Practical Argumentation

wo speeches, a main speech and a rebuttal speech. The main speech ordinarily extends over a period of from seven to twelve minutes, according to the rules governing the contest, and is l

ters, affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative, and so on; and that all the main speeches are given before either side makes a rebuttal speech. If there be only one debater on each side, it is undoubtedly best

REPARE F

f the brief, the work in all cases is the same, but at this point the debater has to decide what special preparation he shall make for handling and presenting to the audience the material tha

o are to follow should adapt their arguments, to some extent at least, to the exigencies of the debate. They will find it desirable to make a change in one place in order to join their arguments harmoniously to those of their colleagues; they will wish to make changes in another place for the sake of assailing an obviously weak spot or in order to ward off an unexpected attack. This versatility is practicall

great objections: first, it is difficult to join together gracefully the memorized passages and the extemporized; and the second,

t least partially extemporaneous; he may have a fairly clear conception of how he is to frame his sentences, but he should have nothing learned word for word. Thus his speech may have an element of spontaneity that will give it a tone of sincerity and earnestness unattainable when one is repeating a memorized passage. Too much, however, must not be left to the inspiration of the moment; no student should

ccasion. Should he unexpectedly find that his opponent has admitted a certain idea, he can merely call attention to this fact and not waste valuable time in giving superfluous proof. If he sees that his opponent has made such a strong argument that some refutation is neces

ed by some teachers of argumentation. On these cards the debater can put down the main headings of his brief, all statistics that are difficult to remember, and all quotations. He had better not refer to these cards for the

llotment of time has expired they find themselves in the very midst of their argument. Such an ending leaves the audience confused and unimpressed. No debater should ever omit his conclusion. If there is only one contestant on each side, a conclusion is certainly necessary both for the sake of clearness and emphasis, and bec

UTA

f is constructed. Ordinarily one can predict what lines of reasoning an opponent will take; in fact, no one should ever attempt to debate until he has studied the proposition so thoroughly that he can anticipate practically all the arguments that will be advanced. Yet until he sees on what points the emphasis is placed, wh

kers often spend incalculable time in preparing to answer the arguments of the opposition. Webster's Reply to Hayne, which is a recognized masterpiece of oratory, and which

in doing this the debater must use the greatest caution. To begin with, he must be sure that the argument he refutes is of such a fundamental nature that it is essential to the case of the other side, for if his opponent fails to use this point, the debater not only has exposed himself to ridicule, but has wasted valuable time. When one does refute in advance a point tha

ding speaker on the opposite side will have great difficulty in making any impression unless he can at the start at least partially discredit the preceding argument. The attitude of the audience will compel him to use refutation before beginning his constructive work. On the other hand, if the preceding a

f overthrowing the points that count, occupy invaluable time with trivial matters. To rebut unimportant details, admitted matter, mere illustrations, and errors obviously due to haste in spe

at the argument as a whole and attacking it with the concerted strength of all his forces, he fires scattering shots, and does but little damage. In refutation a debater must first see clearly the relation between each point that he rebuts and the proposition, otherwise his work is wasted. Seco

st been quoted as an authority; but if he can neither produce this article nor state its substance, he might as well not know about it. Perhaps he remembers having seen a table of statistics showing that his opponent has erred in regard to the death rate in the Spanish- American

e financial success of a plan that he is advocating, he should write out on as many cards as are necessary, usually putting only one idea on each card, all the material that goes to show why the plan should succeed and where it has succeeded. Furthermore, if the plan has failed anywhere, he should put down, providing he is able, explanations that will account for the failure without condemning the system. These cards, then, would naturally be arranged under some such heading as "Finance" or

should be made ou

-operative methods generally afford the most prom

TICA

n successfully operated under this method since 1

TICA

s., are operated under this method. (G

spend much valuable time in hunting after needed evidence and thus neglect large portions of the speech that is being delivered. A debater should begin on the classification of rebuttal material almost as soon as he begins to read on his sub

H DEBATE

rgument, cannot be studied and re-read time and again. For this reason, unless the proposition is explained in the very simplest language and by means of the very clearest definitions and illustrations, many people in the audience will not understand what the debate is about. Long words and high-sounding phrases have no place here. The de

this practice is dishonest, and an honorable debater does not wish to win by trickery or fraud. Secondly, such an act almost always brings defeat. The fact that a debate is being held, presupposes a subject about

four steps that are taken in analyzing the proposition: to define terms, to expl

he must be sure so to correlate his work with the work of his colleagues that, in the minds of the audience, it will all hang together as a united whole. To accomplish this object, he may, as he finishes with his partition, state what points he will discuss himself, and what points will be handled by the affirmative speakers that are to succe

on so that it is generally understood, the negative is sure to win favor with the audience by spending a few moments in elucidating the subject of controversy. If the affirmative debater has analyzed the question inadequately or unfairly, the negative debater should not begin to establish proof until he has set these preliminaries straight. In correcting an unfair analysis, it is never enough that one merely make objections or even give an introduction of his own; he must, in br

o repeat an introduction that has already been given is absurd; to fail to correct an introduction that, as a whole, is obscure or is unfair, is to merit defeat. It may be added, by way of caution, that when a debater supplies any deficiencies in the speech of

, giving reason for postponing the refutation. As this matter has already been discussed, it is only necessary to say that the course he should choose depends largely upon the strength of the preceding argument. The same direct

e should always begin his main argument with a terse, clear summary of what has been said on his side, and in closing he should not only summarize his own arguments, but he should also give again, in very brief form, the gist of what has been proved by his colleagues. In addition, any speaker except the last one on each s

ater should lavish his greatest care. To omit it is almost the same as to have made no speech at all. As soon as the debater perceives that he has but a short time left, he should at once bring this main speech to a close, and even though he may have to omit important ideas, begin at once on his conclusion. As is pointed out in Chapter X, the conclusion consists both of a summary and an emot

is worth answering and what is trivial. If he is not perfectly familiar with the arguments on both sides of the question, his refutation will be scattering; that is, he will rebut only a few of his opponent's headings, those for which, in his scanty preparation, he has discovered

andled. One way is for each member to refute all he can, working independently of his colleagues. Much better results are secured, however, when a team works systematically. In the first place, a team should always resolve the opposing arguments into a hasty brief. T

ment that may be advanced. In general, the assignment of headings for rebuttal may be such that each debater will refute those points of which he took an opposite view in his main speech, but as it is usuall

rguments, and by means of summaries keep their case as a whole before the audience. The last speaker devotes far less time to pure refutation, gives a more detailed su

points it set out to prove. In such a case, he cannot do better than to acknowledge the correctness of his opponent's proof, and then remembering that an audience awards a decision by a comp

greatly increases the wealth of the country. If neither of these contentions be successfully refuted, the favor of the audience will incline towards the affirmative or the negative, as far as those two points are concerned, according as they thi

f its importance this portion of the work usually falls to the best debater on the team, and if he is wise he will give it his greatest thought and care. In this speech he should strive in every possible way to attain perfection. His delivery should be emphatic and pleasing; his ideas should be logically arranged; and his knowledge of what he has to say shou

EATURES O

student from his study of Rhetoric is already familiar with these matters, it would be superfluous to dwell upon them in this book. A good written argument, however, does not always make a good debate; limited time for speaking, lack of opportunity for

ng his ideas so plain and so emphatic that the audience will understand them and remember them. Realizing that the audience cannot, like the reade

ish and lazy, refuses to be burdened with uninteresting and unimportant details. For this reason, when a debater speaks of 10,564,792 people, the brain becomes wearied with the numbers and in disgust is apt to turn away from the whole matter. On the other hand, the round sum 10,000,000 not only does not burden the brain, but also, under ordinary conditions, gives in a rather for

The ordinary mind can not grasp the significance of large numbers. That the state of Texas contains over a quarter of a million of square miles means little to the average person; he neither reme

, cut through Idaho, overlap South Dakota, touch Michigan, bisect Ohio, reach West Virginia, cut through North Caro

-half billions of dollars, conveys little idea of the magnitude of the harvest. A current

nt to save the Far East from a great famine: the largest fleet in the world, with its four hundred vessels of all sizes, would have required fifteen round trips to move it. Take tobacco,-such a minor crop tha

make the startling assertion that a new navy of first-class battle-ships could be built for the sum

tedious than too many of these descriptions of statistics coming close together. If numbers a

audience and cause them both to understand the argument and to give it their consideration. The slogan of a recent political campaign was not, "Improved economic conditions for the laboring man"; it was, "The full dinner pail." The political orator who is urging the necessity for a larger navy on the ground that war is imminent doe

tiveness of the f

are more loyal to each o

thicker t

re demanding poli

vor of some things I want." That was the dictum of Franklin Taylor, Farmer, on Rural Route N

once commodious and impress

be almost grant in the width and perspective are now mere smoky t

coming more de

ard the middle point of Illinois. The center of manufacturing has r

and generalities, and bringing his case down to a specific instance, gives a

I can show you-I think I can demonstrate clearly-how the tariff hurts them; an

iverpool; whether he ships it there or not, that is where the price of his wheat is fixed. The Georgia cotton-raiser ships his cotton to Liverpool; whether he ships it there or not, that is where the price of his cotton is fixed. The wheat and the cotton are sold in that free trade market. The wheat is sold

and it shows $4,000 worth of goods. Those goods represent in the one case 5,000 bushels of wheat, in the other case 100 bales of cotton. The collector at the port says to either of these gentlemen-the man who raises the wheat

ions of this sort. Burke, in his Speech on Conciliation, says, "Despotism itself is obliged to truck and huckster"; "The public," he said, "would not have patience to see us play the game out with our adversaries; we must produce our hand"; "Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away

tion shall hawk at and tear it; if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed to separate it from that Union by which alone its existence is made sure; it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which i

tal question in literal and then, to drive home t

mselves prescribe, or is it the expression of certain political principles by which a living and growing Nation has resolved to guid

forceful figure to an absurd figure is so short that a debater has to be on his guard against using expressions that will impress his audience as ridiculous or even funny. A mixture of highly figurative lan

ast ditch, going down with flags flying, and from the mountain top of Democracy, hurling defianc

IVE

eful. A speaker should never rest content with being able to present his argument merely with clearness; he should strive to be interesting and impressive also. These qualities depend in no small measure upon the way a speech is delivered. The best story or the best argument will fall flat unless it is full of the fire of enthusiasm, unless the personality of the speaker vivifies it and makes it a living reality. Unfortunately, this intangible quality in a speaker, often called "personality" or "magnetism," cannot, to any great extent, be taught. In t

of delivery. He can establish a direct personal connection between himself and his hearers and talk to them as man to man. If the hall is not too large, he need scarcely raise his voice from its accustomed tone; he can look his audience in the eye, receiving the stimulus of whatever interest they express; and at the same time he can let them see in his features the earnestness and sincerity that he feels. To stand near the back of the stage is undoubtedly easier for one who is diffident or inexperienced; perhaps he will then be able partially to forget where he is and to imagine that he is alone; but such an attitude both sev

lipshod thinking and reasoning. A speaker should always stand erect, with his head back, chin in, shoulders rolled back and down; either the feet should be near together with the weight of the body on both, or one foot should be slightly in advance of the other with the weight of the body entirely on the rear foot. In the latter case, the leg on which the body rests must form a straight line with the body, there being no unsightly bulging at the hip; and the leg o

stant use in the making of gestures. If one is delivering a lengthy argument, there is no particular harm in putting one hand behind the back for a short time, or even in front of the body along the waist line, provided this can be done in an easy, natural manner; but in the case

ook at the floor, at the ceiling, or at the walls. He must look at the people he would convince. Only in this way can he hope to hold

akers have been known to change their weight from one foot to the other as often as twenty or thirty times a minute. Other speakers have adopted a peculiar jerk of the head or a constant shrugging of the shoulders that is most disagreeable to see. Still others keep constantly openin

ve about, taking two or three steps at a time. In doing this he must never go backward; he must never retreat. If, for any reason, he began his speech while standing near the rear or the centre of the stage, he should move forward; if he cannot go forward, he may move back and forth near the edge of the platform. The best time for one to change

vice, what will determine the proper course for a student to follow? The answer to this question lies in a consideration of the ultimate object of a course in debating. If it is to give students some facility in expressing their thoughts before an audience, if it is to train students for practical work in business and professional life, th

private and before a class will soon enable him to make them with considerable emphasis and ease. From this point on, the road is clear. The knowledge that he can use his hands to good advantage, even in a limited way, will soon cause him to make gestures spontaneously. Nor will he b

instructor. It makes no particular difference with what ones a debater begins, provided that they are simple in execution and are such as he will wish to use in practically every debate into which he enters. Ordinarily, the best ones for a beginner to practice on are those indicating em

ument, depend so much as upon his voice. One may move his audience in spite of an awkward posture and in the absence of all intelligent g

watching to see whether he holds their attention; at the same time he must be careful not to shout in a manner unpleasant to those sitting nearer him. The stress laid by public speakers upon the matter of loudness is we

le conscious effort to pronounce each syllable in a word distinctly, but the resulting clearness is worth a strenuous attempt. One great cause of poor enunciation is too rapid talking. A fairly slow delivery is preferable not only because the words can

cases a little practice will produce a wonderful change. A very common breach of elegance in speaking is the habit of drawling out an er sound between words. The constant repetition of this is exceedingly annoying. It is usually caused by an attempt to fill in a gap while the speaker is groping about for the next word. The best way to correct this blunder is to be so familiar

l to fill his lungs at the close of each sentence, always inhaling, in order not to make an unpleasant gasping noise, through the nose. While speaking, he should control his supply of breath not by contracting the chest but by elevating the diaphragm. This procedure will give his voice a richness and a resonance that it otherwise could not have. Breathing merely from the top of the lungs means squeakiness of tone and poor control. One who breathes incorrectly will find it necessary to shout to make himself heard at a distance; one who breathes correctly can usually be heard under the same conditions by merely talking. The superiority of the round, deep tone over the shout is too obvious to need comment. In the next place, a speaker must think about this voice. Thought and

who is trying to change another's belief, the attitude of friendship, fairness, and respect. Such a point of view precludes the use of satire, invective, or harsh epithets. These never carry conviction; in fact, they invariably destroy the effect that an otherwise good argument migh

in, and is used to cover up weaknesses. Besides, an audience always sympathizes with the man who is first attacked. All this does not mean that a debater should calmly submit to unfairness and vilification. On the contrary, he should defend himself spiritedly; but he should not meet abuse with abuse. To do so would be to

what attitude a debater should

ments while I offer to their attention some observations. I am highly gratified with the temper and ability with which the discussion has

myself and the other signers of the Independent Democratic Appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demonstra

The issue is too grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings.

ttitude of Mr. Lincoln in his debates with Senator Douglas. It is needle

aracter. He has forgotten the history of his country. Preach insurrection to the Northern laborers! Preach ins

ld Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854 by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man-not even Judge Douglas-can

hat there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he willfully misrepresents me, but I call upo

JUDGE A

marked out for them; they are given printed slips indicating the relative importance of evidence, reasoning, delivery, and the other points that must be considered. Most commonly, however, each judge is instru

consider. It will be of service not only to the judges of a debate but to the co

e has the be

de has the s

preponderance

he quality of

he skill used

offers the bet

main points left standing after

e has the bet

ral bearing, voi