of the poems are in grossly bad taste, for they are so condemned by critics of refinement, inasmuch as if they do not condemn them, they cannot be called men of refmnement." An- 48 other example follows: "A literacy test will raise the standard of immigration, for ability to read and write elevates the stand- ard of men and women." In this argument the student assumes- the last clause as true,-yet this last clause is exactly what he must prove to win his case. Test: Does the argument present any statement as proof which is practically the same as the proposition to be proved? b. Assertion. This is by far the most simple and common form of fallacy. By assertion is meant the mere statement that something is true, which needs to be proved true. We should remember that nothing is true, simply because someone says that it is true. For instance, the newspaprs are full of asser- tons; simply to see a statement in print conveys no assurance of its truth. For example, one who tries to prove the Swiss are good bowmen, by saying that William Tell shot the apple from his son's head, is making an assertion. Other examples taken from students' papers follow: "All illiterate immigrants have vicious tendencies." "The free silver agitation was the cause of the panic." "Lack of patriotism in the United States causes difficulty in recruiting the army." Test: What right have I to take this man's unsupported statement? Should he not support his mere statement with defi- nite proof? c. Arguing from Doubtful Evidence. Frequently a careless reasoner will present evidence which may be open to several interpretations. For example: "I heard him say, 'That scound- rel of a D has been communicating plans.' Dreyfus" name begins with D. He is under suspicion. Therefore, Drey- fus communicated the plan." Another example: "The slum. districts of the city of X- are crowded full of ignorant foreigners. This proves that illiterate immigrants crowd the low centers of our cities." Test: Even if the evidence presented is true, may it not have another meaning? e. The four most common forms of fallacy in "Ignoring the Question" may be distinguished as follows: a. Beside the Point. A reasoner is guilty of this fallacy when he talks not upon the real question, but upon some side issue. When the essential issue in the immigration question is found to be the effect which swarms of illiterates will have on. 49 siminality in the United States, it is beside the point to speak of the need for laborers in agricultural districts. Test: Does the evidence of the argument prove the essential point at issue? b. Shifting Ground. The fallacy is made when a debater being dislodged from one position, calmly takes another, and then another. For example, a student arguing in favor of the incorporation of labor unions argued first that incorporation would benefit the unions themselves; being driven from this stand by his opponent, he argued that incorporation would benefit the employers' associations; fina!ly, being compelled to yield on this also, he triumphantly closed the debate by main- taining that incorporation of labor unions would benefit the gen- eral public. The skillful debater will not allow an opponent to fly from point to point. He will hold him to the essentials. Test: (a) Is the opponent talking on the essential issues? (b) Does he hold firmly to one point of view? c. Arguing from Part to the Whole. It must constantly be borne in mind that what is true of a part may not be true of the whole. For instance, it would be very easy to cite many indi- vidual cases of illiterate immigrants who became industrious citiens; but because a small percentage of them are valuable citizens, does not prove the same desirability for the majority. Again in arguing for the "Consolidated system of township sch6ols"-a student having shown that the conveyance of pupils was practicable in many counties of the state, was surprised to find his opponent proving that in certain hilly countries near the Mississippi river, such conveyance would be impracticable. Test: (a) Does the evidence cover only a part? (b) Is this part typical of the whole? d. Objections. Merely to raise objections to a plan is not conclusive argument against it. It is obvious that any debatable question will have two sides. Therefore, when any new line of procedure is suggested it is easy enough to point out objections, often many of them. In almost every question, the decision must rest on not absolute-this is right-and this is wrong-but which is better, which is worse? For example one may argue tgainst the literacy test, that it is un-American in principle; that it is a radical departure from our customs; that it is unfair to certain classes oppressed in their native land-these and many other objections may be raised. But the skilliul debater will so50 hold his opponents carefully to the essential issues, even grant- ing that certain objections must be counted against him. Test: (a) Do the objections bear upon an important issue? (b) Do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? 3. HOW TO MEET YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS: REFUTATION. In the preparation of a debate it is of the greatest importance to be prepared to meet the vital points in the argument of the opponent. A very common, error among young debaters is to ignore the case of the other man. When' not confronted by an adversary on the same platform, it is easy even for an experienc- ed public speaker to forget that many people in his audience have in mind certain objections to his arguments. Let the de- bater constantly repeat to himself these queries: What has my opponent said on this point? What can he say? What ques- tion will my thoughtful hearers naturally ask about my argu- ment? How can I surmount this difficulty? Remember that the debater, or any other public speaker, is endeavoring to pre- sent the truth to other men, whose opinions and judgments, and even prejudices, he must respect. 1st. What to Refute. One cannot meet all the arguments advanced on the other side. He must, therefore, determine what the the essential points made against him and strike hard at them. Here again if the debater has analyzed his question well his task is com- paratively simple. Answer the opposing arguments which bear upon the special issues. Ignore all. other arguments. Suppose one is debating the literacy test for immigration. By careful analysis he has found that the vital issues are those enumerated above on page 21. Affirmative opponent argues that the vol- ume of immigration has increased with enormous rapidity. This argument can well be ignored by the negative, except irk so far as it has been argued that American labor is interfered with. Or the negative argues that steamship companies are largely at fault in urging ignorant foreigners to come to America. This argument, bearing on none of the special issues, may be ignored entirely by the affirmative. If, however, evidence is presented indicating that illiterate immigrants show an alarming tendency to become criminals or paupers, the negative must not fail to reply. Suppose that the negative should convince the judges that more laborers are needed, that the American ideal welcomes 51 the oppressed, that a literacy test is not entirety effective, that all foreigners assimilate readily; but that it fails entirely to meet the point emphasized by opponents, that illiterate immi- grants become criminals. In such a case the decision is likely to go to the affirmative. 2nd. Where to Place Refutation. Nothing is so fatal to good refutation as a memorized speech. One must cultivate the power of changing the order of presentation of shifting his case to meet emergencies that arise, on the spur of the moment. Certain portions of one's prepared speech may well be omitted, others must be emphasized, others treated hastily, according to the plan of attack made by oppon- ent. Rebuttal needs to be placed at the opening of a debate when a man is in favor of some new and untried idea. He must anticipate the objections which he knows are in the mind of his audience. An advocate of private ownership must very early in his debate dispel the fear that there are grave dangers of high cost and poor service in private ownership. It is well to leave a strong argument of an opponent for the end of one's de- bate, if it is certain that one can demolish it. The futility of making a weak answer to a strong argument late in the debate is too obvious to need discussion. Opportunities for rebuttal. The following ist of questions, drawn up by Professor Baker of Harvard College, will furnish opportunity for rebuttal. 1. Is the testimony of witness inconsistent with human ex- perience; with known facts in the case, or with itself? 2. Is there anything in the condition under which a witness testifies which renders his evidence suspicious? 3. Is the witness incompetent to testify because of prejudice or moral, physical, or mental weakness? 4. Is your opponent's reasoning based on faulty observa- tions? 5. Has he assumed the truth of a premise which you have authority to disprove? 6. Has your opponent ignored the real issues? 7. Are his generalizations sound? Are the instances observ- ed too few? Are they fair instances? 8. Has your opponent used as cause, something which is merely a coincidence or an attendant circumstance? 9. Has your opponent relied on a cause inadequate to pro- duce the result alleged? 10. Are there other contributing causes? 52 11. Can you detect any other fallacious reasoning? 3rd. How to Emphasize Refutation. This does not mean vociferous vocalization or violent gestio- ulation, which too frequently pass for emphasis. Emphasis in rebuttal means the handling of one's evidence in such a way as to prove that it is more worthy of belief than is the evidence of one's opponent. Never confront one witness by another, unless you explain how your witness is more valuable than your oppon- ent's. Again, make the significance of each portion of your ar- gument very plain. Show how your constructive argument de- feats the essential points which have been advanced against you. In emphasizing his point that there was a mutual understand- ing among various democratic leaders, culminating in the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln said: "We cannot say that all these exact adaptions are the result of preconcert. But, when we see a lot of framed timbers-dif- ferent portions of which we know have been gotten out at dif- ferent times and places and by different workmen, Stephen, Franklin, and James for instance, and when we see these timbers joined together and see that they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill * * *; in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that those four workmen all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked on a common draft or plan drawn up before the first blow was struck." 4th. Special Methods of Refutation. There are four special kinds of rebuttal which a young de- bater ought to be able to use. a. Reductio ad absurdum. b. Enforcing the consequences. c. The dilemma. d. Residues. a. Reductio ad Absurdum. This as the name signifies is to show an absurdity in your opponent's argument. The following examples illustrate its use. When arguing the question of secession, Daniel Webster maintained that if the doctrine of secession were correct, a cus- toms officer in any southern port, say Charleston, would be hanged no matter what policy he pursued. If he collected duties he would be hanged by the state authorities; if he failed to col- lect, he would be hanged by the federal authorities. b. Enforcing the Consequences. A most effective way of disposing of an opponent's case, is to carry his program out to its logical conclusions, showing that the results would be dis- astrous. Carl Schurz replies in the following manner to a Mr. Miles Lewis Peck, who had written him a letter saying, 'Conditions 53 here seem very unsatisfactory to you, Mr. Schurz. I wonder you do not return to your native land. That I think is the best way for those who do not like the views of the rulers of this country, the voters." Mr. Schurz replies, "The rule you lay downi is unreasonable. In justice you will have to apply it, as well as to me, to all other persons in the same predicament. You will then, supposing you to be in the majority, send all those who differ from you politically, out of the country, * * * but it is probable that the remaining majority also divide into par- ties. You, being always of the majority party, would then, ac- cording to your rule, read the new minority party out of the country. Now you see that this operation, many times repeated, might at last leave M'r. Miles Lewis Peck, on the ground, lone- some and forlorn, in desolate self-appreciation." C. The Dilemma. In this method of refutation a debater shows that his opponent's case has only two alternatives, neith- er of which holds true. For example Lincoln used a perfect di- lemma in his debates with Douglas. Douglas professed to ad- vocate both Squatter Sovereignty and the Dred Scott Decision. The doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty meant that the people of any territory could decide for themselves whether they would admit or exclude slavery. The Dred Scott Decision meant that a slaveholder could claim his slave in any territory. Lincoln saw the inconsistency and asked Douglas this question, "Can the people of a territory, prior to the formation of a state constitu- tion, in any lawful way exclude slavery?" This question pro- duced a perfect dilemma. If Douglas answered the question "Yes," he would repudiate the Dred Scott Decision and offend the South. If he answered it, "No," he would repudiate the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty and offend the North. Douglas saw his difficulty, and in endeavoring to avoid it, uttered what is known as the Freeport hearsy. He said that the people of the territory could not exclude slavery, but that by unfriendly legislation they could make it impossible for slavery to remain. Lincoln emphasized the inconsistency by showing that Douglas' reply meant that slavery could lawfully be excluded from a place where it had a lawful right to be. d. Residues. This method of refutation is used when the de- bater reduces the case to a definite number of alternatives, then taking them up one at a time shows that each is impracticable. Burke uses this method as follows, "* * * * as far as I am cap- able of discerning there are but three ways of proceeding rela- tive to this stubborn spirit which prevails in your colonies and 54 disturbs your government. These are, to change the spirit by removing the causes; to prosecute it as criminal, or to comply with it as necessary." Burke then shows that the first two alter- natives cannot hold, and continues, "* * * if then the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be impractic- able, i.f the idea of criminal process be inapplicable, what yet remains? No way is open but the last, to comply with the American spirit as necessary. or if you please, to submit to it as a necessary evil." C. CONCLUSION. Having discussed at some length the first two divisions of a good argument, the introduction and the argument proper, it re- mains to discuss briefly the conclusion. Any well constructed public address should place, at the close, the strongest ideas in a vigorous emphatic manner. Therefore, let the debater present a summary of the main propositions in his argument proper- showing exactly what ground he has been trying to cover. The relation of the conclusion to the other divisions of the argu- ment may be suggested as follows, supposing each of the issues found in the immigration question (page 21), is covered: A. Introduction resulting in issues. 1. Have illiterate immigrants dangerous criminal ten- dencies? 2. Do they lower the American standard of living, etc.? B. Argument proper, presenting proof of the propositions. 1. Illiterate immigrants have dangerous criminal ten- dencies. 2. They tend materially to lower the American standard of living, etc. C. Conclusion. Recapitulating the argument we find that the literacy test should be applied because 1. Illiterate immigrants are threatening us with crimin- ality. 2. They seriously lower the American standard of liv- ing, etc. IV. PRINCIPLES OF DELIVERY. Having spoken of analysis, evidence and rebuttal, it now re- mains to discuss briefly the fourth essential of good debating, presentation, and we offer to young debaters the following sug- gestions. 1. Voice. The voice is the most important organ used in public address. 55 Let it be mellow, flexible, forceful, then it will Ue pleasing. It is very important to be able to hear one's own voice, and to de- termine not to inflict upon any hearers sounds which would be distressing to one's self if they came from another. Few people have opportunity for extended voice training under com- petent teachers. However, when listening to a speaker, one will often notice one's own brows contracting, the throat becoming parched, the muscles tightening, and other symptoms of nerv- ous tension. Try to determine what characteristics of the speak- er produce this nervous state. Acting upon the suggestions that will be received in this manner, much can be done by a simple determination to have a pleasing voice, and by constant, careful effort to attain it. 2. Gestures and Postures. Let your gestures be few and simple. Avoid stamping the floor, or pounding the table. Stand quietly upon the platform; be self-possessed, but not dyer-confident. A restless shifting of weight from foot to foot, a nervous fumbling with watch chain or vest pocket, a steady swaying of the body, a constantly re- peated gesture-all should be avoided. Make your audience feel at ease, because of your own easy bearing. Frequently boys in public speaking classes ask, "May I put my hand in my pocket? May I lean on the table?" etc. An instructor replies, "You may do anything on the platform that a gentleman would do in the presence of ladies and gentlemen. In fact you may do anything which does not attract the attention of the audience from what you are saying, and to the manner in which you are saying it." In a word, stand firmly on both feet, and let hands and body and face help you talk, just as they please; with the single provision that youdo not make your hearers conscious of your gesticula- tion. A good speaker, who may have have used fifty gestures during his address, at its close may feel sure that he did not gesture at all. 3. Speaking Not Talking. Some one has said that the ideal orator is a man talking in a room to two or three friends. To a certain extent this is true. But speaking is more than talking. A speaker rises to his task. He is, for the time being, a leader of men. He knows or is sup- posed to know, more about his subject than do his hearers. He energizes his words, puts power into his delivery. Color and feeling creep into his voice. His own emotions find expression in his oratory, every nerve alert, and every faculty of mind and body ready for use. A good speaker judges the size of his au- 56 dience, the acoustics of his room, and adapts himself to them. He never overreaches-has always a reserve power, giving the impression that he could, if necessary, be much more powerful. In short, throw yourself into your work, stamp your own per- sonality upon your thoughts, be a man, the servant of an idea. . c injunctions which the good speaker must never forget. And now in closing, we wish to urge two things upon all young debaters. First, never miss an opportumnity to get upon your feet and try to talk. Do not fail to identify yourself with a debating organization. If you have none in your city, get to- gether a half dozen fellows and form one. The best way tb learn to speak is to speak-speak-speak. Second, form'the habit of noticing how successful* public speakers accomplish their results. Begin with your local preachers, lawyers, con- gressmen; notice their voices, their gestures, theit position, their feeling-all the elements of good delivery; and even more im- portant, watch their analysis, evidence, and refutation, keeping in mind all the principles which have been briefly treated in this bulletin. And above all, do your best every time you speak. If the occasion does not call for your best effort don't speak. Don't make speeches which amount to nothing. "Whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well." PART III. HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE. (Prepared by Rollo L. Lyman, B. A., Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, The University of Wisconsin. Reprint- ed by permission of Extension Division of The University of Wisconsin.) INTRODUCTION. In Part III an effort is made to put in outline form the es- sential characteristics of good debating. It is hoped that the pamphlet may be of value in two different ways. 1. To the Debaters. In preparing for a .contest the debat- ers ought to know with reasonable definiteness by what stand- ards they are to be judged, and shape their preparation accord- ingly. 4 2. To the Judges. This pamphlet may be sent to a person who has consented to act as judge,-with the reqpest that he read it, and accept its general principles with such restrictions and limitations as he himself may prefer. it would be a serious 6/ mistake for a judge to have the pamphlet in his hand during the debate. No score card method of marking is desirable. Let him merely keep' the suggestions in mind, not attempting to give numerical value to any of them. I. INSTRUCTION TO JUDGES.4 Instructions are usually handed to the judges of an inter- scholastic or intercollegiate debate, substantially as follows: "The judges are instructed to base their decision on the merits of the debate, not on the merits of the question. In es- timating excellence in debating, the judges may apply standards of their' own choice, except that they are requested to consider both argument and presentation." At the close of the debate each judge, without consulting his colleagues, writes "affirmative" or "negative" on a slip of paper. The presiding officer then examines the ballot and announces the decision. These instructions are intended to eliminate so far as pos- stble all bias arising from the opinions of the judges upon the merits of the question. The justice of this is evident, for in an academic debate, sides are frequently chosen by rotation or by lot long before the question is selected. The result is that one team may be compelled to uphold the unpopular side, not by choice or by conviction, but by contract. This feature of aca- demic debating, frequently criticised, can be justified. There are two sides to any debatable question. A good citi- zen should know how to discover the facts and arguments on each side and how to state them clearly. After he has studied both sides he should weigh them. In training tor such work, however, he studies both sides but presents only one. It is the duty of the judges to determine the comparative merits of teams of debaters solely by the thoroughness with which they have mastered both sides of the question and the skill shown by each in presenting the side it is required to uphold. Again, the instructions given above attempt to place the de- baters in a practical relation to an audience. Unrortunately most audiences listening to a school or college debate are intensely partisan. The judges keeping this in mind, should consider themselves representative, as it were, of the best opinions of arn *In all college and school contests, organized cheering should be discourag- ed. Frequentlyzeffort is made to create upon the judges impression of fairness by applauding most vociferously the opposing team. All applause should be limited to clapping, if indeed, it is not wise to prohibit all applause. Any rude or boisterous aetions on the part of the home audence or of a visiting delega- tion, intended to embarrass the speakers, ought in the mind of a fair judge, to. count against the side whose supporters are boorish. 58 -unprejudiced audience. They are to be open-minded listeners, unmoved by partisan expressions, with minds open to conviction -upon the subject of debate,-ready to cast their ballot for the best presentation of the truth.* The distinction between "argument" and "presentation" made in the instructions to the judges is purely academic. However, it is important and necessary. A debate is not a declamatory contest; neither is it a dry, un- interesting statement of quotations; facts, and figures. A good scholastic debate is a strong, effective presentation of clear cut logical thought, upon the platform with opponents who have -equal opportunities. A judge should carefully weigh both ex- cellence in thinking and excellence i'n speaking; he should award his decision to the team which shows the mnost effective com- bination of the two in vital give-and-take diseussion. In the following sections an attempt is made to set forth general tests to determine excellence in thinking and excellence in speaking -as they should be found in a good debate. II. EXCELLENCE IN ARGUMENT. A. Preparation. 1. Each member of the team should show general knowl- edge of the question, with ability to speak effectively on all the essential features. 2. The debaters should show evidence of having done their -own work. 3. The debaters should possess.a working knowledge of both sides of the auestionj A team is poorly prepared when any of its members are linited to a very marrow phase of the ques- tion. B. Analysis and Structure. 1. The speakers should confine themselves to a few major issues ia the question, avoiding unimportant issues. 2. They should define, and if necessary support, a clearcut intellignt interprefation of the question, early in the debate.* 3. It is unfair and unsportsmanlike to keep opponents in *It frequently happens that debaters go coqapletely astray, the sides failing to claslh, because each maintains a different interpretation of the question. When in this way the main difference between the two teams is on the merits of interpretation, the wise judge awards the decision to the side which upholds the simple intended meaning. He asks himself, "What would an intelligent man, attempting to arrive at the real issues, say this question means? Is there an attempt to uphold a far-fetched, technical meaning? Does either side quib- ble over doubtful terms? Is either side attempting to be petty or unfair?' SO the dark as to the constructive case. The team doing so should be penalized.* 4. A well constructed debate outlines very briefly, in the opening speech, the general line of argument the team proposes to advance. 5. Each speech should have a beginning, middle, and end; it should be broken into sharply marked divisions; not all mass- ed together. 6. The argument should advance progressively, step by step, throughout the whole debate, each speaker placing himself definitely iri relation to his colleagues.t +Clear transitions and frequent summaries, of course very brief, greatly im- prove a debate. "Now let us see where we are"-"Up to this point we have argued"-"Our case so far is as follows"-"Our case proceeds now with this argument"-These or similar phrases ought to appear in every speech. 7. There should not be sharp distinction in style between the "main" speeches and "rebuttal" speeches. However the sub- stance of rebuttal speeches must deal with arguments which have been advanced in the main addresses. It is contrary to the ethics of debate to introduce new argumnents in rebuttal speeches.$ (Distinction is to be made between new argument and new evidence. It is good debating to introduce in the rebuttal speeches new evidence on the important issues of the debate. C. Burden of Proof. 1. The affirmative has the initial burden of proof. That is, the side which is advocating something new,-a departure from established laws or customs-has the burden. 2. Each of the main issues involves a separate burden of proof.� SFor example, in the debate, "Resolved that football should be abolished," say there are three main issues: (1) Is it a dangerous sport? (2) Does it hurt scholarship of players? (3) Does it teach fearlessness and self-reliance? The initial burden is on the affirmatre upon each issue. Suppose that the affirma- tive recites much evidence to show the danger of the sport-in so doing they have shifted the burden of proof on this issue upon the negative. The nega- tive by showing clearly that other sports are relatively far more fatal; that re- ports of football injuries are grossly exaggerated, may shift the burden of proof on this issue back upon the affirmative. This shifting back and forth of the burden of proof applies to everyone of the major issues raised in the debate. 3. The burden of proof may be shifted to the negative. D. Logic and Evidence. 1. Generalizations must be sound. A general conclusion *This is a common trick on the part of the negative. They are content to advance objections (see page 8) against the opposition, leaving their own con- structive case to the very end of the debate when opponents have little time- to reply. This practice is contrary to the ethics of good debating. 60 drawn from a very few instances is fallacious; a very common error in all debating. 2. The relation between cause and effect must be made clear -not assumed. The common fallacy lies in assigning some re- sult to one cause, when in reality many causes have been at work. 3. Where arguments from resemblance (commonly called analogy) are used, the definite specific points of close similari- ty must be pointed out. 4. Unsupported assertions on the part of either side are worthless. "We think-" "I believe-" "All authorities agree-" etc., usually indicates very poor debating. 5. The continual and frequent citation of authorities* is ob- jectionable. Far better to cite few authorities, taking time to explain their credibility to the audience.t *In general there is altogether too much citing of authority. After all, a quotation is merely some one's opinion, and is therefore assertion one step removed. -A common weakness in debating is illustrated as follows: "Our opponents have cited Mr. (X) and Mr. (Y) as authorities on this point. We call your attention to what Mr. (M) and Mr. (N) have to say. We leave the decision with you." Of course the good debater enters into the relative credibility of the opposing authorities, if possible givng the evdence upon which his own au- thorities base their statements. 6. A debater "begs the question" when he makes general broad references to evidence that may clinch his point under one interpretation, but "does not necessarily imply what the reasoner assumes it does." The question is whether or not the evidence cited may not be open to other interpretations. 7. It does not follow that because certain facts or premises are true, that the conclusions deducted from them are true. This fallacy is called "Non sequitur." (It does not follow).$ Skill in avoiding this error, and in detecting it in opposing arguments is one of the best signs of good debating. tIllustration of Non sequitur. In a debate on Municipal Ownership of Water Works, it is a common error to cite evidence showing that under city ownership the rates to the consumer have increased materially. From this true premise the debater leaps to the conclusion that municipal ownership raises the prices to the consumer. Now it may be true that while rates have risen 5 per cent the quality of service has improved 50 per cent. In short, the consumer may be receiving much more for his money, even under the higher rate. Therefore the conclusion, that Municipal Ownership raises rates, does not follow from the premise. 8. "Shifting Ground" is another common fallacy. A care- less debater when pressed hard shifts from his original position, into a new position, closely allied to the first. The good debater stands squarely by the propositions he has undertaken to estab- lish. Qualified conclusions are always bad. 9. Perhaps the most frequent error is called the fallacy of 61 "objections." Poor debaters are content to point out a large number of objections to some new proposal, forgetting that in any debatable propositiori weaknesses can be pointed out on both sides. The good debater remembers that in reaching a final decision, advantages must always be weighed over against disadvantages. Excellence in debate is primarily based on the ability to bring out the comparative nature of the two sides, showing as it may be, the preponderance of good and evil in- volved. E. Rebuttal. 1. Rebuttal speeches should be confined to a few main con- tentions of the opposition. Selecting at random the points to which to make replyi means scattering ineffective rebuttal. No speech of five minutes should cover more than three or four points. Let these be the larger issues of the debate. 2. Refutation should be scattered throughout the debate. When a debater is preparing his constructive case, he should anticipate the reply w'hich a skillful opponent is bound to make, and make provision for it.* *Anticipatory rebuttal is one of the best marks of good debating. Such our opponents object at this point " "The obvious re- ply of the gentlemen must be " "A skillful opponent might reply-" ebating. The team which advances its constructive case ir- respective of the reply of the opposition, is debating poorly. 3. Replies must be strongly supported with reason and evi- dence. A perfunctory reply showirrg merely that the opposi- tion has made a good point is worse than useless. It merely emphasizes the opponent's argument. 4. Marked distinction in manner and style of presentation, between the main speeches and the rebuttal speeches-is indi- cative of poor preparation. To every possible position of op- ponents, each member of a team should have made reply so often in practice debates, that no hesitancy or doubt need mar his final presentation.t -Skillful debaters prepare for rebuttal just as thoroughly as for constructive work. Nothing, except possibly the phrasing should be left for extempore treatment. Knowing both sides of the case thoroughly, they are certain what opponents must say. III. EXCELLENCE IN PRESENTATION. A. Position and Bearing. 1. Speakers should stand erect, vigorous, with plenty of dignity and reserve. Shrinking, timidity, stammering or wan- dering aimlessly about the platform indicate bad form. 2. Speakers should look the audience squarely in the eyes, not over their heads, or out of the windows. 6! 3. Speakers should be absolutely free from all personal show in dress and manner. 4. Conceit and cockiness should be severely penalized. 5. Speakers should be uniformly courteous both to their opponents and to the audience. In every respect they are to be gentlemen. 6. Scrupulous care should be taken to answer promptly the warning signals. Each speaker should stop instantly at the ap- pointed time, even if in the middle of a sentence. 7. Anxiety about the time, and expressions of surprise or disgust when stopping signal is given, are extremely bad form. 8. About the most definite proof of weakness is to run out of things to say, thus being compelled to stop before the bell. B. Style. 1. The speaking should be simple and, even when fervent, conversational. A vigorous aggressive conversational style is best. 2. A memorized speech, which results in declamatory style, *is far easier to present than is an extempore address. Judges should give due credit to the debaters who "speak from their feet." *The purpose of school debating is to teach young men to think and to speak their thoughts and effectively. Debaters who are so trained should be given precedence over those who recite vigorously memorized speeches. The college or high school debater who declaims, in all probability has not written the speech himself. Too much help by the coaches is doing much to bring disrepute upon all debating. If judges have the scourage to distinguish between declamation and speaking from the floor, they can do much to raise the standard of school debating. 3. Grammar and diction should be uniformly good. Occa- sional slips in grammar may, however, be indicative of extem- pore speaking, and should not be penalized. C. Voice. 1. Vocalization should be quiet and pleasant. Shrill or harsh voices are unpleasant, and contribute to bad speaking. 2. Commendable effort to soften a harsh, unpleasing voice should be given credit. 3. Voices should respond readily to variety in thoughts and feeling. Dull, monotonouq vocalization is a mark of bad speak- ing. 4. Speakers should be easily heard; mumbling and indistinct voices are bad. D. Gestures. 1. All gestures and movements should be simple and nat- 6S -ural. Far better to have no gestures at all, than that they be forced and artificial. 2. Stamping the feet, pounding the table, and shaking the -fist at audiences or opponents all are in bad form. E. Personality. 1. This most essential element of good speaking cannot be defined. The speaker who possesses personality is alive, ener- getic, responsive, has light and shade-enthusiasm. Often the heart of the speaker, full of sincerity and conviction, lifts him above the limitations of voice and body, into real eloquence. Not many college or school speakers have personality, nor can it be assumed. Diligent conscientious application resulting in a burning desire to tell the truth, may awaken personality. 2. Remembering that there is truth on both sides of a de- batable question, no debater need ever fail to show deepest con- viction in his speaking. Earnestness and sincerity even if ac- companied by bad technique, should be given more credit than -mere hollow declamation. CONCLUSION. Finally, it would be a grave mistake to give equal credit to thinking and to speaking as they have been distinguished. It is a truism of public speech that what is said is much more im- portant than how it is said. To attempt definite numerical re- lation, indicating value to be ascribed to speaking and to think- ing, is unsafe. Sometimes in public speech, the thinking is so worthless that for an intelligent audience the speech is wasted time; even more frequently the technique of a speaker is so bad, that the audience is able to absorb little of his thought. The best, therefore, that a judge can do is to evaluate first structure, substance, logic, evidence-awarding roughly 75 per cent. credit to the thought; next to evaluate the technique of presentation, alloving 25 per cent. weight to the delivery. Skill- ful thinking is worth far more than skillful speaking. Above all, judges should remember that a school debate Is a means, not an end. The debaters are learners. No great importance as to the merits of the question hangs upon the decision. The merits of debating-the best presentation of the truth in a liv- ing vital discussion-this is the supreme test of excellence. 64 INDEX Admitted Matter 35 Adjourn, Motion to .16 Appeal ---- ---- ---18 Amendments_ ..- 11,16, 22 Analysis .....30 Argument- ----_ 29,30 " How to Meet -------51 " What to Refute -..51 " Excellence of ------- 59 Arguing in a Circle- - _ _48 " from doubtful ev. - 49 " beside to point - 49 " from part to whole 50 Argumentation -------- 30 Arrangement of the Prop'n --. 30 Assertion .--------..... 30 Ayes and noes -12-14 Ballot - - - _ 10 Begging the Question ..61 Burden of Proof ------------60 By-Laws ----- - -- --- 9 Clash of Argument -. 33 Classes of Motions ..14 Commit. Motion to ----------21 Committee of the whole -....11-13 Conclusion . _-- - _- 55, 64 Consequences, enforcing .----53 Constitution and By-Laws -...7 Courtesy _ ------------------4 Debating against convictions 4 " Clubs, organizing -.5 Definition of terms -.... -- 32 Delivery, principles of . 55 Dilemma - - 54 Disciplinary value ----- - 24 Election of Officers....... 8 Errors in Reasoning 47 Evidence, How to find _. 40 " value -.- ... 43 kinds of 43 Testimonial 43-44 Circumstantial 43, A g Extraneous Matter ---------- 35 Excellence of Argument S... 59 Fines ....--------------------10 Formal debates -9 Formalities - ....- . S Formation correct habits . 20 Gestures --.........-.. 56, 6 ; How to judge a debate - . 5 7 Improper conduct - 8, 10 Incidental motions- .... 18 Informal debates - - - -- Initiation fee .8 Judges of debate ...---- ..10) Judges, inctructions to _ ___57, 5 Lay on the table --15, 20 Loan of Materials ...------------7 Logic and Evidence - - _60 Meetings 1st, 2nd and 3rd 5, 6 " Constitution- - _-_8 Members, admission ... ----------8 " Suspension ----. 8 Motions 1---------- - 3-23 " Classes of - -14 S Purpose of ..---------15 Non Sequitur.. _ .61 Objections _ 50 Open mind .---------------.--3 Organization Debating Clubs - -5 " of thought --_...26 Orders of the day -- - 17 Origin of Question -----------30 Order of Exercises ----------- 9 Part I . . -----------------3 Part II.------------------24 Part III.------------------- 57 Personality --------. --- . 64 Postpone, motion to 15, 21,22 Postures - 56, 62 Privileged Motions.... 14, 15, 16 " Questions - . -17 Previous Questions - -- 16, 20 Precedence of Motions-------- 12 Principles of Effective debate- .24 Principal Motions -.....- 23 Points of Order . .._ . 18 Quorum -- - - - - - -- - - 9, 13 Rebuttal . . . . . . 52,62 Reconsider. Motion to ---- 16,19 Reductio ad absurdum --- -53 Refer, Motion to .. - - - . 21 Refutation, Where to place - . 52 " How to emphasize . 53 " Methods of ----------53 Residues -- -- 54 Reports of Committees 14, 15 Robert's Rules of Order ----.11 Rules of Order ._- ..... 12 Rules for Debate --- -_9 Self-ControL - ---- ------.24 Shifting ground S- - 50, 61 Sound reasoning, recognizing ...28 Special issues .--------------.36 Speaking, number of times .. 11 Standing rules- ..... 11, 12 Subsidiary Motions ---------20 Suspension of Members -------10 " of Rules -. . 11, 19 Taxes - - - - --- - --- - - 10 Vacancies -- ---- --. 8 Voting ---------------------13 Withdrawing Motions -........18 The University Bulletin has been established by the university. The reasons that have led to such a step are: first, to provide a means to set before the people of Oklahoma, from time to time, information about the work of the different departments of the university: and, second, to provide a way for the publishing of departmental reports papers, theses, and such other matter as the university believes would be helpful to the cause of education in our state. The Bulletin will be sent post free to all who apply for it. The university desires especially to exchange with other schools and colleges for similar publications. Communications should be addressed: THE UNIVERSITY BULLETIN University Hall, Norman, Oklahoma. OLAOMAno UNIVERSITY PRESS, This book is a preservation facsimile produced for the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It is made in compliance with copyright law and produced on acid-free archival 60# book weight paper which meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper). Preservation facsimile printing and binding by Northern Micrographics Brookhaven Bindery La Crosse, Wisconsin 2012