It is unworthy, of course, but it is a tempting device for the speaker who can combine with it an appeal to the prejudices or pa.s.sions of his audience.

The author has seen the entire population of Rome agitated because in a Senatorial debate one speaker attacked the family reputation of one of his opponents--a matter which, even if true, certainly had nothing to do with the bill under discussion. Political campaigns used to be disgraced by a prevalence of such appeals for votes. We may pride ourselves upon an advance in such matters, but there is still too much of it to let us congratulate ourselves upon our political good manners. You cannot ascribe bad faith to a man who argues now from a different att.i.tude from the one he formerly supported. Changes of conviction are frequent in all matters. A man must be judged by the reasons he gives for his position at any one time. Many a person, who ten years ago would have argued against it, now believes a League of Nations possible and necessary. Many a person who a few years back could see no advantage in labor organizations is anxious now to join an affiliated union.

If you find the suggestion of such an attack in any of your own speeches, cast it out. If it is ever used against you, refute it by the strength of arguments you deliver in support of your position.

Remove all a.s.sertions which do not relate to the debated topic. Make your audience sympathize with your repudiation of the remarks of your opponent, even though he has succeeded in delivering them.

Fallacies of Causal Relationship. The various fallacies that may be committed under the relation of cause and effect are many. Just because something happened prior to something else (the effect), the first may be mistakenly quoted as the cause. Or the reverse may be the error--the second may be a.s.sumed to be the effect of the first. The way to avoid this fallacy was suggested in the discussion of explanation by means of cause and effect where the statement was made that two events must not be merely _sequential_, they must be _consequential_. In argument the slightest gap in the apparent relationship is likely to result in poor reasoning, and the consequent fallacy may be embodied in the speech. When people argue to prove that superst.i.tions have come true, do they present clear reasoning to show conclusively that the alleged cause--such as sitting thirteen at table--actually produced the effect of a death? Do they _establish_ a close causal relationship, or do they merely _a.s.sert_ that after a group of thirteen had sat at table some one did die? Mathematically, would the law of chance or probability not indicate that such a thing would happen a little less surely if the number had been twelve, a little more surely if fourteen?

Common sense, clear headedness, logical reasoning, and a wide knowledge of all kinds of things will enable a speaker to recognize these fallacies, antic.i.p.ate them, and successfully refute them.

Methods of Refuting. Having found the fallacies in an argument you should proceed to refute them. Just how you can best accomplish your purpose of weakening your opponent's position, of disposing of his arguments, of answering his contentions, must depend always upon the particular circ.u.mstances of the occasion, of the material presented, of the att.i.tude of the judges or audience, of your opponent himself, and of the purpose you are striving to accomplish. Practice, knowledge, skill, will in such cases all serve your end. You should be able to choose, and effectively use the best. It is impossible to antic.i.p.ate and provide for all the possibilities, but a few of the most common probabilities and the methods of dealing with them can be here set down.

Courteous Correction. In case of apparent error or over-sight you will do well to be courteous rather than over-bearing and dictatorial in your correction. Never risk losing an advantage by driving your audience into sympathy for your opponent by any manner of your own. A newspaper discussing the objections made to the covenant of the League of Nations points out an over-sight in this way: "How did Senator Knox happen to overlook the fact that his plan for compulsory arbitration is embodied in Article XII of the proposed covenant?"

Refuting Incorrect a.n.a.logy. The caution was given that reasoning from a.n.a.logy must show the complete correspondence in all points possible of the known from which the reasoning proceeds to the conclusion about the unknown, which then is to be accepted as true. Unless that complete correspondence is established firmly the speaker is likely to have his carefully worked out a.n.a.logy demolished before his eyes.

Notice how such refutation is clearly demonstrated in the following.

So it does; but the sophistry here is plain enough, although it is not always detected. Great genius and force of character undoubtedly make their own career. But because Walter Scott was dull at school, is a parent to see with joy that his son is a dunce? Because Lord Chatham was of a towering conceit, must we infer that pompous vanity portends a comprehensive statesmanship that will fill the world with the splendor of its triumphs? Because Sir Robert Walpole gambled and swore and boozed at Houghton, are we to suppose that gross sensuality and coa.r.s.e contempt of human nature are the essential secrets of a power that defended liberty against tory intrigue and priestly politics? Was it because Benjamin Franklin was not college-bred that he drew the lightning from heaven and tore the scepter from the tyrant?

Was it because Abraham Lincoln had little schooling that his great heart beat true to G.o.d and man, lifting him to free a race and die for his country? Because men naturally great have done great service in the world without advantages, does it follow that lack of advantage is the secret of success?

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS: _The Public Duty of Educated Men_, 1877

Reducing Proof to Absurdity. A very good way of showing the unreliability of an opposing argument is to pretend to accept it as valid, then carrying it on to a logical conclusion, to show that its end proves entirely too much, or that it reduces the entire chain of reasoning to absurdity. This is, in fact, called _reductio ad absurdum_. At times the conclusion is so plainly going to be absurd that the refuter need not carry its successive steps into actual delivery. In speaking to large groups of people nothing is better than this for use as an effective weapon. It gives the hearers the feeling that they have a.s.sisted in the damaging demonstration. It almost seems as though the speaker who uses it were merely using--as he really is--material kindly presented to him by his opponent. So the two actually contribute in refuting the first speaker's position.

Congress only can declare war; therefore, when one State is at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war. The President and the Senate only can make peace; when peace is made for one State, therefore, it must be made for all.

Can anything be conceived more preposterous, than that any State should have power to nullify the proceedings of the general government respecting peace and war? When war is declared by a law of Congress, can a single State nullify that law, and remain at peace? And yet she may nullify that law as well as any other. If the President and Senate make peace, may one State, nevertheless, continue the war? And yet, if she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify a treaty.

DANIEL WEBSTER: _The Const.i.tution Not a Compact between Sovereign States_, 1833

Lincoln could always use this method of _reductio ad absurdum_ most effectively because he seldom failed to accentuate the absurdity by some instance which made clear to the least learned the force of his argument. Many of his best remembered quaint and picturesque phrases were embodied in his serious demolition of some high-handed presumption of a political leader.

Under all these circ.u.mstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: _Cooper Union Speech_, 1860

Amplifying and Diminishing. Finally a good method of refuting the claim of importance made for an opposing proposition is by amplifying and diminishing. In plain terms this depends upon contrast in which you reduce the value of the opposing idea and emphasize the value of your own. An excellent use for this is as a rapid summary at the end of your speech, where it will leave in the hearer's mind an impression of the comparative value of the two views he has heard discussed, with an inevitable sense of the unquestioned worth of one above the other.

Burke sums up his extended refutations of Lord North's plan for dealing with America in these telling contrasts.

Compare the two. This I offer to give you is plain and simple; the other full of perplexed and intricate mazes.

This is mild; that harsh. This found by experience effectual for its purposes; the other is a new project. This is universal; the other calculated for certain colonies only.

This is immediate in its conciliatory operation; the other remote, contingent, full of hazard. Mine is what becomes the dignity of a ruling people--gratuitous, unconditional--and not held out as a matter of bargain and sale.

EDMUND BURKE: _Conciliation with America_, 1775

Position of Refutation in the Speech. The position of refutation in the finished speech will depend always upon the nature of the proposition, the exact method of the refutation, and the audience. If you are making the only speech upon the proposition and you feel that the audience may have a slight prejudice against what you are about to urge, you may gain adherents at once by refuting at the beginning the possible arguments in their minds. By this procedure you will clear the field for your own operations. To change the figure of speech, you erase from the slate what is already written there, so that you may place upon it your own speech and its convictions.

If you are debating and the speaker just before you has evidently made the judges accept his arguments, again you might remove that conviction by refutation before you proceed to build up your own side.

If your regular arguments meet his squarely, proceed as you had planned, but be sure when any reasoning you offer nullifies any he has delivered, that you call the attention of the audience to the fact that you have wiped out his score. In this way your constructive argument and refutation will proceed together. You will save valuable time.

Constructive Argument Is More Valuable than Refutation. Often the reb.u.t.tal speeches of debate, coming at the close of the regular debate speeches, seem reserved for all the refutation. This is certainly the place for much refutation, certainly not all. The last speakers of the reb.u.t.tal speeches should never rest content with leaving only refutation in the hearers' minds. If they do, the debate may leave the condition entirely where it was at the beginning, for theoretically every argument advanced by either side has been demolished by the other. After the reb.u.t.tal the last points left with the judges should be constructive arguments.

In a single speech the refutation may be delivered in sections as the demands of coherence and the opportunities for emphasis may suggest.

Here again, always make the last section a constructive one with arguments in support of your proposition.

CHAPTER XII

DEBATING

The Ideal of Debating. A long time ago so admirable a man as William Penn stated the high ideal of all real debating whether practised in the limited range of school interests or in the extended field of life's activities.

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 partic.i.p.ants of amateur athletics of the meanings and significance of the two terms _sportsman_ and _sport_, 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 daily life. 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 cla.s.sroom 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 cla.s.s. Make a list of those who favor and those who oppose. Speak upon the proposition, alternating affirmative and negative.