UTILITY OF DEBATING SOCIETIES.
Comparatively little attention is paid to the direct cultivation of
extemporaneous oratory in schools and colleges. Indirectly, much help is
given by teaching many things which go to furnish the orator with ideas
and words, but the combination of these into that noble effort of human
genius—a speech—is left to individual research or to accident. A few
schools of oratory have been founded which give a large and probably
disproportionate share of attention to elocution in the form of stage or
dramatic reading; but even the best of these are as yet but entering
upon their real work of cultivating thoroughly the power of persuasive
public speech. When each college shall have a chair of extempore speech,
and each academy shall give as much attention to unpremeditated
utterances in conversation and public address as is now bestowed upon
Greek or Latin, the oratory of pulpit, bar, platform, and legislature
will be of a vastly higher type.
Some newspaper critics have deprecated teaching the art of speech on the
ground that there is already too much public talking. This view, if
seriously entertained, is very narrow and misleading. Not more, but
better speech—an increase of quality, rather than quantity—would result
from cultivation, and improved methods. And it may also be argued that
if a great part of the work of life is found in convincing, instructing,
and persuading our fellows, an abundance of speech is absolutely
required. As freedom and mental activity increase, the only practicable
modes of leading and governing men, which rest upon persuasive speech,
will be more urgently demanded. In a state where the will of one man is
law, political speech has little place; and in a Church where
independent thought is heresy and the mass of the people accept
unquestioningly the precise form of faith in which they were born,
preaching will have a very narrow field. But in our own country it is
our boast that we determine every subject by free discussion; and it is
clear that a man who can take no part in the oral battles that are
continually waged about him is placed at a great disadvantage.
But the literary societies generally connected with schools do afford
very valuable help in acquiring the art of oratory. Not only their
formal exercises, but their discussion of points of order and procedure,
and the management of the business and government of such societies,
call out talking talent. Debating societies or lyceums give the same
kind of facilities to speakers outside of educational halls. A spirited
debate on some topic not above the comprehension of the debaters affords
one of the best possible means of acquiring the prime faculties of
assurance and fluency. In such debates the question is chosen, the sides
assigned, and ample time given for that kind of preparation which can
only be effectually made in the general study of the subject. There is
no great temptation to write a speech for a coming debate, as its formal
sentences would fit poorly into the line of argument, the course of
which cannot be foreseen, even if their substance should not be
anticipated by a speaker on the same side. But the more general
knowledge of the subject in its entire range that can be acquired the
better, so long as it does not overwhelm the speaker. The opening speech
may indeed be planned in advance with some definiteness, but all others
will be colored and modified by the situation into which the debate has
been drawn. Each participant is under a strong stimulus to do his best,
sure, if successful, of warm approval by his colleagues and sweet
triumph over his opponents. After the opening speech each contestant
will have the time his predecessor is speaking for arranging arguments
and preparing an answer. The stimulus of contradiction rouses every
faculty to the highest energy. Each argument is scrutinized for the
purpose of discovering its weak point, and nothing will pass on trust.
It may as well be acknowledged that the gladiatorial spirit, though in a
modified form, is still rife in the civilized world. The “joy of
conflict” may be tasted as well in the sharp encounters of an earnest
debate upon some topic of absorbing interest as on the battle-field. A
society which furnishes its members continual opportunity for speech,
under such conditions cannot fail to be a powerful educator in the
direction of extemporaneous speech. In such encounters, the freedom that
belongs to this kind of address is most highly appreciated, and the
mistaken considerations of dignity and propriety which so often take all
life and heart from speech can have little weight. Debates have indeed
been occasionally carried on by means of essays in place of speeches,
but such encounters have been tame and listless affairs, and have soon
given place to the real article. Among the American statesmen who have
taken their first lessons in the art which paved their way to greatness
in country debating societies may be reckoned Henry Clay, Abraham
Lincoln, James A. Garfield, and many others only less eminent.
Enough inducements, we trust, have been set forth to lead every student
of speech to find or make an opportunity for availing himself of this
capital means of cultivation. Let him enter upon the work of debating,
earnestly resolving (after the first few efforts) to do the very best in
his power. Let him arrange his material carefully, select a striking
mode of opening each address, and strive to close in such a manner as to
leave the best effect on the minds of his hearers. As he debates for
improvement rather than for immediate victory, he will, of course,
despise all tricks and seek to win fairly, or—what is just as important
a lesson—he will learn to accept defeat gracefully.
The skeletons of two speeches on opposite sides of the same question are
here presented for the purpose of showing how a simple plan will hold to
the proper place all the thoughts and arguments that may be accumulated.
The same form of outline is used as in the preceding chapter.
QUESTION.
_Would the annexation of Cuba to the United States be beneficial?_
AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT.
INTRODUCTION.—How small and hemmed in by powerful countries the
United States would have been if no annexations had ever been
made. To annex Cuba would be no _new_ policy.
DISCUSSION. _Argument First._—Favorable location of Cuba and
commercial value to the United States.
_Argument Second._—The great riches and beauty of the Island, which
make it very desirable.
_Argument Third._—Advantages to the people of Cuba themselves, in
belonging to a great and free nation.
CONCLUSION.—All previous annexations had to encounter strong
opposition when first proposed, but are now acknowledged to have
been good policy. So, if Cuba is brought under our flag,
opposition will die out and all parties be glad of the result.
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT.
INTRODUCTION.—Plausible but inconclusive nature of the argument
advanced on the other side. Previous annexations may not have been
good, though opposition ceased when it could avail nothing. Even
if all former annexations were beneficial this might not be, as
all attending circumstances are so widely different.
DISCUSSION. _Argument First._—The nation has already as much
territory as can be well governed. An increase would lead to grave
dangers.
_Argument Second._—The people of Cuba are different in language,
race, and religion from the majority of the people of the United
States; have different customs, and are unacquainted with the
working of our institutions. They could not therefore be
transformed easily into good citizens.
CONCLUSION.—Dreadful wars and calamities have arisen in all ages and
all parts of the world from greediness in absorbing
territory—“earth hunger,” as the Germans call it. To annex Cuba
would involve present and future danger.