First, Sir, permit me to observe that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered.My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence.A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along with our own, because in all parts it is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict; and still less in the midst of it. I may escape; but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let me add that I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit: because it is the spirit that has made the country.Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so. But we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more salutary than our penitence.
First, Sir, permit me to observe that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered.
My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence.
A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along with our own, because in all parts it is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict; and still less in the midst of it. I may escape; but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let me add that I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit: because it is the spirit that has made the country.
Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so. But we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more salutary than our penitence.
2. Wells'sGeometrygives the following proposition: "Two perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel." The evidence given is: "If they are not parallel, they will, if sufficiently produced, meet at some point, which is impossible, because from a given point without a straight line but one perpendicular can be drawn." Is this evidence sufficient to constitute proof? Does it convince you? Why, or why not?
3. Set down as much evidence as you can think of in ten minutes, to convince a business man that a high-school education is an advantage in business life.
4. Support the statement that football has benefited or harmed this school, with five truthful statements that are evidence. Indicate which ones would be most effective, if you were speaking to the students, and which would make the strongest impression on the faculty.
5. In the following statements of testimony, tell which ones would be good evidence and which not. Tell why or why not in each case.
(1) X, a student, was told that unless he should point out the pupil who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled. X then said that Y was guilty.(2) James Brown, a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol is beneficial to all persons.(3) John Burns, a labor leader, declares that labor unions are beneficial to trade.(4) F. W. McCorkle, a large manufacturer, states that labor unions have proved beneficial to commerce.(5) Professor Sheldon, a college president and profound student of economics, has declared that labor unions help the trade of the world.(6) Henry Hawkins, a student at the Johnstown High School, asserts that they have the best football team in the state.(7) M. Metchnikoff, chief attendant at the Pasteur Institute, says: "As for myself, I am convinced that alcohol is a poison." M. Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine, states: "Alcohol is not a food, even though it may be a fuel."(8) Lord Chatham, a member of the English Parliament, said, in speaking of the Revolutionary War: "It is a struggle of free and virtuous patriots."
(1) X, a student, was told that unless he should point out the pupil who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled. X then said that Y was guilty.
(2) James Brown, a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol is beneficial to all persons.
(3) John Burns, a labor leader, declares that labor unions are beneficial to trade.
(4) F. W. McCorkle, a large manufacturer, states that labor unions have proved beneficial to commerce.
(5) Professor Sheldon, a college president and profound student of economics, has declared that labor unions help the trade of the world.
(6) Henry Hawkins, a student at the Johnstown High School, asserts that they have the best football team in the state.
(7) M. Metchnikoff, chief attendant at the Pasteur Institute, says: "As for myself, I am convinced that alcohol is a poison." M. Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine, states: "Alcohol is not a food, even though it may be a fuel."
(8) Lord Chatham, a member of the English Parliament, said, in speaking of the Revolutionary War: "It is a struggle of free and virtuous patriots."
6. On the basis of your answers to 5, state three conditions that would make a man's speaking or writing weak evidence as testimony; three that would make a man's testimony strong.
7. In Exercise 5 is (3), (4), or (5) the strongest testimony in favor of labor unions. Why? Which is next?
8. Can you see one danger of relying on testimony alone for evidence?
When a builder begins the construction of a wall, he must have the proper material at hand. When an engineer begins the construction of a steel bridge, he must have metal of the right forms and shapes. Neither of these men, however, can accomplish the end which he has in mind unless he takes this material and puts it together in the proper way. So it is with the debater. He may have plenty of good evidence, but he will never win unless that evidence is organized, that is, put together in the most effective manner.
The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get the correct form by pouring the concrete into a mold. So also, there is a mold which the debater should use in shaping his evidence. When the evidence has been put into this form, the debater is said to have constructed abrief.
In a previous lesson we saw how we might prove that John Quinn was a dangerous man by using the evidence of a court record. If we had put that evidence in brief-form we should have had this:
The brief, then, is a concise, logical outline of everything that the speaker wishes to say to the audience.
Its purpose is to indicate in the most definite form every step through which the hearers must be taken in order that the proposition may at last be fully accepted by their experience.
The brief is for the debater himself. He does not show it to the audience. It is the framework of his argument. It is the path which, if carefully marked out, will lead to success.
Now, as we have seen, there are three principal steps in debating:
The first two of these steps constitute what in the brief is called theIntroduction.
The third step, proving the issues, is the largest part of the brief and is called theBodyor theProof.
In addition to these two divisions of the brief there is a sort of formal summary at the end called theConclusion.
The skeleton of a brief then would be as follows:
INTRODUCTION
In which: (1) the desired end is made clear; (2) the issues are determined.
PROOF
In which the issues are stated as declarations or assertions and definite reasons are given why each one should be believed. These reasons are in turn supported by other reasons until the assertion is finally brought within the hearers' experience.
CONCLUSION
In which the proof is summarized.
Of course no two briefs are identical, but all must follow this general plan. Suppose we look at what might be called a model brief.
MODEL BRIEF
Statement of proposition.
INTRODUCTION
PROOF
CONCLUSION
Therefore, since we have shown: (1) that the first issue is true by this evidence, (2) that the second issue is well founded by this evidence; (3) that the third and fourth, etc.; we conclude that our proposition is true.
Now, let us look at a special brief, made out in a high-school debate, for a special subject.
The preceding is an affirmative brief and there were four issues. In the following we have a negative brief, in which there were three issues. Refutation is introduced near the close of the proof.
Of this we shall see more in the next lesson.
BRIEF FOR NEGATIVE
INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS
INTRODUCTION
PROOF
REFUTATION
CONCLUSION
Since there is no opportunity for serious abuse arising from contests between schools, and since the adoption of contests within the schools alone would lessen the democracy of contests as a form of education, and since the proposed plan is impracticable in theory and has never been put into successful operation, the negative concludes that the substitution of intra for inter contests is not desirable in the high schools of Northern Illinois.
From these illustrative briefs we can draw:
RULES FOR BRIEFING
The introduction should contain only such material as both sides will admit, or, as you can show, should reasonably admit, from the phrasing of the proposition.
Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of all statements and substatements.
Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the proposition.
Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or statement that it supports.
Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting statements should be followed by the word "for."
Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason should be no more than a simple, complete, declarative sentence.
The word "for" should never appear as a connective between a statement and substatement in the introduction.
The words "hence" and "therefore" should never appear in the proof of the brief, but one should be able to readupthrough the brief and by substituting the word "therefore" for the word "for" in each case, arrive at the proposition as a conclusion.
1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the selection from Burke.
2. Is the following extract from a high-school student's brief correct in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, and correct it so far as is possible without using new material.
SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE "A" HIGH SCHOOL AS A REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT
INTRODUCTION
PROOF
3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund Burke in which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should be impeached by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a clear "introduction" and convincing "proof," do you think that it would have made an effective "conclusion"?
Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the Commons:I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and misdemeanors.I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed.I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, whose national character he has dishonored.I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate.I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of justice which he has violated.I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life.
Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the Commons:
I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed.
I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, whose national character he has dishonored.
I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate.
I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of justice which he has violated.
I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life.
4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other material than that of your own ideas, state at least two issues, and, in correct brief form, proof for belief or unbelief.
When the brief is finished, the material is ready to be put into its final form. This final form is called theforensic.
As practically all debates are conducted by means of teams, the work of preparing the forensic is usually divided among the members of the team. The brief may be divided in any way, but it is desirable that each member of the team should have one complete, logical division. So it often happens that each member of the team develops one issue into its final form.
The forensic is nothing but a rounding-out of the brief. The brief is a skeleton: the forensic is that skeleton developed into a complete literary form. Into this form the oral delivery breathes the spirit of living ideas.
No better illustration of the brief expanded into the full forensic need be given than that in Exercise I, Lesson V. Compare the brief which you made of this extract from Burke with the forensic itself, a few paragraphs of which are quoted there. Any student will find that merely to glance through a part of this speech of Burke's is an excellent lesson in brief-making and in the production of forensics. First study the skeleton only—the brief—by reading the opening sentences of each paragraph. Then see how this skeleton is built into a forensic by the splendid rhetoric of the great British statesman.[4]
There are two ways in which the forensic may be developed from the brief. Both have some advantages, varying with the conditions of the debate. One is to write out every word of the forensic. When this is done, the debater may, if he wishes, read from his manuscript to the audience. If he does so, his chances of making a marked effect are little better than if he spoke from the bottom of a well. The average audience will not follow the speaker who is occupied with raveling ideas from his paper rather than with weaving them into the minds of his hearers.
The debater who writes his forensic may, however, learn it and deliver it from memory. This method has some decided advantages. In every debate the time is limited; and by writing and rewriting the ideas can be compressed into their briefest and most definite form. Besides, the speaker may practice upon this definite forensic to determine the rapidity with which he must speak in order to finish his argument in the allotted time.
At the same time this plan has several unfavorable aspects. When the debater has prepared himself in this way, forgetting is fatal. He has memorized words. When the words do not come he has no recourse but to wait for memory to revive, or to look to his colleagues for help. Again, the man who has learned his argument can give no variety to his attack or defense. He is like a general with an immovable battery, who, though able to hurl a terrific discharge in the one direction in which his guns point, is powerless if the attack is made ever so slightly on his flank. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of this method is that it does not give the student the best kind of training. What he needs most in life is the ability to arrange and present ideas rapidly, not to speak a part by rote.
It would seem, then, that this plan should be advised only when the students are working for one formal debate, and are not preparing for a series of class or local contests that can all be controlled by the same instructor or critic. With beginners in oral argumentation this method will usually make the better showing, and may therefore be considered permissible in the case of those teams which, because of unfamiliarity with their opponents' methods, can take no chances. This plan of preparation is in no way harmful or dishonest, but lacks some of the more permanent advantages of the second method.
The second method of developing the brief into the forensic is byoral composition. This method demands that the debater shallspeak extemporaneouslyfrom hismemorized brief. This in no way means that careful preparation, deliberate thought, and precise organization are omitted. On the contrary, the formation of a brief from which a winning forensic can be expanded requires the most studious preparation, the keenest thought, and the most careful organization. Neither does it mean that, as soon as the brief is formed, the forensic can be presented. Before that step is taken, the debater who will be successful will spend much time, not inwritten, but inoralcomposition.
He will study his brief until he sees that it is not merely a succession of formal statements connected with "for's," but a series of ideas arranged in that form because they will, if presented in that order, bring conviction to his hearers. "Learning the brief," then, becomes not a case of memory, but a matter of seeing—seeing what comes next because that is the only thing that logically could come next. When the brief is in mind, the speaker will expand it into a forensic to an imaginary audience until he finds that he is expressing the ideas clearly, smoothly, and readily. Pay no attention to the fact that in the course of repeated deliveries the words will vary. Words make little difference if the framework of ideas is the same.
This method of composing the forensic trains the mind of the student to see the logical relationship of ideas, to acquire a command of language, and to vary the order of ideas if necessary. In doing these things, there are developed those qualities that are essential to all effective speaking.
A debater's success in giving unity and coherence to his argument depends chiefly on his method of introducing new ideas in supporting his issues. These changes from one idea to another, or transitions, as they are called, should always be made so that the hearer's attention will be recalled to the assertion which the new idea is intended to support. Suppose we have made this assertion: "Contests within schools are more desirable than contests between schools." We are planning to support this by proving: first, that the contests between schools are very much abused; second, that the proposed plan will be more democratic; and third, that the proposed plan will work well in practice. In supporting these issues, we should, of course, present a great deal of material. When we are ready to change from the first supporting idea to the second, we must make that change in such a way that our hearers will know that we are planning to prove the second main point of our contention. But this is not enough. We must make that change so that they will be definitely reminded of what we have already proved. The same thing will hold true when we change to the third contention.
The following illustrates a faulty method of transition: Contests between schools are so abused that they should be abolished [followed by all the supporting material]. The proposed plan will be more democratic than the present [followed by its support]. The proposed plan would work well in practice [followed by its support]. No matter how thoroughly we might prove each of these, they would impress the audience as standing alone; they would show no coherence, no connection with one another. The following would be a better method: Contests within schools should be substituted for those between schools because contests between schools are open to abuses so great as to warrant their abolition [followed by its support]. We should then begin to prove the second issue in this way: But not only are contests between schools so open to abuse that they should be abolished, but they are less desirable than contests within schools for they are less democratic. [This will then be followed with the support of the second issue.] The transition to the third issue should be made in this way: Now, honorable judges, we have shown you that contests between schools are not worthy of continuance; we have shown you that the plan which we propose will be better in its democracy than the system at present in vogue; we now propose to complete our argument by showing you that our plan will work well in practice. [This would then be followed with the proper supporting material.]
Great speakers have shown that they realized the importance of these cementing transitions. Take for example Burke's argument that force will be an undesirable instrument to use against the colonies. He says: "First, permit me to observe that the use of force shall be temporary." The next paragraph he begins: "My next observation is its uncertainty." He follows that with: "A further observation to force is that you impair the object by your very endeavor to preserve it." And he concludes: "Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies." He used this principle to perhaps even greater advantage when he argued that "a fierce spirit of liberty had grown up in the colonies." He supports this with claims which are introduced as follows:
"First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen."
"They were further confirmed in this pleasing error [their spirit of liberty] by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies."
"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, religion would have given it a complete effect."
"There is, in the South, a circumstance attending these colonies which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas, they have a vast multitude of slaves."
"Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education."
"The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful than the rest as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them."
He finally summarizes these in this way, which further ties them together.
"Then, Sir, from these six capital sources; of descent; of form of government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in the southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of government; from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up."
It may be well also to point out more clearly the somewhat special nature of the first speeches on each side. The first speech of the affirmative must, of course, make clear to the judges and the audience what you wish them to believe. This will involve all the steps which have already been pointed out as necessary to accomplish that result. The first speaker can gain a great deal for his side by presenting this material not only with great clearness, but in a manner which will win the goodwill of the audience toward himself, his team, and his side of the subject. To do this, he must be genial, honest, modest, and fair. He must make his hearers feel that he is not giving a narrow or prejudiced analysis of the question; he must make them feel that his treatment is open and fair to both sides, and that he finally reaches the issues not at all because hewishesto find those issues, but because a thorough analysis of the question will allow him to reach no others.
The first speaker on the negative side may have much the same work to do. If, however, he agrees with what the first speaker of the affirmative has said, he will save time merely by stating that fact and by summarizing in a sentence or two the steps leading to the issues. If he does not agree with the interpretation which the affirmative has given to the question, it will be necessary for him to interpret the question himself. He must make clear to the judges why his analysis is correct and that of his opponent faulty.
In presenting the forensic to the judges and audience forget, so far as possible, that you are debating. You have a proposition in which you believe and which you want them to accept. Your purpose is not to make your hearers say: "How well he does it." You want them to say: "He is right."
Do not rant. Speak clearly, that you may be understood; and with enough force that you may be heard, but in the same manner that you use in conversation.
Good gestures help. Good gesturesare those that come naturally in support of your ideas. While practicing alone notice what gestures you put in involuntarily. They are right. Do not ape anyone in gesture. Your oral work will be more effective without use of your hands than it will be with an ineffective use of them. The most ineffective use is the making of motions that are so violent or extravagant that they attract the listeners' attention to themselves and away from your ideas. Remember that the expression of your face is most important of all gestures. Earnest interest, pleasantness, fairness, and vigor expressed in the speaker's face at the right times have done more to win debates than other gestures have ever accomplished.
Our work up to this point has dealt with what is called theconstructive argument, i.e., the building up of the proof. But to make the judges believe as you wish, you must not merely support your contentions; you must destroy the proof which your opponents are trying to construct.
As with the successful athletic team and the successful general, so with the successful debater, it is necessary, not only to attack, but also to repulse; not only to carry out the plan of your own side, but to meet and defeat the plan which the other side has developed. In debating, this repulse, this destruction of the arguments of the opposition, is calledrefutationorrebuttal.
There are two principal ways in which the refutation of the opponent's argument can be accomplished. The first isto destroy it with your own constructive argument. The second isto show that his argument, even though it is not destroyed by yours, is faulty in itself, and therefore useless.
Although only one of them is labeled "Refutation" in the model brief in the sixth lesson, both types are illustrated there.
There the negative, believing that the first argument of the affirmative would be, "Inter contests are open to abuse," makes its first point a counter-assertion. It uses as the first issue: "Contests between the high schools of northern Illinois are not subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition." Which side would gain this point in the minds of the judges would depend on which side supported its assertion with the better evidence.
If one side wished to raise this question again in the refutation speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better than to repeat and re-emphasize the same material which it used in its construction argument.
The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be faulty, is also illustrated in the brief in the sixth lesson. It is marked "Refutation." This material was introduced because the negative felt sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the experience of Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful working of this plan. It was shown to be faulty in that the experience of this school would not apply to the question here debated.
The student's study of what makes good evidence for his own case will enable him to see the weakness of his opponents' arguments. Apply thesametests to your opponents' evidence that you apply to your own. What is there about the evidence introduced that should make the audience hesitate to accept it? Point these things out to the audience. It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or ignorant testimony has been given. It may be that not enough evidence has been given to carry weight. Whatever the flaw, point out to the audience that, upon a critical examination, experience shows the evidence to be weak.
In every debate there is a regular time allowed for rebuttal. This is, however, not the only time at which it may be introduced. In the debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed. One of the best plans is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the opening of each speech what the previous speaker of the opposition has said.
In all refutation,state clearly what you aim to disprove.When quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to be accurate.
Something like the following is a good form for stating refutation:
Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to the commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support the testimony of prominent men. In so doing, they have quoted from X, Y, and Z. This testimony is without strength. X, as a large employer of labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union laborer, is both prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony of Z, as an Englishman is applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not the commerce of America, but the trade of England.
A similar form is shown in the brief on inter-and intra-high-school contests in refuting the experience of Shortridge High School.
In all refutation, keep close to the fundamental principles of the question. Do not be led astray into minute details upon which you differ. Never tire of recalling attention to the issues of the question. Show why those are the issues, and you will see that the strongest refutation almost always consists in pointing out wherein you have proved these issues, while your opponents have failed to do so.
In order to be fully prepared, however, it is a good plan to put upon cards all the points that your opponents may use and that you have not answered in your constructive argument. Adopt a method similar to this:
Shortridge argument
Then if your opponents advance arguments that are not met in your speech, merely lay out these cards while they speak, and use them as references in your refutation.
The closing rebuttal speech is always a critical one. Here the speaker should again point out every mistake which his opponents have made. If their interpretation of the question has been wrong, he should, while avoiding details, emphasize the chief flaws in their arguments. On the other hand, he should summarize the argument of his own side from beginning to end; he should make the support of each of the issues stand clearly before the judges in its complete, logical form.
In these closing speeches, as in the opening of the debate, much may be gained by an attitude which will win the favor of the hearers toward the speaker and his ideas. An attitude of petty criticism, of narrowness of view, is undesirable at any stage of the debate. The debater who is inclined to belittle his opponents will only belittle himself. To the judges it will appear that the speaker who has time to ridicule his adversaries must be a little short of arguments. Insinuations of dishonesty and attempts to be sarcastic should be carefully avoided. These weapons are sharp but they are two-edged and are more likely to injure the speaker than his opponent.
The right attitude for a debater is always one of fairness. Give your opponents all possible credit. When you have then refuted their arguments, your own contentions seem of double strength. It is said that Lincoln used this method with splendid effect: He would often restate the argument of his opponent with great force and clearness; he would make it seem irrefutable. Then, when he began his attack and caused his opponent's argument to collapse, its fall seemed to be utter and complete, while his arguments, which had proved themselves capable of effecting this destruction, appeared all the more powerful.
In your desire to do well in refutation, do not be led to depend upon that alone. There is no older and better rule than, "Know the other side as well as you know your own." Do not believe that this is in order that you may be ready with a clever answer for every point made by the other side. The most important reason why you should know the other side of the question is the necessity of your determining the issues correctly, and thus building a constructive argument that is overwhelming and impregnable. Many a debate has been lost because the debaters worked up their own constructive argument first, and only later, in order to prepare refutation, considered what their opponents would say. Had they proceeded correctly, they would have destroyed the proof of their adversaries while they built up their own.
A clever retort in refutation often wins the applause of the galleries, but an analysis of the question so keen that the real issues are determined, supported by an organization of evidence so strong that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is more likely to gain the favorable decision of the judges.
1. What is the purpose of refutation? 2. What two principal methods may be followed?
3. What must one do to refute correctly and well?
4. Do you think it better in refutation to assail the minor points of your opponent or to attack the main issues?
5. A fellow-student in chemistry said to you: "The chemical symbol for water is H40; two of our classmates told me so." You replied: "The correct symbol, according to our instructor, is H2O." Did you refute his assertion? How?
6. A classmate makes an argument which could be briefed thus:
Cigarettes are good for high-school boys, for:
If you disagree with this assertion, do not believe they aid health, and know X does not smoke cigarettes, how would you refute his contention?
7. If your opponents in a debate quote opinions of others in support of their views, in what two ways can they be refuted?
8. In a recent campaign, the administration candidate used this argument: "I should be re-elected, for: Times are good, work is plentiful, crops are excellent, and products demand a high price." Show any weakness in this argument.
9. Show the weakness of proof in this argument: Harvard is better at football than Princeton I. They defeated Princeton in 1912.
10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerning a statement supported by particular cases?
Teams.—The opposing teams in a debate usually consist of three persons each. A larger or smaller number is permissible.
Time of Speaking.—Each speaker is ordinarily allowed one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. The constructive speech is usually about twice the length of the refutation. Twelve and six, ten and five, and eight and four minutes are all frequent time-limits for debates. Many debaters make shorter speeches.
Order of speaking.—The debate is opened by the affirmative. The first speaker is followed by a negative debater, who, in turn, is followed by a member of the affirmative team, and so on until the entire constructive argument is presented. A member of the negative team opens the refutation. Speakers then alternate until the debate is closed by the affirmative. The order of speakers on each team is often different in refutation than in constructive argument.
Presiding chairman.—Every debate should be presided over by a chairman. His duties are to state the question to the audience, introduce each speaker, and announce the decision of the judges. He sometimes also acts as timekeeper.
Timekeepers.—A timekeeper representing each of the competing organizations should note the moment when each speaker begins and notify the chair when the allotted time has been consumed. It is customary to give each speaker as many minutes of warning before his time expires as he may desire.
Salutation.—Good form in debating requires that each speaker shall begin with a salutation to the various personages whom he addresses. The most common salutation is: "Mr. Chairman, worthy opponents, honorable judges, ladies and gentlemen."
Reference to other speakers.—In referring to members of the opposing team never say, "he said," "she said," or "they said." Always speak of your opponents in the third person in some such way as, "my honorable opponents," "the first speaker of the negative," "the gentlemen of the affirmative," or "the gentlemen from X."
In referring to other members of your own team say, "my colleagues," or "my colleague, the first speaker," etc.
The judges.—There are generally three judges. Where it is practicable, a larger number is desirable because their opinion is more nearly the opinion of the audience as a whole. Needless to say they should be competent and wholly without prejudice as to teams or question.
The decision.—The decision of each judge should be written on a slip and sealed in an envelope provided for that purpose (see Appendix IX, "Forms for Judges' Decision"). These should be opened by the chairman in view of the audience, and the decision announced.
We have now completed our study of debating. We saw first that all talking and writing is discourse, and that one great division of discourse—that which aims to gain belief—is argumentation. Argumentation we divided into spoken and written argumentation. We found that it varies in formality but that, when carried on orally under prescribed conditions and with the expectation of having a decision rendered, it is called debating.
Successful debating we found to require three steps: showing the hearers what belief is desired; showing them upon what issues belief depends; and supporting these issues with evidence until we have established proof.
We learned that the first of these steps could be taken by stating the question in the form of a definite, single proposition; defining the terms of this proposition; and then restating the whole matter. We found that the second step required that the material that both sides admit, together with all other material that is really not pertinent to the question, should be first removed, and that the fundamentals of the question should be stated as the issues. The last step, proving the issues, we found to involve two processes. It was necessary, first, to find and select evidence, and, second, to arrange that evidence in logical order—the brief-form.