In all debates let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest; and endeavor to gain, rather than to expose thy antagonist.
In all debates let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest; and endeavor to gain, rather than to expose thy antagonist.
The quotation states exactly the true aim of all debating—the conclusion of the right, the truth rather than the securing of a decision over an opponent. The same rules which animate the true lover of sports, the clear distinction which is instilled into all participants of amateur athletics of the meanings and significance of the two termssportsmanandsport, can be carried over to apply to school activities in debating. Honest differences of opinion among people upon countless questions will always furnish enough material for regular debating so that no one need ever do violence to his convictions.
Value of Debate.One of the greatest educational values of practice in debate is that the ability it develops can be applied instantly in the life beyond the schoolroom, that it operates in every person's dailylife. There are differences in the manner in which debating is carried on in the two places, but practice in the earlier will result in skill and self-confidence in the second.
Debate in Actual Life.The most marked difference between debates in the two phases of life is the difference of form. In academic circles debate is a well-regulated game between matched sides. In actual life only in certain professions are the rules well defined. In most cases the debating is disguised under different forms, though the essential purposes and methods are the same.
Debate between lawyers in courts—technically termed pleading—is the most formal of all professional debating. Its regulations are found in the stabilized court procedure which every lawyer must master and obey.
Much looser than the formal debate of the court room is the speech-making of the legislative organization from the lowest township board meeting up to the Senate of the United States. Of course the members of such bodies are regulated by certain restrictions, but the speeches are not likely to be curbed in time as are academic performances, nor are the speakers likely to follow a prearranged order, nor are they always equally balanced in number, nor do they agree so carefully upon "team work." Sometimes in a legislative body the first speaker may be on the negative side, which is quite contrary to all the rules of regularly conducted debates. All the speakers may also be on one side of a measure, the opposing side not deigning to reply, resting secure in the knowledge of how many votes they can control when the real test of power comes.
Most informal of all are the general discussions in which business matters are decided. In these the speeches are never so set as in the two preceding kinds. The men are less formal in their relations and addresses to one another. The steps are less marked in their changes. Yet underneath the seeming lack of regulation there is the framework of debate, for there is always present the sense of two sides upon every proposition, whether it be the purchase of new office equipment for a distant agent, an increase of salary for employees, or the increase of capitalization. Certain speakers support some proposition. Others oppose it until they are convinced and won over to the affirmative side, or until they are out-voted.
Two men seated in an office may themselves be debaters, audience, and judges of their own argumentative opinions. They may in themselves fill all the requirements of a real debate. They deliver the speeches on the affirmative and negative sides. Each listens to the arguments of his opponent. And finally, the pair together give a decision upon the merits of the arguments presented.
On all such occasions the speakers need and use just those qualities which classroom training has developed in them—knowledge of material, plan of presentation, skill in expression, conviction and persuasion of manner, graceful acceptance of defeat.
Debating Demands a Decision.Debating goes one step farther than merely argumentative speaking. Debating demands a decision upon the case, it requires a judgment, a registered action. Again in this respect it is like a game.
EXERCISES
1. Make a list of propositions which have been debated or might be debated in a courtroom.
2. Make another list of propositions which have been debated or might be debated in legislative bodies.
3. Make a list of propositions which might be debated in business.
4. As far as is possible, indicate the decisions upon them.
5. Choose some proposition on which there is considerable difference of opinion in the class. Make a list of those who favor and those who oppose. Speak upon the proposition, alternating affirmative and negative.
6. Discuss the speeches delivered in the fifth exercise.
Persons Involved in a Debate.Who are the persons involved in a regular debate? They are the presiding officer, the speakers themselves, the audience, the judges.
The Presiding Officer. Every debate has a presiding officer. The Vice-President of the United States is the presiding officer of the Senate. The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. If you will refer to Chapter IV onBeginning the Speechyou will see several other titles of presiding officers. In school debates the head of the institution may act in that capacity, or some person of note may be invited to preside. In regular classroom work the instructor may serve as presiding officer, or some member of the class may be chosen or appointed. The latter method is the best—after the instructor has shown by example just what the duties of such a position are.
The presiding officer should announce the topic of debate in a short introductory speech. He shouldread the names of the speakers on the affirmative and those on the negative side. He should stipulate the terms of the debate—length of each speech, time for rebuttal, order of rebuttal, method of keeping speakers within time limits, conditions of judgment (material, presentation, etc.), announce the judges, and finally introduce the first speaker; then the subsequent speakers. At the close he might refer to the fact of the debate's being ended, he might rehearse the conditions of judgment, and request the judges to retire to consider their decision. Practice varies as to who shall deliver the decision of the judges to the audience. Sometimes the chairman elected by the judges announces the decision. Sometimes the judges hand the decision to the presiding officer who announces it.
The Debaters.Beyond saying that the speakers must do their best, there is nothing to be added here about their duty in the debate except to issue one warning to them in connection with the next personal element to be considered—the audience.
The Audience.Debaters must remember that in practically no circumstances outside legislative bodies are the audience and the judges ever the same. Debaters argue to convince the judges—not the entire audience, who are really as disconnected from the decision of the debate as are the straggling spectators and listeners in a courtroom detached from the jury who render the verdict of guilty or not guilty. The debater must therefore speak for the judges, not for his audience. Many a debating team has in the course of its speeches won all the applause only to be bitterly disappointed in the end by hearing the decisionawarded to the other side. Recall the warnings given in the previous chapters against the tempting fallacies of appealing to crowd feelings and prejudices.
In classroom debates it is a good distribution of responsibility to make all the members not participating in the speaking act as judges and cast votes in rendering a decision. This makes the judges and the audience one. Moreover it changes the mere listener into a discriminating judge. If the instructor cares to carry this matter of responsibility one step farther, he can ask the members of the class to explain and justify their votes.
The audience, when it is also the judge, has the responsibility of careful attention, analysis, and comparison. It is too much to expect usual general audiences to refuse to be moved by unworthy pleas and misrepresentations, to accord approval only to the best speakers and the soundest arguments. But surely in a class of public speakers any such tricks and schemes should be received with stolid frigidity. Nothing is so damaging to appeals to prejudice, spread-eagleism, and fustian bombast as an impassive reception.
The Judges.In any debate the judges are of supreme importance. They decide the merits of the speakers themselves. The judges are of infinitely more importance than the audience. In interscholastic debates men of some prominence are invited to act as judges. In the instructions to them it should be made clear that they are not to decide which side of a proposition they themselves approve. They are to decide which group of speakers does the best work. They should try to be merely the impersonal registers ofcomparative merit. They should sink their own feelings as every teacher must when he hears a good speech from one of his own students supporting something to which the instructor is opposed. Good judges of debates realize this and frequently award decisions to speakers who support opposite positions to their personal opinions. They must not be like the judges in an interscholastic debate who announced their decision thus, "The judges have decided that China must not be dismembered." That was an interesting fact perhaps, but it had nothing to do with their duty as judges of that debate.
In business, the buyer, the head of the department, the board of directors, constitute the judges who render the decision. In legislative assemblies the audience and judges are practically identical, for after the debate upon a measure is concluded, those who have listened to it render individual verdicts by casting their votes. In such cases we frequently see decisions rendered not upon the merits of the debate, but according to class prejudice, personal opinion, or party lines. This is why so many great argumentative speeches were accounted failures at the time of their delivery. Delivered to secure majority votes they failed to carry conviction to the point of changing immediate action, and so in the small temporary sense they were failures. In legal trials the jury is the real judge, although by our peculiar misapplication of the term a different person entirely is called judge. In court the judge is in reality more often merely the presiding officer. He oversees the observance of all the rules of court practice, keeps lawyers within the regulations, instructs the jury,receives the decision from them, and then applies the law. Every lawyer speaks—not to convince the judge—but to convince the jury to render a decision in his favor.
Scholastic Debating. Choosing the Proposition.In school debating the proposition may be assigned by the instructor or it may be chosen by him from a number submitted by the class. The class itself may choose by vote a proposition for debate. In interscholastic debating the practice now usually followed is for one school to submit the proposition and for the second school to decide which side it prefers to support. In any method the aim should be to give neither side any advantage over the other. The speakers upon the team may be selected before the question of debate is known. It seems better, when possible, to make the subject known first and then secure as speakers upon both sides, students who have actual beliefs upon the topic. Such personal conviction always results in keener rivalry.
Time Limits.Since no debate of this kind must last too long, time restrictions must be agreed upon. In every class, conditions will determine these terms. Three or four speakers upon each side make a good team. If each is allowed six minutes the debate should come well within an hour and still allow some time for voting upon the presentations. It should be distinctly understood that a time limit upon a speaker must be observed by him or be enforced by the presiding officer.
The speakers upon one side will arrange among themselves the order in which they will speak but thereshould be a clear understanding beforehand as to whether rebuttal speeches are to be allowed.
Rebuttal Speeches.Rebuttal speeches are additional speeches allowed to some or all the speakers of a debating team after the regular argumentative speeches have been delivered. In an extended formal debate all the speakers may thus appear a second time. In less lengthy discussions only some of them may be permitted to appear a second time. As the last speaker has the advantage of making the final impression upon the judges it is usual to offset this by reversing the order of rebuttal. In the first speeches the negative always delivers the last speech. Sometimes the first affirmative speaker is allowed to follow with the single speech in rebuttal. If the team consist of three speakers and all are allowed to appear in rebuttal the entire order is as follows.
If not all the speakers are to speak in rebuttal the team itself decides which of its members shall speak for all.
Preparation.The proposition should be decided on and the teams selected long enough in advance to allow for adequate preparation. Every means should be employed to secure sufficient material in effective arrangement. Once constituted, the team should consider itself a unit. Work should be planned in conference and distributed among the speakers. At frequent meetings they should present to the side all they are able to find. They should lay out a comprehensive plan of support of their own side. They should anticipate the arguments likely to be advanced by the other, and should provide for disposing of them if they are important enough to require refuting. It is a good rule for every member of a debating team to know all the material on his side, even though part of it is definitely assigned to another speaker.
This preliminary planning should be upon a definite method. A good outline to use, although some parts may be discarded in the debate itself, is the following simple one.
I. State the proposition clearly.1. Define the terms.2. Explain it as a whole.II. Give a history of the case.1. Show its present bearing or aspect.III. State the issues.IV. Prove.V. Refute.VI. Conclude.
Finding the Issues.In debating, since time is so valuable, a speaker must not wander afield. He must use all his ability, all his material to prove his contention. It will help him to reject material not relevant if he knows exactly what is at issue between the two sides. It was avoiding the issue to answer the chargethat Charles I was a tyrant by replying that he was a good husband. Unless debaters realize exactly what must be proven to make their position secure, there will be really no debate, for the two sides will never meet in a clash of opinion. They will pass each other without meeting, and instead of a debate they will present a series of argumentative speeches. This failure to state issues clearly and to support or refute them convincingly is one of the most common faults of all debating. In ordinary conversation a frequently heard criticism of a discussion or speech or article is "But that was not the point at issue at all." These issues must appear in the preliminary plans, in the finished brief, and in the debate itself.
The only point in issue between us is, how long after an author's death the State shall recognize a copyright in his representatives and assigns; and it can, I think, hardly be disputed by any rational man that this is a point which the legislature is free to determine in the way which may appear to be most conducive to the general good.Thomas Babington Macaulay:Copyright, 1841Mr. President, the very first question that challenges our attention in the matter of a league of nations is the question of whether a war in Europe is a matter of concern to the United States. The ultraopponents of any league of nations assert that European quarrels and European battles are no concern of ours. If that be true, we may well pause before obligating ourselves to make them our concern. Is it true?Senator P.J. McCumber:The League of Nations, 1919
The only point in issue between us is, how long after an author's death the State shall recognize a copyright in his representatives and assigns; and it can, I think, hardly be disputed by any rational man that this is a point which the legislature is free to determine in the way which may appear to be most conducive to the general good.
Thomas Babington Macaulay:Copyright, 1841
Mr. President, the very first question that challenges our attention in the matter of a league of nations is the question of whether a war in Europe is a matter of concern to the United States. The ultraopponents of any league of nations assert that European quarrels and European battles are no concern of ours. If that be true, we may well pause before obligating ourselves to make them our concern. Is it true?
Senator P.J. McCumber:The League of Nations, 1919
The best method of finding the issues is to put down in two columns the main contentions of both sides. By eliminating those entries which are least importantand those which have least bearing upon the present case the issues may be reduced to those which the debate should cover. Any possible attempt to cloud the issues on the part of the opposing side can thus be forestalled. All the speakers on one side should participate in this analysis of the proposition to find and state the issues.
The New YorkTribune, by parallel columns, brought out these chief points of difference between the Paris plan and Senator Knox's for the League of Nations.
Team Work.With the plan agreed upon by the speakers, the brief made out, and the material distributed, each speaker can go to work in earnest to prepare his single speech. The best method has been outlined in this book. His notes should be accurate, clear, easily manipulated. His quotations should be exact, authoritative. By no means should he memorize his speech. Such stilted delivery would result in a series of formal declamations. With his mind stocked with exactly what his particular speech is to cover, yet familiar enough with the material of his colleagues to use it should he need it, the debater is ready for the contest.
Manipulating Material.The speakers on a side should keep all their material according to some system. If cards are used, arguments to be used in the main debate might be arranged in one place, material for rebuttal in another, quotations and statistics in still another. Then if the other side introduces a point not anticipated it should be easy to find the refuting or explaining material at once to counteract its influence in the next speech, if it should be disposed of at once. If slips of paper are used, different colorsmight indicate different kinds of material. Books, papers, reports, to be used should always be within available distance. While a speaker for the other side is advancing arguments the speaker who will follow him should be able to change, if necessary, his entire plan of defense or attack to meet the manœuver. He should select from the various divisions upon the table the material he needs, and launch at once into a speech which meets squarely all the contentions advanced by his predecessor. This instantaneous commandeering of material is likely to be most usual in rebuttal, but a good debater must be able to resort to it at a second's notice.
The First Affirmative Speaker.The first affirmative speaker must deliver some kind of introduction to the contentions which his side intends to advance. It is his duty to be concise and clear in this. He must not use too much time. If the proposition needs defining and applying he must not fail to do it. He must not give the negative the opportunity to explain and apply to its own purposes the meaning of the proposition. He should state in language which the hearers will remember exactly what the issues are. He can help his own side by outlining exactly what the affirmative intends to prove. He may indicate just what portions will be treated by his colleagues. He should never stop with merely introducing and outlining. Every speaker must advance proof, the first as well as the others. If the preliminary statements by the first affirmative speaker are clearly and convincingly delivered, and if he places a few strong, supporting reasons before the judges, he will have started his side very wellupon its course of debating. The last sentences of his speech should drive home the points he has proved.
The First Negative Speaker.The first negative speaker either agrees with the definitions and application of the proposition as announced by the first affirmative speaker or he disagrees with them. If the latter, the mere statement of his disagreement is not sufficient. Contradiction is not proof. He must refute the definition and application of the proposition by strong reasoning and ample proof. If his side does not admit the issues as already presented he must explain or prove them away and establish in their place the issues his side sees in the discussion. When the two sides disagree concerning the issues there is a second proposition erected for discussion at once and the argument upon this second matter may crowd out the attempted argument upon the main proposition. To obviate such shifting many schools have the sides exchange briefs or statements of issues before the debate so that some agreement will be reached upon essentials.
In addition to the matters just enumerated the first negative speaker should outline the plan his side will follow, promising exactly what things will be established by his colleagues. If he feels that the first affirmative speaker has advanced proofs strong enough to require instant refutation he should be able to meet those points at once and dispose of them. If they do not require immediate answering, or if they may safely be left for later refutation in the regular rebuttal, he may content himself with simply announcing that they will be answered. He should not allow the audience to believe that his side cannot meet them.
He must not give the impression that he is evading them. If he has to admit their truth, let him frankly say so, showing, if possible, how they do not apply or do not prove all that is claimed for them, or that though they seem strong in support of the affirmative the negative side has still stronger arguments which by comparison refute at least their effect.
The first negative speaker should not stop with mere refutation. If the first affirmative has advanced proofs, and the first negative disposes of them, the debate is exactly where it was at the beginning. The negative speaker must add convincing arguments of his own. It is a good thing to start with one of the strongest negative arguments in the material.
The Second Affirmative and Second Negative Speakers.The second affirmative and the second negative speakers have very much the same kind of speech to make. Taking the immediate cues from the preceding speaker each may at first pay some attention to the remarks of his opponent. Here again there must be quickly decided the question already brought up by the first negative speech—shall arguments be refuted at once or reserved for such treatment in rebuttal? When this decision is made the next duty of each of these second speakers is to advance his side according to the plan laid down by his first colleague. He must make good the advance notice given of his team.
Each position of a debater has its peculiar tasks. The middle speaker must not allow the interest aroused by the first to lag. If anything, his material and manner must indicate a rise over the opening speech.
He must start at the place where the first speaker stopped and carry on the contention to the place at which it has been agreed he will deliver it to the concluding speaker for his side. If this connection among all the speeches of one side is quite plain to the audience an impression of unity and coherence will be made upon them. This will contribute to the effect of cogent reasoning. They will realize that instead of listening to a group of detached utterances they have been following a chain of reasoning every link of which is closely connected with all that precedes and follows.
The Concluding Affirmative Speaker.The concluding affirmative speaker must not devote his entire speech to a conclusion by giving an extensive summary or recapitulation. He must present arguments. Realizing that this is the last chance for original argument from his side he may be assigned the very strongest argument of all to deliver, for the effect of what he says must last beyond the concluding speech of the negative. It would likewise be a mistake for him to do nothing more than argue in his concluding speech. Several persons have intervened since his first colleague outlined their side and announced what they would prove. It is his duty to show that the affirmative has actually done what it set out to do. By amplifying and diminishing he may also show how the negative had not carried out its avowed intention of disproving the affirmative's position and proving conclusively its own. The concluding speech for the affirmative is an excellent test of a debater's ability to adapt himself to conditions which may have been entirely unforeseen when the debate began, of his keenness in analyzing the strength of the affirmative and exposing the weakness of the negative, of his power in impressing the arguments of his colleagues as well as his own upon the audience, and of his skill in bringing to a well-rounded, impressive conclusion his side's part in the debate.
The Concluding Negative Speaker.The concluding negative speaker must judge whether his immediate predecessor, the concluding affirmative speaker, has been able to gain the verdict of the judges. If he fears that he has, he must strive to argue that conviction away. He too must advance proof finally to strengthen the negative side. He must make his speech answer to his first colleague's announced scheme, or if some change in the line of development has been necessitated, he must make clear why the first was replaced by the one the debaters have followed. If the arguments of the negative have proved what it was declared they would, the last speaker should emphasize that fact beyond any question in any one's mind. Finally he should save time for a fitting conclusion. This brings the debate proper to a close.
Restrictions in Rebuttal.In rebuttal—if it be provided—the main restrictions are two. The speeches are shorter than the earlier ones. No new lines of argument may be introduced. Only lines of proof already brought forward may be considered. Since the speeches are shorter and the material is restricted there is always the disposition to use rebuttal speeches for refutation only. This is a mistake. Refute, but remember always that constructive argument is more likely to win decisions than destructive. Dispose ofas many points of the opponents as possible, but reiterate the supporting reasons of your own. Many speakers waste their rebuttals by trying to cover too many points. They therefore have insufficient time to prove anything, so they fall back upon bare contradiction and assertion. Such presentations are mere jumbles of statements. Choose a few important phases of the opposing side's contention. Refute them. Choose the telling aspects of your own case. Emphasize them.
Manner in Debating.Be as earnest and convincing in your speeches as you can. Never yield to the temptation to indulge in personalities. Recall that other speakers should never be mentioned by name. They are identified by their order and their side, as "The first speaker on the affirmative" or "The speaker who preceded me," or "My colleague," or "My opponent." Avoid using these with tones and phrases of sarcasm and bitterness. Be fair and courteous in every way. Never indulge in such belittling expressions as "No one understands what he is trying to prove. He reels off a string of figures which mean nothing." Never indulge in cheap wit or attempts at satiric humor.
Prepare so adequately, analyze so keenly, argue so logically, speak so convincingly, that even when your side loses, your opponents will have to admit that you forced them to do better than they had any idea they could.
Speech-making in the Professions.If a student enter a profession in which speech-making is the regular means of gaining his livelihood—as in law, religion, or lecturing—he will find it necessary to secure training in the technical methods applying to the particular kind of speech-making in which he will indulge. This book does not attempt to prepare any one for mastery of such special forms. The student will, however, be helping himself if he examines critically every delivery of a legal argument, sermon, or lecture he hears, for many of the rules illustrated by them and the impressions made by their speakers, can be transferred as models to be imitated or specimens to be avoided in his own more restricted and less important world.
Speaking upon Special Occasions.Every American may be called upon to speak upon some special occasion. If he does well at his first appearance he may be invited or required by circumstances to speak upon many occasions. The person who can interest audiences by effective delivery of suitable material fittingly adapted to the particular occasion is always in demand. Within the narrower confines of educational institutions the opportunities for the student to appear before his schoolmates are as numerous as in real life. Somepreliminary knowledge coupled with much practice will produce deep satisfaction upon successful achievement and result in rapid steps of self-development.
Without pretending to provide for all possible circumstances in which students and others may be called upon to speak, this chapter will list some of the special occasions for which speeches should be prepared.
Speeches of Presiding Officers.On practically all occasions there is a presiding officer whose chief duty is to introduce to the audience the various speakers. The one great fault of speeches of introduction is that they are too long. The introducer sincerely means not to consume too much time, but in the endeavor to do justice to the occasion or the speaker he becomes involved in his remarks until they wander far from his definite purpose. He wearies the audience before the important speaker begins. An introducer should not become so unconscious of his real task as to fall into this error. In other cases the fault is not so innocent. Many a person called upon to introduce a speaker takes advantage of the chance to express his own opinions. He drops into the discourtesy of using for his own ends a condition of passive attention which was not created for him. One large audience which had assembled to hear a lecturer was kept from listening to him while for twenty minutes the introducer aired his own pet theories. Of course members of the audience discussed among themselves the inappropriateness of such remarks, but it is doubtful whether any criticism reached the offender.
A newspaper recently had the courage to voice the feelings of audiences.
It seems that a good deal of the time of the audience at the Coliseum the other night was taken by those who introduced the speakers of the evening. We are told in one account of the meeting that the audience was at times impatient of these preliminaries and even howled once or twice for those it had come to hear.... We are informed that all those introducing the speakers said something about not having risen to speak at length, and that one of them protested his inability to speak with any facility. Both these professions are characteristic of those introducing speakers of the evening. Yet, strangely enough, the same always happens. That is, the preliminaries wear the audience out before the people it came to hear can get at it.
It seems that a good deal of the time of the audience at the Coliseum the other night was taken by those who introduced the speakers of the evening. We are told in one account of the meeting that the audience was at times impatient of these preliminaries and even howled once or twice for those it had come to hear.... We are informed that all those introducing the speakers said something about not having risen to speak at length, and that one of them protested his inability to speak with any facility. Both these professions are characteristic of those introducing speakers of the evening. Yet, strangely enough, the same always happens. That is, the preliminaries wear the audience out before the people it came to hear can get at it.
In introducing a speaker never be too long-winded. Tactfully, gracefully, courteously, put before the audience such facts as the occasion, the reason for the topic of the speech, the fitness and appropriateness of the choice of the speaker, then present the man or woman. Be extremely careful of facts and names. A nominating speaker at a great political convention ruined the effect of a speech by confusedly giving several first names to a distinguished man. It is embarrassing to a speaker to have to correct at the very beginning of his remarks a misstatement made by the presiding officer. But a man from one university cannot allow the audience to identify him with another. The author of a book wants its title correctly given. A public official desires to be associated in people's minds with the department he actually controls.
The main purpose of a speech of introduction is to do for the succeeding speaker what the chapter on beginning the speech suggested—to render the audience attentive and well-disposed, to introduce the topic, and in addition to present the speaker.
Choosing a Theme.The speaker at a special occasion must choose the theme with due regard to the subject and the occasion. Frequently his theme will be suggested to him, so that it will already bear a close relation to the occasion when he begins its preparation. The next matter he must consider with extreme care is the treatment. Shall it be serious, informative, argumentative, humorous, scoffing, ironic? To decide this he must weigh carefully the significance of the occasion. Selecting the inappropriate manner of treatment means risking the success of the speech. Recall how many men and speeches you have heard criticized as being "out of harmony with the meeting," or "not in spirit with the proceedings," and you will realize how necessary to the successful presentation is this delicate adjustment of the speech to the mood of the circumstances.
The After-dinner Speech.When men and women have met to partake of good food under charming surroundings and have enjoyed legitimate gastronomic delights it is regrettable that a disagreeable element should be added by a series of dull, long-winded, un-appropriate after-dinner speeches. The preceding adjectives suggest the chief faults of those persons who are repeatedly asked to speak upon such occasions. They so often miss the mark. Because after-dinner speaking is so informal it is proportionally difficult. When called upon, a person feels that he must acknowledge the compliment by saying something. This, however, is not really enough. He must choose histheme and style of treatment from the occasion. If the toastmaster assign the topic he is safe so far as that is concerned, but he must still be careful of his treatment.
A speaker at a dinner of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, in which membership is awarded for rank in cultural as contrasted with practical, technical studies, seized upon the chance to deliver a rather long, quite detailed legal explanation of the parole system for convicted offenders against laws. At a dinner given by the Pennsylvania Society in a state far from their original homes the members were praised to the skies for preserving the love of their native state and marking their identity in a district so distant and different. This was quite appropriate for an introduction but the speaker then turned abruptly to one of his political speeches and berated the foreigner in America for not becoming at once an entirely made-over citizen. The speech contradicted its own sentiments. A wrong emphasis was placed upon its material. A disquieting impression was made upon the Pennsylvanians. At the conclusion they felt that they were guilty for having kept the love of their native soil; according to the tone of the speaker they should have accepted their new residence and wiped out all traces of any early ties.
An after-dinner speaker should remember that dinners are usually marks of sociability, goodfellowship, congratulation, celebration, commemoration. Speeches should answer to such motives. The apt illustration, the clever twist, the really good story or anecdote, the surprise ending, all have their places here, if they are used with grace, good humor, andtact. This does not preclude elements of information and seriousness, but such matters should be introduced skilfully, discussed sparingly, enforced pointedly.
The Commemorative Speech.Besides dinners, other gatherings may require commemorative addresses. These speeches are longer, more formal. The success of a debating team, the successful season of an athletic organization, the termination of a civic project, the election of a candidate, the celebration of an historic event, the tribute to a great man, suggest the kinds of occasions in which commemorative addresses should be made.
Chosen with more care than the after-dinner speaker, the person on such an occasion has larger themes with which to deal, a longer time for their development, and an audience more surely attuned to sympathetic reception. He has more time for preparation also. In minor circumstances, such as the first three or four enumerated in the preceding paragraph, the note is usually congratulation for victory. Except in tone and length these speeches are not very different from after-dinner remarks. But when the occasion is more dignified, the circumstances more significant, addresses take on a different aspect. They become more soberly judicial, more temperately laudatory, more feelingly impressive. At such times public speaking approaches most closely to the old-fashioned idea of oratory, now so rapidly passing away, in its attempt to impress upon the audience the greatness of the occasion in which it is participating. The laying of a corner-stone, the completion of a monument or building, a national holiday, the birthday of a great man, the date of anepoch-marking event, bring forth eulogistic tributes like Webster's speech at Bunker Hill, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Secretary Lane's Flag Day speech.
False Eloquence.The beginner will not have many opportunities of delivering such remarkable addresses, but in his small sphere he will have chances to do similar things. He must beware of several faults of which the unwary are usually guilty. Recognizing the wonderful eloquence of the masterpieces of such kinds of address he may want to reproduce its effects by imitating its apparent methods. Nothing could be worse. The style of the great eulogy, born of the occasion and the speaker, becomes only exaggerated bombast and nonsense from the lips of a student. Exaggeration, high sounding terms, flowery language, involved constructions, do not produce eloquence in the speaker. They produce discomfort, often smiles of ridicule, in the audience. Many a student intending to cover himself with glory by eulogizing the martyred McKinley or the dead Roosevelt has succeeded only in covering himself with derision. Simplicity, straightforwardness, fair statement, should be the aims of beginning speakers upon such occasions.
Speeches of Presentation and Acceptance.Standing between the two classes of speeches just discussed are speeches of presentation and acceptance. In practically all circumstances where such remarks are suitable there are present mingled feelings of celebration and commemoration. There is joy over something accomplished, and remembrance of merit or success. So the person making a speech of presentation must mingle the two feelings as he and the audience experience them. Taking his cue from the tone of the occasion he must fit his remarks to that mood. He may be as bright and sparkling and as amusing as a refined court jester. He may be as impressive and serious as a judge. The treatment must be determined by the circumstances.
The speaker who replies must take his cue from the presenter. While the first has the advantage of carrying out his plan as prepared, the second can only dimly anticipate the theme he will express. At any rate he cannot so surely provide his beginning. That must come spontaneously from the turn given the material by his predecessor, although the recipient may pass by a transition to the remarks he prepared in advance.
The observations which obtain in the presentation and acceptance of a material object—as a book, a silver tea set, a medal, an art gallery—apply just as well to the bestowal and acceptance of an honor, such as a degree from a university, an office, an appointment as head of a committee or as foreign representative, or membership in a society. Speeches upon such occasions are likely to be more formal than those delivered upon the transfer of a gift. The bestower may cite the reasons for the honor, the fitness of the recipient, the mutual honors and obligations, and conclude with hopes of further attainments or services. The recipient may reply from a personal angle, explaining not only his appreciation, but his sense of obligation to a trust or duty, his methods of fulfilling his responsibilities, his modestly phrased hope or belief in his ultimate success.
The Inaugural Speech.In this last-named respect the speech of the recipient of an honor is closely relatedto the speech of a person inaugurated to office. This applies to all official positions to which persons are elected or appointed. The examples which will spring into students' minds are the inaugural speeches of Presidents of the United States. A study of these will furnish hints for the newly installed incumbent of more humble positions. In material they are likely to be retrospective and anticipatory. They trace past causes up to present effects, then pass on to discuss future plans and methods. Every officer in his official capacity has something to do. Newspaper articles will give you ideas of what officials should be doing. The office holder at the beginning of his term should make clear to his constituency, his organization, his class, his society, his school, just what he intends to try to do. He must be careful not to antagonize possible supporters by antagonistic remarks or opinions. He should try to show reason and expediency in all he urges. He should temper satisfaction and triumph with seriousness and resolve. Facts and arguments will be of more consequence than opinions and promises. The speech should be carefully planned in advance, clearly expressed, plainly delivered. Its statements should be weighed, as everyone of them may be used later as reasons for support or attack. To avoid such consequences the careful politician often indulges in glittering generalities which mean nothing. A student in such conditions should face issues squarely, and without stirring up unnecessary antagonism, announce his principles clearly and firmly. If he has changed his opinion upon any subject he may just as well state his position so that no misunderstanding may arise later.
In the exercise of his regular activities a person will have many opportunities to deliver this kind of speech.
The Nominating Speech.Recommendation of himself by a candidate for office does not fall within the plan of this book. Students, however, may indulge in canvassing votes for their favorite candidates, and this in some instances, leads to public speaking in class and mass meetings, assemblies, and the like. Of similar import is the nominating speech in which a member of a society, committee, meeting, offers the name of his candidate for the votes of as many as will indorse him. In nominating, it is a usual trick of arrangement to give first all the qualifications of the person whose election is to be urged, advancing all reasons possible for the choice, and uttering his name only in the very last words of the nominating speech. This plan works up to a cumulative effect which should deeply impress the hearers at the mention of the candidate's name.
In nominating speeches and in arguments supporting a candidate the deliverer should remember two things. Constructive proof is better than destructive attack; assertion of opinion and personal preference is not proof. If it seems necessary at times to show the fitness of one candidate by contrast with another, never descend to personalities, never inject a tone of personal attack, of cheap wit, of ill-natured abuse. If such practices are resorted to by others, answer or disregard them with the courteous attention they deserve, no more. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into any discussion remote from the main issue—the qualifications of your own candidate. If you speak frequently upon such a theme—as you may during an extended campaign—notice which of your arguments make the strongest impressions upon the hearers. Discard the weaker ones to place more and more emphasis upon the convincing reasons. Never fail to study other speakers engaged in similar attempts. American life every day provides you with illustrations to study.
The Speech in Support of a Measure.When, instead of a candidate, you are supporting some measure to be adopted, some reform to be instituted, some change to be inaugurated, your task is easier in one respect. There will be less temptation to indulge in personal matters. You will find it easier to adhere to your theme. In such attempts to mold public opinion—whether it be the collective opinion of a small school class, or a million voters—you will find opportunities for the inclusion of everything you know of the particular subject and of all human nature. Convinced yourself of the worthiness of your cause, bend every mental and intellectual effort to making others understand as you do, see as you do. If your reasoning is clear and converting, if your manner is direct and sincere, you should be able to induce others to believe as you do.
The Persuasive Speech.In public speaking upon occasions when votes are to be cast, where reforms are to be instituted, where changes are to be inaugurated, you have not finished when you have turned the mental attitude, and done no more. You must arouse the will to act. Votes must be cast for the measure you approve. The reform you urge must be financed at once. The change must be registered. To accomplish such a purpose you must do more than merely prove; you must persuade.
In the use of his power over people to induce them to noble, high-minded action lies the supreme importance of the public speaker.
EXERCISES
1. Choose some recent event which you and your friends might celebrate by a dinner. As toastmaster, deliver the first after-dinner remarks drawing attention to the occasion and introducing some one to speak.
2. Deliver the after-dinner speech just introduced.
3. Introduce some other member of the class, who is not closely connected with the event being celebrated, and who therefore is a guest.
4. Deliver this speech, being careful to make your remarks correspond to the preceding.
5. A debating team has won a victory. Deliver the speech such a victory deserves.
6. An athletic team has won a victory. As a non-participant, present the trophy.
7. An athletic team has finished a season without winning the championship. Speak upon such a result.
8. The city or state has finished some great project. Speak upon its significance.
9. Address an audience of girls or women upon their right to vote.
10. Speak in approval of some recently elected official in your community.
11. Choose some single event in the history of your immediate locality. Speak upon it.
12. Deliver a commemorative address suitable for the next holiday.
13. Bring into prominence some man or woman connected with the past of your community.
14. An unheralded hero.
15. "They also serve who only stand and wait."
16. "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war."
17. Deliver the speech to accompany the presentation of a set of books.
18. Present to your community some needed memorial park, building, or other monument.
19. Accept the gift for the community.
20. Challenge another class to debate.
21. Urge upon some organization support of some civic measure.
22. As a representative of the students present some request to the authorities.
23. A meeting has been called to hear you because of your association with some organization or movement. Deliver the speech.
24. Some measure or movement is not being supported as it should be. A meeting of people likely to be interested has been called. Address the meeting.
25. Appeal to your immediate associates to support some charitable work.
26. Some organization has recently started a new project. Speak to it upon its task.
27. An organization has successfully accomplished a new project. Congratulate it.
28. Some early associate of yours has won recognition or success or fame away from home. He is about to return. Speak to your companions showing why they should honor him.
29. Choose some person or event worthy of commemoration. Arrange a series of detailed topics and distribute them among members of the class. Set a day for their presentation.
30. Choose a chairman. On the appointed day have him introduce the topic and the speakers.
Difference between Public Speaking and Acting.In practically all the aspects of public speaking you deliver your own thoughts in your own words. In dramatic presentation you deliver the words already written by some one else; and in addition, while you are delivering these remarks you speak as though you were no longer yourself, but a totally different person. This is the chief distinction between speaking in public and acting. While you must memorize the lines you deliver when you try to act like a character other than yourself, speeches in dramatic production are not like usual memorized selections. Usually a memorized selection does not express the feelings or opinions of a certain character, but is likely to be descriptive or narrative. Both prose and verse passages contain more than the uttered words of a single person.
As preparation for exercise in dramatics, whether simple or elaborate, training in memorizing and practice in speaking are extremely valuable. Memorizing may make the material grow so familiar that it loses its interest for the speaker. Pupils frequently recite committed material so listlessly that they merely bore hearers. Such a disposition to monotony should be neutralized by the ability to speak well in public.
Naturalness and Sincerity.When you speak lines from a play inject as much naturalness and sincerity into your delivery as you can command. Speak the words as though they really express your own ideas and feelings. If you feel that you must exaggerate slightly because of the impression the remark is intended to make, rely more upon emphasis than upon any other device to secure an effect. Never slip into an affected manner of delivering any speech. No matter what kind of acting you have seen upon amateur or professional stage, you must remember that moderation is the first essential of the best acting. Recall what Shakespeare had Hamlet say to the players.
Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus: but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. Oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious, periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise.
Character Delineation.In taking part in a play you must do more than simply recite words spoken by some one other than yourself. You must really act like that person. This adds to the simple delivery of speeches all those other traits by which persons in real life are different from one another. Such complete identification of your personality with that of the person you are trying to represent in a play is termed character delineation, or characterization.
You may believe that you cannot represent an Indian chief or a British queen, or an Egyptian slave, or a secret service agent, but if you will recall your childish pastime of day-dreaming you will see at once that you have quite frequently identified yourself with some one else, and in that other character you have made yourself experience the strangest and most thrilling adventures. When you study a rôle in a scene or play, use your imagination in that same manner. In a short time it will be easy for you to think as that other character would. Then you have become identified with him. The first step in your delineation has been taken.
Visualize in your mind's eye—your imagination—the circumstances in which that character is placed in the play. See yourself looking, moving, acting as he would. Then talk as that character would in those circumstances. Make him react as he would naturally in the situations in which the dramatist has placed him.
Let us try to make this more definite. Suppose a boy is chosen to act the part of an old man. An old man does not speak as rapidly as a boy does. He will have to change the speed of his speech. But suppose the old man is moved to wrath, would his words come slowly? Would he speak distinctly or would he almost choke?
The girl who is delineating a foreign woman must picture her accent and hesitation in speaking English. She would give to her face the rather vacant questioning look such a woman would have as the English speech flits about her, too quickly for her to comprehend all of it.
The girl who tries to present a British queen in a Shakespeare play must not act as a pupil does in the school corridor. Yet if that queen is stricken in her feelings as a mother, might not all the royal dignity melt away, and her Majesty act like any sorrowing woman?
EXERCISES
You are sitting at a table or desk. The telephone rings. You pick up the receiver. A person at the other end invites you to dinner. Deliver your part of the conversation.