DEBATE--SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS
Debate has been defined as the oral presentation of argument under
conditions that allow both sides to be heard. In both class room and
intercollegiate debating each side usually makes two 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 largely constructive in nature. The
rebuttal speech, commonly called _the rebuttal_, is usually a
little less than half the length of the main speech, and is for the
most part destructive. It is almost superfluous to add that both sides
are allowed exactly the same amount of time in which to present their
arguments; that the affirmative side speaks first, the order being,
when there are several debaters, 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 for the affirmative to offer the
first rebuttal; if there be several debaters, the order is usually
reversed. The debaters on either side may or may not speak in rebuttal
in the same order as in the main argument.
HOW TO PREPARE FOR DEBATE.
In several ways the work of the debater differs from the work of one
who is preparing a written argument or who is to speak without being
confronted by an opponent. As far as the completion of 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 that he has collected. He is
puzzled to know whether it will be worth while to expand his brief;
and if he does expand it, he is in doubt as to just what he should do
with the expanded argument.
A debater has his choice of several possible methods of procedure. The
simplest, though not the most effective method, is to write out the
argument in full, and to memorize it word for word. The weakness of
such a course lies in the immobility of its attack and defense. The
first speaker for the affirmative may decide beforehand exactly what
he will say and the order in which he will say it, but all those who
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 practically
impossible if one is delivering an argument that he has memorized word
for word. Again, a memorized argument cannot carry with it the force
and the conviction that may be found in an effort of a more
spontaneous character. Furthermore, if a debater should be so
unfortunate as to forget even a few words of a memorized selection, he
would probably be forced to sit down with his speech only partially
completed.
Another method that some debaters follow is to memorize portions of
their argument and to extemporize the rest. This is open to two great
objections: first, it is difficult to join together gracefully the
memorized passages and the extemporized; and the second, the very
smoothness with which the memorized passages are delivered betrays the
crudeness and awkwardness of the extemporized parts.
A third method, and undoubtedly the best one for the student to adopt,
is not to expand the brief before he debates, but to memorize the
greater part of it _as a brief_. In this way a debater has his
ideas well in hand, and, without being tied down to any particular
manner of expression or obliged to follow any set order of procedure,
he can use his material as opportunity requires. His language should
be at 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 ever try to debate without first attempting in his room to
expand his brief orally. He is sure to meet with considerable
difficulty the first time he tries to formulate his ideas in clear,
forceful, and elegant language; but several attempts will produce a
remarkable change. After a few endeavors he will discover ways of
expressing himself that he will remember, even though the words vary
greatly each time.
The superiority of this method is marked. It enables the debater to
become perfectly familiar with all his material, and it gives him a
fairly good idea of what language he shall use. He is not, however,
bound down to any set speech; he can alter his argument to suit the
occasion. 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
necessary at the outset in order to gain the confidence of his
audience, he can instantly change the order of his proof and begin
with a point that he had, perhaps, intended to use in another part of
his speech. In fact, this method enables one to _debate_ rather
than to _declaim_.
In most debating contests it is permissible for the contestants to
make use of a few notes written on small cards that can be carried in
a pocket or held unobtrusively in the hand. Such a practice, if not
abused, is commended 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 headings of his brief if
he can possibly avoid doing so_. It will be a great stimulus,
however, for him to know that he has this help to rely on in case of
necessity. Statistics and quotations he may read without hesitation.
One should speak his debate many times by himself, not only for the
purpose of gaining facility in expression, but also for the sake of
condensing his material to an argument that will approximately occupy
the exact time allowed him for debating. It is a deplorable fact that
many debaters try to say so much that when their allotment 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 because an unfinished argument is not a
unit. If there are several contestants on each side, the fact that the
opposing speakers intervene and distract the attention of the audience
makes it even more necessary that each debater end his argument with a
formal conclusion, and by means of it bind his work to that of his
colleagues.
REFUTATION.
As much time, if not more, should be spent in preparing the
destructive as in preparing the constructive portion of an argument.
One can determine beforehand almost exactly how he will establish his
side of the proposition, but just what material he will need to
overthrow his opponent's proof will depend upon how that proof 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, what arguments
are ignored, and what evidence is used, he cannot tell for sure what
facts and what inferences will be most valuable as refutation.
Therefore, a debater who wishes to offer good refutation must have a
wealth of material at his command and be able to select instantly the
ideas that will be of the greatest value.
This necessity for an abundance of information precludes the idea,
held by some, that good debaters depend for their refutation on the
inspiration of the moment. Great speakers 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 is almost entirely refutation, was at first thought to have
been composed over night, but Webster declared that all the material
he had used had lain in his desk for months.
Refutation should come for the most part, though not entirely, in the
rebuttal. Unless one has made a thorough study of both sides of the
question, and is thus sure of his ground, anticipatory refutation is
dangerous. It is sometimes an excellent plan to take the wind out of
an opponent's sails by overthrowing an argument of his before he has a
chance to present it, but 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 that must be
upheld by the opposition, a skillful opponent often can, by
calling attention to the fact that even those on the other side
recognize the importance and strength of this argument, destroy much
of the advantage that has been gained. To refute an argument before it
is advanced, sometimes brings failure and sometimes brings success. A
debater must exercise judgment.
One must also exercise a high degree of judgment in deciding where he
can most advantageously answer the arguments that have actually been
given. Whenever a debater presents so thorough and so strong proof
that the audience is likely to think that he has settled the question
and won the debate, the succeeding 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
argument has apparently produced but little effect, he may at once
begin to build his own proof. He should, however, show good reason for
postponing his refutation. To ignore the previous arguments entirely,
or arbitrarily to postpone answering them, is likely to give the
audience an unfavorable impression.
COMMON ERRORS IN REFUTATION. A common error in refutation is the
failure to attack an opponent's main arguments. Students especially
are wont to neglect fundamental principles, and instead of
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 speaking, is a
fault that every debater should carefully avoid. Such trivialities the
audience immediately forgets, and to bring them up again and refute
them serves no worthy purpose whatever.
Another serious fault common to refutation in student debates is lack
of coherence. The student falls into this error when he rebuts a
miscellaneous lot of points without having first ascertained the
function of each and differentiated the main ideas from the
subordinate ones. Instead of looking 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. Secondly, he must
make this relation perfectly plain to the audience. Instead of
overthrowing isolated statements, a debater should take up his
opponent's case as _a whole_ and weaken it as much as he can. He
should attack each main point. Coherent refutation adds much to the
effectiveness of a debate.
AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL FOR REFUTATION. In offering refutation, every
inexperienced debater has difficulty in laying his hands on just the
material that he desires to use. Possibly he remembers that he has
seen somewhere an article that proves the insincerity of a man who has
just 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 War; but unless he can produce the table, his knowledge is of
no avail. There is scarcely any time for searching through books or
unorganized notes; material to be of use must be instantly available.
Some definite system of arranging rebuttal material is absolutely
indispensable.
One method that has been tried with great success consists of putting
down on cards of a uniform size all the material that can possibly be
of use in refutation. These cards the debater then groups, in
alphabetical order, under headings that correspond to the main
divisions of the subject under discussion, and if it seems advisable
in any particular instance, he may group them under subdivisions of
the proposition. To be more explicit, if a debater thinks that the
opposition may question the 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 "Success." If the
debater wishes, he may also arrange his cards under subheadings. For
instance, those cards that go to show why the plan ought to succeed
could be put under the subheading, "Antecedent Probability"; those
that show where the plan has succeeded, under "Sign," and those that
account for failure of the plan in certain places, under the heading
"Failures." Any one at all familiar with a library card catalogue
will at once see the various possibilities for arranging these cards.
Cards for rebuttal should be made out about as follows:--
Proposition:--_Resolved,_ That profit-sharing and co-operative
methods generally afford the most promising solution of the labor
problem. (Affirmative.)
PRACTICABILITY
The Union Polishing Metal Plating Company has been successfully
operated under this method since 1902. (C. H. Quinn, Outlook, Vol.
LXXIII, page 452.)
PRACTICABILITY
The great iron works of Evansville, Wis., are operated under
this method. (G. L. McNutt, Ind., Vol. LV, page 619.)
The advantages of such a system are obvious. This method gives not
only one debater, but the whole team, almost instant command of all
the material that has been collected. One can find what he wants, and
find it hastily; he is not obliged to 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 subject. In this way he will save all the material that he
gathers, and his catalogued information will be of assistance to him
in drawing his brief and in constructing his main argument as well as
in making refutation at the time of the debate.
WHAT EACH DEBATER MUST DO.
THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. Upon the first speaker for the
affirmative falls the duty of interpreting the proposition. Since the
subject of analysis has already been fully discussed, but few
directions need be given here. It may be well, however, to emphasize
the qualities of clearness and fairness. A debate, unlike a written
argument, 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 debater must aim to reach not merely those who are
familiar with the subject, but also those to whom the question is
absolutely new. If, when the first speaker has finished, any attentive
listener of average intelligence fails to understand both the subject
of the debate and the attitude of the affirmative side, the speech has
been a failure.
Then, too, the analysis of the proposition must be fair and just to
both sides. A debater has no right to strain or twist the meaning of
the proposition so as to gain any advantage for himself. In the first
place, 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 which reasonable men may differ. If a debater interprets
the proposition so that only one reasonable side exists, manifestly he
must be in error, and upon the exposure of this error he is sure to
lose the decision.
In debate, therefore, clearness and fairness should especially
characterize the four steps that are taken in analyzing the
proposition: to define terms, to explain the proposition as a whole,
to discover the issues, and to make the partition.
Upon the completion of the introduction, the first debater for the
affirmative proceeds to the discussion, and later, should he be the
only contestant on the affirmative side, to the conclusion. But if, as
is usually the case, there be several debaters on each side, he takes
up only one or two main points of the proof. In handling this proof 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 succeed
him; and he must, without fail, when he nears the end of his allotted
time, hastily summarize the proof that he has given, and outline the
proof that is to follow. In this way he may keep the intervening
speeches of his opponents from entirely destroying the continuity that
should exist between his speech and the speeches of his colleagues.
THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR THE NEGATIVE. It rests with the first speaker
for the negative to determine whether the introduction as presented by
the affirmative is satisfactory, whether the analysis of the
proposition is clear, adequate, and fair. If the affirmative has erred
in any respect, it is the duty of the first negative debater to supply
the deficiency or make the correction; otherwise he errs equally with
the affirmative. If the affirmative has failed to explain the
proposition 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 brief form--and often a single sentence is
sufficient--show to the satisfaction of the audience that his opponent
has not interpreted the proposition correctly. On the other hand, if
the first speaker for the negative considers the introduction given by
the affirmative perfectly fair and satisfactory, he can pass by it
without comment, and begin his own argument either with refutation or
with a statement of the points that the negative side will establish
in attacking the proposition.
It is thus apparent that a debater who opens a negative argument must
depend for the beginning of his speech rather on a thorough
understanding of the subject in all its details and fundamental
principles than on a speech that he has to deliver word for word. To
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 his predecessor, he
should do this without any appearance of "smartness" or personal
antagonism. Even if the affirmative debater has been manifestly
unfair, the negative speaker will do well to correct this unfairness
in a friendly, though in a forceful manner.
As soon as the introduction is out of the way, the negative speaker
proceeds to the discussion. Two courses are open to him: he may at
once refute his predecessor's arguments, or he may proceed to take up
his constructive proof, 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 directions that have been given to
the affirmative debater for connecting his work to his colleagues'
apply equally to the negative. Summaries and outlines aid greatly in
binding the arguments of a debating team into one compact mass.
THE OTHER SPEAKERS. About the only practical suggestion which can be
made to the other speakers is that they adapt their constructive work
to that of their colleagues, and deploy their refutation so as to
hammer the principal positions of their opponents. Each debater may or
may not begin his speech with refutation, but he 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 side, may, if he thinks best, give an
outline of the argument to follow. In making these summaries, a
debater must always avoid stating them in so bald and crude a form as
to make them monotonous and offensive. He ought rather to use all the
ingenuity at his command in an attempt to make this repetition
exceedingly forceful.
It often happens that an inexperienced debater never reaches his
conclusion. While he is still in the midst of his proof, his allotment
of time expires, and he is forced to sit down, leaving his speech
hanging in the air. Such an experience is both awkward and disastrous;
a skillful debater never allows it to happen. The peroration is the
most important part of an argument, and on it the debater 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 emotional appeal. What emotion shall
be aroused and how it shall apply to the summarized headings can
largely be determined beforehand. Some debaters go so far as to commit
this conclusion to memory. This practice is not recommended except in
special cases, and yet a debater should be so familiar with his
peroration that he will have no difficulty in putting it into vigorous
and pleasing language.
REBUTTAL SPEECHES. A rebuttal speech usually furnishes an excellent
test of a debater's mastery of his subject. It shows whether or not he
comprehends the fundamental principles that underly the argument. If
he does not understand fundamentals, he cannot distinguish between
what 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 some answer. On the other hand, if he really
understands the subject, he will deal largely with main ideas; and if
his knowledge of the subject is as extensive as it should be, he will
almost invariably be able to offer some opposition to every main
heading used by the opposition.
When a debate is held between only two contestants, each one has to
refute the whole argument of his opponent. In this case there are no
complications; but when two teams are debating, the members of each
must decide among themselves as to how the rebuttal shall be handled.
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. The main points of
the opposition can then be assigned for rebuttal to the various
members of the team, and each debater can give thorough treatment to
his assignment. In this way every point is sure to be covered, and
there will be little, if any, duplication of work.
Such a course presupposes very careful preparation on the part of the
debaters. It means that each member of the team must have sufficient
knowledge and material at his command to oppose with credit any
argument 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
usually desirable to rebut arguments in the same order in which they
were originally given, no member of the team can afford to shirk
mastering each detail that in any way has a vital bearing upon the
proposition.
THE LAST REBUTTAL SPEAKER. The work of the last speaker on each side
differs somewhat from the work of his colleagues. All the speakers try
to overthrow the opposing arguments, 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 summary, and,
in addition, compares and contrasts the arguments of his side with the
arguments of the opposition. This last process is called "amplifying
and diminishing."
It is not always necessary to prove a main heading false in order to
destroy its effectiveness. A debater may of necessity have to admit
that the opposition has successfully established the 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 comparison of the relative weight of
the proof of each side, amplify the importance of his own arguments,
point by point, and diminish the importance of the arguments advanced
by the other side.
For instance, in a debate on the question as to whether immigration
should be restricted, the affirmative might maintain that unrestricted
immigration brings serious political evils, and the negative might
show that the policy of nonrestriction 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
think that political purity or economic prosperity is the more
important. Plainly, it would be for the interest of the affirmative to
convince the audience that the preservation of political integrity is
of greater moment than any mere material gain.
In many respects the last rebuttal speeches on each side are the most
conspicuous and decisive parts of a debate. If the last speech is
hesitating and weak, it is liable to ruin all preceding efforts, even
though they were of the highest order; if it is enthusiastic and
strong, it will often cover up preceding defects, and turn defeat into
victory. Because of 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 should be so complete that there will
be no hesitation, no groping for words. Furthermore, he should
introduce an element of persuasion; to reach both the minds and the
hearts of his hearers is essential for the greatest success. All this
has to be done in a short time, yet to be of a high rank even the
shortest closing speeches must contain these characteristics.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF DEBATE.
An argument, like other kinds of composition, should possess the
qualities of style known as Clearness, Force, and Elegance, and should
in all respects observe the principles of Unity, Selection, Coherence,
Proportion, Emphasis, and Variety. Since the 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 the audience to grasp ideas and to
reflect upon them, the presence of strong opposing arguments that must
be met and overthrown with still stronger arguments,--these conditions
render the heightening of certain characteristics indispensable in a
debate.
Above all else the successful debater is forceful. He uses every
possible device for driving home his arguments. He bends every effort
toward making his ideas so plain and so emphatic that the audience
will understand them and _remember_ them. Realizing that the
audience cannot, like the reader of a written article, peruse the
argument a second time, he uses words and expressions that cause his
thoughts to stick fast wherever they fall.
STATISTICS. Statistics improperly used are dry and uninteresting; they
often spoil an otherwise forceful and persuasive debate. The trouble
often lies, strange to say, in the accuracy with which the figures are
given. A brain that is already doing its utmost to accept almost
instantaneously a multitude of facts and comprehend their
significance, or a brain that is somewhat sluggish 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 forceful manner the information it was intended to convey.
"About five hundred" presents a much more vivid picture than "four
hundred and eighty-six" or "five hundred and eighteen"; "fifteen per
cent." is stronger than "fifteen and one-tenth per cent."; the
expression "eighty years" seems to indicate a longer period of time
than "eighty-two years, seven months, and twenty-nine days."
If one is to quote statistics, he should always, unless the
circumstances be very unusual, use round numbers. Figures themselves,
however, are often less emphatic than other methods of expression. 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 remembers the
exact area of other states nor can he realize what an immense
territory these figures stand for. The following quotation gives the
area of Texas in much more vivid and forceful language:--
If you take Texas by the upper corner and swing it on that as a pivot,
you will lop off the lower end of California, cut through Idaho,
overlap South Dakota, touch Michigan, bisect Ohio, reach West
Virginia, cut through North Carolina and South Carolina, lop off all
the western side of Florida, and blanket the greater part of the Gulf
of Mexico.
To say that the American farmer produced in 1907 a crop worth, at the
farm, seven and one-half billions of dollars, conveys little idea of
the magnitude of the harvest. A current magazine has couched the same
estimate in less exact but in far more emphatic language:--
Suppose that all of last year's corn had been shipped to Europe; it
would have required over four thousand express steamers of 18,000 tons
register to deliver it. Suppose that the year's wheat had all been
sent 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 that most people never think of it in connection with farming:--
if last year's tobacco crop had been made into cigars, the supply
would have lasted 153,000 men for fifty years, each man smoking ten
cigars a day.
The officials of the forestry service, in speaking of the great
devastation caused by forest fires, make the startling assertion that
a new navy of first-class battle-ships could be built for the sum lost
during a few weeks in the fires that raged from the pines of Maine to
the redwoods of California.
Figures used in this way are most effective, and yet probably nothing
in argumentation is more tedious than too many of these descriptions
of statistics coming close together. If numbers absolutely have to
be indicated a great many times, even figures are likely to be less
tiresome.
CONCRETENESS. General statements and abstract principles invariably
weary an audience. Theories and generalities are usually too
intangible to make much impression. Specific instances and concrete
cases, however, are usually interesting. A vivid picture of real
persons, things, and events is necessary to arouse the attention of an
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 does not speak of
possible antagonists in such general terms as _foreign powers_;
he specifies Germany, Japan, and the other nations that he fears. The
preacher who would really awaken the conscience of his church does not
confine himself to such terms as _original sin_ and _weaknesses
of the flesh_; he talks of _lying_, _stealing_, and _swearing_.
Compare the effectiveness of the following examples:--
People of the same race are more loyal to each other than to
foreigners.
Blood is thicker than water.
Western farmers are demanding political recognition.
"No, I am not going to vote a straight ticket this year. If I do, my
candidate must be in favor of some things I want." That was the dictum
of Franklin Taylor, Farmer, on Rural Route No. 12, ten miles from a
western town. He is a type of thousands of other farmers in the West.
Business streets that were once commodious and impressive are now
smoky and filthy.
Business streets that ten years after the great fire promised to be
almost grant in the width and perspective are now mere smoky tunnels
under the filth-dripping gridirons of the elevated railways.
The West is becoming more densely populated.
The center of population, now in Indiana, is traveling straight toward
the middle point of Illinois. The center of manufacturing has reached
only eastern Ohio, but is marching in a bee-line for Chicago.
In the following quotation Mr. Crisp, laying aside for the moment
abstractions and generalities, and bringing his case down to a
specific instance, gives a concrete illustration of how the protective
tariff affects a single individual:
Will you tell how this protective tariff benefits our agricultural
producers? I can show you--I think I can demonstrate clearly--how the
tariff hurts them; and I defy any of you to show wherein they are
benefited by a protective tariff.
Suppose a farmer in Minnesota has 5,000 bushels of wheat and a farmer
in Georgia has 100 bales of cotton. That wheat at eighty cents a
bushel is worth $4,000, and that cotton at eight cents a pound is
worth $4,000. Let those producers ship their staples abroad. The
Minnesota wheat-grower ships his wheat to Liverpool; 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 for $4,000; the cotton brings the same amount. The Minnesota
farmer invests the $4,000 he has received for his wheat in clothing,
crockery, iron, steel, dress goods, clothing,--whatever he may need
for his family in Minnesota. The Georgia cotton-raiser invests the
proceeds of his cotton in like kind of goods.
Each of those men ships his goods to this country and they reach the
port of New York. When either undertakes to unload them he is met by
the collector of customs, who says, "Let me see your invoice." The
invoice is exhibited, 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 in Minnesota or him who raises
the cotton in Georgia, "You cannot bring into this market those goods
for which you have exchanged your products unless you pay to the
United States a tariff by the McKinley law--a tax of $2,000."
FIGURES OF SPEECH. The use of figurative language is also an aid to
clearness and to force. Simile, metaphor, personification, antithesis,
balance, climax, rhetorical question, and repetition are all effective
aids in the presentation of argument. The speeches of great orators
are replete with expressions 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 all their
freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not
the twopence lost that constitutes the capital outrage." In speaking
of certain provisions of the Constitution, Webster says that they are
the "keystone of the arch." The following paragraph is taken from his
_Reply to Hayne_:--
And, sir, where American liberty raised its first voice, and where its
youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strength
of its manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord and
disunion shall wound it; if party strife and blind ambition 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 its infancy was rocked; it will
stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain, over
the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it
must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very
spot of its origin.
_The Outlook_, in a recent issue, first states a vital question
in literal and then, to drive home the meaning of the problem, in
figurative language:--
Is the Constitution of the United States a series of inflexible rules
which can be changed only by the methods which those rules themselves
prescribe, or is it the expression of certain political principles by
which a living and growing Nation has resolved to guide itself in its
life and growth? Is it an anchor which fastens the ship of state in
one place, or a rudder to guide it on its voyage?
Sometimes figures of speech are used to such excess or in such
incongruous combinations that they detract from the effectiveness of
the debate in which they occur rather than add to it. The distance
from a 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
language with literal language and commonplace ideas, and a mixture of
several figures are especially to be guarded against. As an example of
the extent to which figures may be mixed the following will serve:--
"I'm up a tree," admitted the bolting Senator, "but my back is to the
wall and I'll die in the last ditch, going down with flags flying,
and from the mountain top of Democracy, hurling defiance at the foe,
soar on the wings of triumph, regardless of the party lash that barks
at my heels."
DELIVERY.
To be a successful debater one must understand how to talk and how to
act in the presence of an audience. Uncouthness in appearance and
awkwardness in speech have often brought defeat. Moreover, it is not
enough that a debater refrain from offending his audience; his bearing
and his voice should be of positive assistance to him both in pleasing
them and in interpreting to them the ideas that he wishes to convey.
First of all, a good delivery is one that assists in making the
argument clear. Its next most important function is to make the
argument forceful. 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 the main, one must seek this and develop it for
himself. A text-book can point out what constitutes good form, what is
pleasing and impressive to the eye and to the ear, and, in a word,
what make up the externals of a good delivery; but beyond these
mechanical directions it cannot go. A student should observe the
following fundamental directions as his first step toward becoming a
successful speaker. Afterwards, he should cultivate earnestness,
enthusiasm, perception, a sense of humor, and all other such qualities
as go to make up a really great speaker.
POSITION. The best position for a debater to take on the stage is in
the centre well toward the front. He should take the centre because in
that position he can best see the entire audience, and the entire
audience can best see him. He should stand near the front edge of the
platform for several reasons: first, he can make himself more easily
understood; his voice need not be so loud in order to be heard
distinctly in every part of the hall. This is no small advantage for
one who is not gifted with unusual powers of speech. In the next
place, if a debater stands close to his audience, he can adopt a more
conversational style 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 severs all personal
connection between speaker and hearer, and shows that the debater does
not trust himself, that he has no great belief in his subject, and
that he fears his audience. An impression of this sort is a great
handicap even to the strongest case. If one would inspire confidence,
he must appear confident; if one would make friends, he must be
friendly, avoiding even a suggestion of aloofness. To accomplish these
purposes as far as is possible by _action,_ a debater should come
close to his audience, having every appearance of being glad that he
is to speak and confident in the strength of the side that he is to
uphold.
The next thing for a speaker to learn is how to stand. He should not
take a natural posture, as some writers say, unless that posture is
one of strength and, to some degree, of grace. A student without
training will usually stand with his head protruding forward, his
shoulders drooping, his body twisted, and his feet far apart, with all
his weight on one leg. Such an attitude is enough to condemn one even
before he begins to speak. A slipshod appearance suggests slipshod
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 on which the body does not
rest must be slightly bent at the knee. This posture is not difficult
to attain if one will practise it frequently, endeavoring in his
everyday life to walk and stand in a soldierly manner. On the other
hand, erectness should not be carried to such an extreme as to become
stiffness. A debater's object is to be forceful and pleasing. In
striving for this end, he should always remember that he can very
easily err in either of two directions.
A debater should allow his hands, for the most part, to hang naturally
at his sides. There may be a great temptation for him to put them in
his pockets, but he should resist this for two reasons: such a
procedure is not considered good form, and his hands are less
available for instant 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 of a short speech, one will do well to
keep his hands at his sides. They must hang naturally in order not to
attract attention, being neither closed tightly nor held rigidly open.
If one will follow these directions, his hands and arms may feel
awkward, but they will not appear so.
Another important principle in the matter of position requires that a
debater shall keep his eyes fixed on his audience. He must not look 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 their
attention. Only in this way can he win their confidence and reach
their feelings. To look into space means to debate into space.
In the next place, a speaker must beware of falling into ludicrous and
disgusting habits of deportment. Nervousness will often cause one in
the presence of an audience to keep making an unsightly gesture, a
peculiar twitch or step that will absolutely ruin his whole speech.
Some speakers 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 opening and shutting their hands. For years one speaker of
some small prominence spent the greater part of his time while on the
platform in tugging at his coat, apparently in an effort to make it
fit better around the collar. All such actions as these are to be
carefully guarded against.
A debater, however, is not expected to stand perfectly still: he
should use considerable interpretative and emphatic action. To begin
with, he ought not to stand all the time in exactly the same spot.
Monotony of position is to be avoided as well as monotony of action or
of voice. He will rest himself and his audience if he will
occasionally move 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 his position is at the conclusion of a paragraph. A
paragraph division, it will be remembered, indicates a change in
thought. If a debater, therefore, makes a longer pause than usual at
this point, and in addition alters his position slightly, he helps
interpret his argument. He does for the hearer exactly what
indentation does for the reader.
GESTURES. So much has been said and written about gestures that a
student is often puzzled to know whose advice to follow and what to
do. Some writers say that no gestures at all are desirable; others
deem them necessary, but declare that they should never be made unless
they are spontaneous and natural. In the light of such conflicting
advice, 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,
then those men who are recognized as the polished and powerful
speakers of the day should be taken as models. Most of these, it will
be found, use gestures. There is but one reasonable course, then, for
the student to follow: he should make gestures. They may be crude and
awkward at first, but only by practice can he ever hope to improve
them.
The best method of procedure, undoubtedly, is for the beginner to
become familiar with two or three of the most common gestures,
learning how to make them and just what they signify. He should then
use them. They may seem mechanical and ungainly at first, but constant
practice both in 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 be limited to the few with which he
started. In the midst of an explanation and in the heat of an
impassioned plea, he will find himself using gestures that he had not
thought of before. The awkward and premeditated gesture with which he
began will have become forceful and spontaneous.
The gestures that a student should first learn to use must be
illustrated to him by his instructor. To see a gesture made several
times gives one a better idea of how to make it and of what it means
than could a dozen pages in a text-book. The choice of gestures, too,
may rest with the 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 emphasis. If he wishes for a wider field, he
might also try to use gestures indicating magnitude and contrast. When
he has finished with these, he should hesitate before deliberately
introducing many others. A debate is not a dramatic production, and it
should in no wise savor of melodrama.
VOICE. Correct position and forceful gestures are very important, but
upon no one thing does the success of a debater, aside from his
argument, 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
gestures, but unless his voice meets certain requirements, his case is
almost hopeless. Above all else a speaker's voice must be distinct.
Distinctness depends upon several things. First, the voice must be
loud enough to be heard without difficulty in every part of the room.
To produce this result, one should speak especially to those in the
rear, carefully 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 well illustrated by a story told of one of
the foremost orators of the day. It is said that he invariably
stations some one in the back of the audience to signal to him when
his voice is either too low or unnecessarily loud.
In the next place, distinctness depends upon enunciation. The debater
who drops off final syllables, slurs consonants, runs words together,
or talks without using his lips and without opening his mouth is hard
to understand. It often requires considerable 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 be more easily understood, but also
because it gives a debater the appearance of being more careful and
accurate in his reasoning. Great rapidity in speech may be due to
nervousness or inexperience; whatever its cause, it is usually fatal
to distinctness.
A pleasing tone of voice is not of so great moment as distinctness of
utterance, yet its cultivation is by no means to be neglected. Harsh,
rasping sounds and nasal twangs are disagreeable to hear, and no
speaker can afford to offend his audience in this way. An unpleasant
voice may be the result of some physical defect; more often it is
caused by sheer carelessness. In most 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 with what one is going to say that there will be
no gap to fill in; but in case one does have to hunt for words, it is
a thousand times preferable to leave the gap unfilled. Each word
should stand out by itself, even though there is a pause of many
seconds. To offend the ears of an audience with a crude tone of voice
or with meaningless sounds is a bad violation of propriety.
The first step to be taken in the cultivation of a distinct and
pleasing voice is to acquire the habit of standing correctly. Under
the subject of position it was stated that the body should be kept
erect, the head thrown back, and the shoulders rolled back and down.
This posture is the best not only because it is the most graceful but
because it gives the speaker the greatest command of his vocal organs.
Stooping shoulders and a bowed trunk contract the lungs and diminish
the supply of breath, and a bent neck renders the cords of the neck
less controllable. After taking the proper position, one should next
endeavor to breathe as deeply as he can. The louder he has to speak,
the deeper should be his breathing. Remembering that he does not wish
to talk fast, he will do well 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 study are as
essential in the training of a voice as in the mastery of any art. A
natural voice is not usually pleasing; it becomes so only through
cultivation. Much of this training can be done by the speaker unaided.
Few people are so insensible to qualities of sound that they cannot
detect harshness and impurities even in their own utterance, provided
that they will give the matter their attention. It is not enough,
however, for one to watch his voice only while he is debating or while
he is repeating his arguments in preparation for a debate; he must
carry constant watchfulness even into his daily conversation. The
services of a good instructor are invaluable, but at best they can be
only auxiliary. All improvement must come through the efforts of the
speaker himself.
ATTITUDE TOWARD OPPONENTS. If one will bear in mind that the
fundamental purpose of argument--whether written or spoken--is to
present truth in such a way as to influence belief, he will at once
understand that a debater should always maintain toward his opponents
the attitude of one 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 might produce. Ridicule and bluster
may please those who already agree with the speaker, but with these
people he should be little concerned; a debater worthy of the name
seeks to change the opinions of those who disagree with him. For this
reason he is diplomatic, courteous, and urbane.
A debater should, moreover, keep to this same attitude even though his
opponent introduce objectionable personalities. One will find it for
his own best interest to do so. Good humor makes a far better
impression than anger; it suggests strength and superiority, while
anger, as everyone knows, is often the result of chagrin, 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 throw away an invaluable opportunity. He
should remain dignified, self-controlled, and good-humored; then by
treating his opponent as one who has inadvertently fallen into error,
and by pointing out the mistakes, the unfairness, and the way in which
the real question has been ignored, he can gain an inestimable
advantage.
The following quotations show what attitude a debater should maintain
toward his opponents:--
As I do not precisely agree in opinion with any gentleman who has
spoken, I shall take the liberty of detaining the committee for a few
moments while I offer to their attention some observations. I am
highly gratified with the temper and ability with which the discussion
has hitherto been conducted. It is honorable to the House, and, I
trust, will continue to be manifested on many future occasions. (Henry
Clay.)
Mr. President, I had occasion a few days ago to expose the utter
groundlessness of the personal charges made by the Senator from
Illinois against 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 demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact
or history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause
annulling the Missouri prohibition.
I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no spirit of personal
unkindness. The issue is too grave and too momentous for the
indulgence of such feelings. I see the great question before me, and
that question only. (Salmon P. Chase.)
Compare the attitude of Mr. Naylor in the following quotation with the
attitude of Mr. Lincoln in his debates with Senator Douglas. It is
needless to point out which must have had the better effect upon the
audience.
The gentleman has misconceived the spirit and tendency of Northern
institutions. He is ignorant of Northern character. He has forgotten
the history of his country. Preach insurrection to the Northern
laborers! Preach insurrection to _me_! Who are the Northern
laborers? The history of your country is their history. (Charles
Naylor.)
My Fellow-Citizens: When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented,
it provokes him--at least, I find it so with myself; but when
misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to
amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge
Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old
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 prove it,
because it is not true. I have no doubt he is "conscientious" in
saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time
to read, as being the platform of the Republican party in 1854, I say
I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had.
(Abraham Lincoln in the Ottawa Joint Debate.)
Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my
speeches south--that he heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the
north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and that 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 upon every fair-minded man to take those
speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference
between my speeches north and south. (Lincoln in the Charleston Joint
Debate.)
HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE.
Three judges usually award the decision in a debating contest. Their
sole duty is to determine which side had the better of the argument.
Sometimes the method that they shall follow in arriving at a decision
is 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
instructed to decide for himself what constitutes excellence in
debate. According to the rules governing any particular debate, the
judges may cast their ballots with or without previous consultation
with each other.
The following outline gives in condensed form the main points that a
judge should consider. It will be of service not only to the judges of
a debate but to the contestants, as it gives a comprehensive view of
just what is expected of a debater.
I. Which side has the better analysis?
II. Which side has the stronger proof?
A. Consider the preponderance of the evidence.
B. Consider the quality of the evidence.
C. Consider the skill used in reasoning.
III. Which side offers the better refutation?
A. See which side has the more main points left standing after
the refutation has been given.
IV. Which side has the better delivery?
A. Consider general bearing, voice, and language.