You will comment upon this that its evident silliness would prevent

any speaker from using such a form in serious argument. But recall

that in the discussion of any idea a term may get its meaning slightly

changed. In that slight change of meaning lurks the error illustrated

here, ready to lead to false reasoning and weakening of the argument.

Certain words of common use are likely to such shifting

meanings--_republic, equality, representative, monarchy, socialistic_.

Any doubtful passage in which such an error is suspected should be

reduced to its syllogistic form to be tested for accuracy.

A representative of the people must vote always as they would vote.

A Congressman is a representative of the people.

Therefore, Congressmen must vote always as the people who elect them

would vote.

Is not the expression, _representative of the people_, here used in

two different senses?

When an argument is delivered, one of the premises--being a statement

which the speaker assumes everyone will admit as true--is sometimes

omitted. This shortened form is called an enthymeme.

Smith will be a successful civil engineer for he is a

superior mathematician.

Supply the missing premise. Which is it?

In the bald, simple forms here set down, the syllogism and enthymeme

are hardly suited to delivery in speeches. They must be amplified,

explained, emphasized, in order to serve a real purpose. The following

represent better the way a speaker uses deductive reasoning.

The appointing power is vested in the President and Senate;

this is the general rule of the Constitution. The removing

power is part of the appointing power; it cannot be

separated from the rest.

DANIEL WEBSTER: _The Appointing and Removing

Power_, 1835

Then Daniel Webster stated in rather extended form the conclusion that

the Senate should share in the removing proceedings.

Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification

reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all

republican liberty; that is, that the majority _must_

govern. In matters of common concern, the judgment of a

majority _must_ stand as the judgment of the whole.

DANIEL WEBSTER: _Reply to Calhoun_, 1853

Then, he argues, as these revenue laws were passed by a majority, they

must be obeyed in South Carolina.

Methods of Proof. In extended arguments, just as in detailed

exposition, many different methods of proof may be employed.

Explanation. Often a mere clear explanation will induce a listener to

accept your view of the truth of a proposition. You have heard men

say, "Oh, if that is what you mean, I agree with you entirely. I

simply didn't understand you." When you are about to engage in

argument consider this method of exposition to see if it will suffice.

In all argument there is a great deal of formal or incidental

explanation.

Authority. When authority is cited to prove a statement it must be

subjected to the same tests in argument as in explanation. Is the

authority reliable? Is he unprejudiced? Does his testimony fit in with

the circumstances under consideration? Will his statements convince a

person likely to be on the opposing side? Why has so much so-called

authoritative information concerning conditions in Europe been so

discounted? Is it not because the reporters are likely to be

prejudiced and because while what they say may be true of certain

places and conditions it does not apply to all the points under

discussion? The speaker who wants the support of authority will test

it as carefully as though its influence is to be used against him--as

indeed, it frequently is.

Examples. Where examples are used in argumentation they must serve as

more than mere illustrations. In exposition an illustration frequently

explains, but that same example would have no value in argument

because while it illustrates it does not prove. A suppositious example

may serve in explanation; only a fact will serve as proof. The more

inevitable its application, the more clinching its effect, the better

its argumentative value. Notice how the two examples given below prove

that the heirs of a literary man might be the very worst persons to

own the copyrights of his writings since as owners they might suppress

books which the world of readers should be able to secure easily.

While these examples illustrate, do they not also prove?

I remember Richardson's grandson well; he was a clergyman in

the city of London; he was a most upright and excellent man;

but he had conceived a strong prejudice against works of

fiction. He thought all novel-reading not only frivolous but

sinful. He said--this I state on the authority of one of his

clerical brethren who is now a bishop--he said that he had

never thought it right to read one of his grandfather's

books.

I will give another instance. One of the most instructive,

interesting, and delightful books in our language is

Boswell's _Life of Johnson_. Now it is well known that

Boswell's eldest son considered this book, considered the

whole relation of Boswell to Johnson, as a blot in the

escutcheon of the family.

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY: _Copyright_, 1841

Analogy. In argument by analogy the speaker attempts to prove that

because certain things are known to be true in something that can be

observed they are likely to be true in something else which in so far

as it can be observed is quite like the first. We continually argue by

analogy in daily life. Lincoln was really using analogy when he

replied to the urging to change his army leaders during the Civil War,

that he didn't think it wise to "swap horses while crossing a

stream." Scientists use this method to draw conclusions when it is

impossible to secure from actual observation or experiment a certain

last step in the reasoning. The planet Mars and the earth are similar

in practically all observable matters; they are about the same

distance from the sun, they have the same surface conditions. The

earth has living creatures upon it. Hence--so goes the reasoning of

analogy--Mars is probably inhabited. Reasoning by analogy is used to

prove that universal suffrage is good for the United States because it

has been good for one particular state. A student may argue by analogy

that the elective system should be introduced into all high schools,

because it has been followed in colleges. It may be asserted that a

leading bank president will make a good university president, because

he has managed one complex institution. The essence of all good

reasoning by analogy is that the two things considered must be so

nearly alike in all that is known that the presumption of belief is

that they must also be alike in the one point the arguer is trying to

establish. This is the test he must apply to his own analogy

arguments.

Our community frowns with indignation upon the profaneness

of the duel, having its rise in this irrational point of

honor. Are you aware that you indulge the same sentiment on

a gigantic scale, when you recognize this very point of

honor as a proper apology for war? We have already seen that

justice is in no respect promoted by war. Is true honor

promoted where justice is not?

CHARLES SUMNER: _The True Grandeur of Nations_,

1845

Residues. The method of residues is frequently employed when the

speaker is supporting a policy to be carried out, a measure to be

adopted, a change to be instituted, or a law to be passed. Granting

the assumption that something must be done he considers all the

various methods which may be employed, disposes of them one by one as

illegal, or unsuited, or clumsy, or inexpedient, leaving only one, the

one he wants adopted, as the one which must be followed.

This is a good practical method of proof, provided the speaker really

considers _all_ the possible ways of proceeding and does show the

undesirability of all except the one remaining.

A speaker pleading for the installation of a commission form of city

control might list all the possible ways of city government, a

business manager, a mayor, a commission. By disposing completely of

the first two, he would have proven the need for the last. A good

speaker will aways go farther than merely to reach this kind of

conclusion. He will, in addition to disproving the unworthy choices,

strongly support his residue, the measure he wants adopted. In

supporting amounts of taxes, assessments, etc., this method may be

used. One amount can be proven so large as to cause unrest, another so

small as to be insufficient, a third to produce a total just large

enough to meet all anticipated expenses with no surplus for

emergencies; therefore the correct amount must be just larger than

this but not reaching an amount likely to produce the result caused by

the first considered. Used in trials of criminal cases it eliminates

motives until a single inevitable remainder cannot be argued away.

This may be the clue to follow, or it may be the last one of all

suspected persons. Burke considered several possible ways of dealing

with the American colonies; one he dismissed as no more than a "sally

of anger," a second could not be operated because of the distance, a

scheme of Lord North's he proved would complicate rather than settle

matters, to change the spirit of America was impossible, to prosecute

it as criminal was inexpedient, therefore but one way remained, to

conciliate the spirit of discontent by letting the colonies vote their

own taxes. It is interesting that what Burke described as the sally of

anger was the way the matter was actually settled--Great Britain had

to give up the American colonies.

This method is also called elimination.

Cause to Effect. Just as the explainer may pass from cause to effect

so may the arguer. Other names for this method are antecedent

probability and _a priori_ argument. In argument from a known cause an

effect is proven as having occurred or as likely to occur. In solving

crime this is the method which uses the value of the motives for crime

as known to exist in the feelings or sentiments of a certain accused

person. A person trying to secure the passage of a certain law will

prove that it as the cause will produce certain effects which make it

desirable. Changed conditions in the United States will be brought

forward as the cause to prove that the Federal government must do

things never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. Great

military organization as the cause of the recent war is used now in

argument to carry on the plea for the securing of peace by

disarmament.

The main difficulty in reasoning from cause to effect is to make the

relationship so clear and so close that one thing will be accepted by

everybody as the undisputed cause of the alleged effect.

Effect to Cause. In reasoning from effect to cause the reverse method

is employed. This is also termed argument from sign or the _a

posteriori_ method. In it, from some known effect the reasoning proves

that it is the result of a certain specified cause. Statistics

indicating business prosperity might be used as the effect from which

the arguer proves that they are caused by a high protective tariff. A

speaker shows the good effects upon people to prove that certain

laws--claimed as the causes--should be extended in application.

Arguments from effect to cause may be extremely far reaching; as every

effect leads to some cause, which is itself the effect of some other

cause, and so on almost to infinity. The good speaker will use just

those basic causes which prove his proposition--no more.

In actual practice the two forms of reasoning from cause to effect and

from effect to cause are frequently combined to make the arguments all

the more convincing. Grouped together they are termed causal

relations.

Persuasion. When a speaker has conclusively proven what he has stated

in his proposition, is his speech ended? In some cases, yes; in many

cases, no. Mere proof appeals to the intellect only; it settles

matters perhaps, but leaves the hearer cold and humanly inactive. He

may feel like saying, "Well, even if what you say is true, what are

you going to do about it?" Mathematical and scientific proofs exist

for mere information, but most arguments delivered before audiences

have a purpose. They try to make people do something. A group of

people should be aroused to some determination of purposeful thought

if not to a registered act at the time. In days of great stress the

appeal to action brought the immediate response in military

enlistments; in enrollment for war work; in pledges of service; in

signing membership blanks and subscription blanks; in spontaneous

giving.

Persuasion Produces a Response. The end of most argumentative speaking

is to produce a response. It may be the casting of a vote, the joining

of a society, the repudiation of an unworthy candidate, the

demonstrating of the solidarity of labor, the affiliating with a

religious sect, the changing of a mode of procedure, the purchasing of

a new church organ, the wearing of simpler fashions, or any of the

thousand and one things a patient listener is urged to do in the

course of his usual life.

When the speaker passes on from mere convincing to appealing for some

response he has passed from argumentation to persuasion. Nearly every

argumentative speech dealing with a proposition of policy shows first

what ought to be done, then tries to induce people to do it, by

appealing as strongly as possible to their practical, esthetic, or moral

interests. All such interests depend upon what we call sentiments or

feelings to which worthy--note the word _worthy_--appeals may

legitimately be addressed. Attempts to arouse unworthy motives by

stirring up ignorance and prejudice are always to be most harshly

condemned. Such practices have brought certain kinds of so-called

persuasion into well-deserved contempt. The high sounding spell-binder

with his disgusting spread-eagleism cannot be muzzled by law, but he may

be rendered harmless by vacant chairs and empty halls. Real eloquence is

not a thing of noise and exaggeration. Beginning speakers should avoid

the tawdry imitation as they would a plague.

Elements of Persuasion. What elements may aid the persuasive power of

a speech? First of all, the occasion may be just the right one. The

surroundings may have prepared the audience for the effect the speaker

should make if he knows how to seize upon the opportunity for his own

purpose. The speaker must know how to adapt himself to the

circumstances present. In other cases, he must be able to do the much

more difficult thing--adapt the circumstances to his purpose.

Secondly, the subject matter itself may prepare for the persuasive

treatment in parts. Everyone realizes this. When emotional impulses

are present in the material the introduction of persuasion is

inevitable and fitting, if not overdone.

Thirdly, the essence of persuasion depends upon the speaker. All the

good characteristics of good speaking will contribute to the effect of

his attempts at persuasion. A good speaker is sincere to the point of

winning respect even when he does not carry conviction. He is in

earnest. He is simple and unaffected. He has tact. He is fair to every

antagonistic attitude. He has perfect self-control. He does not lose

his temper. He can show a proper sense of humor. He has genuine

sympathy. And finally--perhaps it includes all the preceding--he has

personal magnetism.

With such qualities a speaker can make an effective appeal by means of

persuasion. If upon self-criticism and self-examination, or from

outside kindly comment, he concludes he is lacking in any one of these

qualities he should try to develop it.

EXERCISES

Prepare and deliver speeches upon some of the following or upon

propositions suggested by them. If the speech is short, try to employ

only one method of proof, but make it convincing. Where suitable, add

persuasive elements.

1. Make a proposition from one of the following topics. Deliver an

argumentative speech upon it. The next election. Entrance to college.

Child labor. The study of the classics. The study of science.

2. Recommend changes which will benefit your school, your club or

society, your church, your town, your state.

3. The Japanese should be admitted to the United States upon the same

conditions as other foreigners.

4. Men and women should receive the same pay for the same work done.

5. All church property should be taxed.

6. All laws prohibiting secular employment on Sunday should be

repealed.

7. The purely protective tariff should be withdrawn from goods the

manufacture of which has been firmly established in this country.

8. Large incomes should be subject to a graduated income tax.

9. Employers should not be forced to recognize labor unions.

10. Immigration into the United States of persons who cannot read or

write some language should be prohibited, except dependents upon such

qualified entrants.

11. An amendment should be added to the Constitution providing for

uniform marriage and divorce laws throughout the entire country.

12. A city is the best place for a college.

13. Military training should be obligatory in all public schools.

14. Colleges and universities should reduce the attention paid to

athletics.

15. The negro in the South should be disfranchised.

16. The number of Representatives in Congress should be reduced.

17. Moving pictures should be used in schools.

18. Street car systems should be owned and operated by municipalities.

19. Education should be compulsory until the completion of high

school.

20. Athletes whose grade is below 75% should be debarred from all

participation until the marks are raised.

21. The Federal government should own and operate the telegraph and

telephone systems.

22. The state should provide pensions for indigent mothers of children

below the working age.

23. The study of algebra (or some other subject) in the high school

should be elective.

24 The initiative should be adopted in all states.

25. The referendum should be adopted in all states.

26. All governmental officials should be subject to recall.

27. The public should support in all ways the movement of labor to

secure the closed shop system.

28. Railroad crossings should be abolished.

29. The Federal government should pass laws controlling all prices of

foodstuffs.

30. A trial before a group of competent judges should be substituted

for trial by jury.

CHAPTER XI

REFUTING

Answering the Other Side. It has been said already that even in a

single argumentative speech some account must be taken of the

possibility among the audience of the belief in other views. A speaker

must always assume that people will believe otherwise than he does.

In such cases as debate or questioning after a speech is made, this

opposing side will very clearly be brought out, so that any person

training for any kind of public speaking will give much attention to

the contentions of others in order to strengthen his own convictions

as displayed in his speeches.

A sincere thinker may believe that trial before a group of competent

judges is a better procedure than trial by jury. Were he to speak upon

such a proposition he would realize that he would meet at once the

solid opposition of the general opinion that jury trials, sanctioned

by long practice, are in some mysterious way symbolic of the liberty

and equality of mankind. Before he could expect to arouse sympathetic

understanding he would have to answer all the possible objections and

reasons against his new scheme. This he would do by refutation, by

disproving the soundness of the arguments against his scheme. He could

cite the evident and recorded injustices committed by juries. He could

bring before them the impossibility of securing an intelligent

verdict from a group of farmers, anxious to get to their farms for

harvest, sitting in a case through July, while the days passed in

lengthy examinations of witnesses--one man was on the stand eight

days--and the lawyers bandied words and names like socialist, pagan,

bolsheviki, anarchy, ideal republic, Aristotle, Plato, Herbert

Spencer, Karl Marx, Tolstoi, Jane Addams, Lenin. Then when he felt

assured he had removed all the reasons for supporting the present jury

system he could proceed to advance his own substitute.

Need and Value of Refutation. In all argumentation, therefore,

refutation is valuable and necessary. By it opposing arguments are

reasoned away, their real value is determined, or they are answered

and demolished if they are false or faulty. To acquire any readiness

as a speaker or debater a person must pay a great deal of attention to

refutation. It has also an additional value. It has been stated that

every argumentative speaker must study the other side of every

question upon which he is to speak. One great debater declared that if

he had time to study only one side of a proposition or law case he

would devote that time to the other side. Study your own position from

the point of view of the other side. Consider carefully what arguments

that side will naturally advance. In fact, try to refute your own

arguments exactly as some opponent would, or get some friend to try to

refute your statements. Many a speaker has gained power in reasoning

by having his views attacked by members of his family who would

individually and collectively try to drive him into a corner. In

actual amount, perhaps you will never deliver as much refutation of

an opponent as you will conjure up in your mind against your own

speeches. Perhaps, also, this great amount advanced by you in testing

your own position will prevent your opponents from ever finding in

your delivered arguments much against which they can pit their own

powers of refutation.

In judging your own production you will have to imagine yourself on

the other side, so the methods will be the same for all purposes of

self-help or weakening of an opponent's views.

Contradiction Is Not Refutation. In the first place contradiction is

not refutation. No unsupported fact or statement has any value in

argumentation. Such expressions as "I don't believe, I don't think so,

I don't agree" introduce not arguments, but personal opinions. You

must, to make your refutation valuable, _prove_ your position. Never

allow your attempts at refutation to descend to mere denial or

quibbling. Be prepared to support, to prove everything you say.

Three Phases of Refutation. In general, refutation consists of three

phases:

1. The analysis of the opposite side.

2. The classification of the arguments according to importance.

3. The answering of only the strongest points.

Analysis of Opposing Side for Accuracy. In the first analysis, you

will probably examine the opposing statements to test their accuracy.

Mere slips, so evident that they deceive no one, you may disregard

entirely, but gross error of fact or conclusion you should note and

correct in unmistakably plain terms. The kind of statement which

gives insufficient data should be classed in analysis with this same

kind of erroneous statement. A shoe dealer in arguing for increased

prices might quote correctly the rising cost of materials, but if he

stopped there, you in refutation should be able to show that profits

had already risen to 57%, and so turn his own figures against him.

Another class of refutation similar to this is the questioning of

authorities. Something concerning this has already been said. In a

recent trial a lawyer cast doubt upon the value of a passage read from

a book by declaring its author could never have written such a thing.

In refutation the opposing lawyer said, "You will find that passage on

page 253 of his _Essays and Letters."_ Public speakers, realizing that

errors of statement are likely to be the first to be picked out for

correction, and recognizing the damaging effect of such conviction in

error of fact and testimony, are extremely careful not to render

themselves liable to attack upon such points. Yet they may. We are

told by Webster's biographers that in later periods of his life he was

detected in errors of law in cases being argued before the court, and

refuted in statement. To catch such slips requires two things of the

successful speaker. He must be in possession of the facts himself. He

must be mentally alert to see the falsity and know how to answer it.

Begging the Question. The expression "begging the question" is often

heard as a fallacy in argument. In its simplest form it is similar to

inaccurate statement, for it includes assertions introduced without

proof, and the statement of things as taken for granted without

attempting to prove them, yet using them to prove other statements.

Sometimes, also, a careless thinker, through an extended group of

paragraphs will end by taking as proven exactly the proposition he

started out to prove, when close analysis will show that nowhere

during the discussion does he actually prove it. As this is frequent

in amateur debates, students should be on their guard against it.

Ignoring the Question. The same kind of flimsy mental process results

in ignoring the question. Instead of sticking closely to the

proposition to be proved the speaker argues beside the point, proving

not the entire proposition but merely a portion of it. Or in some

manner he may shift his ground and emerge, having proven the wrong

point or something he did not start out to consider. An amateur

theatrical producer whose playhouse had been closed by the police for

violating the terms of his license started out to defend his action,

but ended by proving that all men are equal. In fact he wound up by

quoting the poem by Burns, "A Man's a Man for A' That." Such a

shifting of propositions is a frequent error of speakers. It occurs so

often that one might be disposed to term it a mere trick to deceive,

or a clever though unscrupulous device to secure support for a weak

claim. One of the first ways for the speaker to avoid it is to be able

to recognize it when it occurs. One of the most quoted instances of

its effective unmasking is the following by Macaulay.

The advocates of Charles, like the advocates of other

malefactors against whom overwhelming evidence is produced,

generally decline all controversy about the facts, and

content themselves with calling testimony to character. He

had so many private virtues! And had James the Second no

private virtues! Was Oliver Cromwell, his bitterest enemies

themselves being judges, destitute of private virtues? And

what, after all, are the virtues ascribed to Charles? A

religious zeal, not more sincere than that of his son, and

fully as weak and narrow-minded, and a few of the ordinary

household decencies which half the tombstones in England

claim for those who lie beneath them. A good father! A good

husband! Ample apologies indeed for fifteen years of

persecution, tyranny, and falsehood!

We charge him with having broken his coronation oath; and we

are told that he kept his marriage vow! We accuse him of

having given up his people to merciless inflictions of the

most hot-headed and hard-hearted of prelates; and the

defence is, that he took his little son on his knee and

kissed him! We censure him for having violated the articles

of the Petition of Right, after having, for good and

valuable consideration, promised to observe them; and we are

informed that he was accustomed to hear prayers at six

o'clock in the morning! It is to such considerations as

these, together with his Vandyke dress, his handsome face,

and his peaked beard, that he owes, we verily believe, most

of his popularity with the present generation.

Appealing to Prejudice or Passions. The question is also ignored when

the speaker appeals to the prejudices or passions of his audience

(_argumentum ad populum_). Persons of some intellect resent this as

almost an insult if they are in the audience, yet it is often resorted

to by speakers who would rather produce the effect they desire by the

use of any methods, right or wrong. Its use in court by unscrupulous

lawyers to win decisions is checked by attempts on the part of judges

to counteract it in their charges to the jury, but its influence may

still persist. Mark Antony in Shakespere's play, _Julius Caesar_, used

it in his oration over the dead body of Caesar to further his own

ends.

Taking Advantage of Ignorance. Just as a speaker may take advantage of

the prejudices and passions of an audience, so he may take advantage

of their ignorance. Against the blankness of their brains he may hurl

unfamiliar names to dazzle them, cite facts of all kinds to impress

them, show a wide knowledge of all sorts of things, "play up to them"

in every way, until they become so impressed that they are ready to

accept as truth anything he chooses to tell them. Any daily paper will

provide examples of the sad results of the power of this kind of

fallacious reasoning. The get-rich-quick schemes, the worthless stock

deals, the patent medicine quacks, the extravagantly worded claims of

new religions and faddist movements, all testify to the power this

form of seemingly convincing argument has over the great mass of the

ignorant.

The Fallacy of Tradition. In discussing the burden of proof it was

said that such burden rests upon the advocate of change, or novel

introductions, etc. This tendency of the people at large to be rather

conservative in practice links with the fallacy of tradition, the

belief that whatever is, is right. In many cases such a faith is worse

than wrong, it is pernicious. Many of the questions concerning

relations of modern society--as capital and labor--are based upon this

fallacy. Henry Clay was guilty of it when he announced, "Two hundred

years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as

property." The successful way to dispose of such a fallacy is

illustrated by William Ellery Channing's treatment of this statement.

But this property, we are told, is not to be questioned on

account of its long duration. "Two hundred years of

legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as

property." Nothing but respect for the speaker could repress

criticism on this unhappy phraseology. We will trust it

escaped him without thought. But to confine ourselves to the

argument from duration; how obvious the reply! Is injustice

changed into justice by the practice of the ages? Is my

victim made a righteous prey because I have bowed him to the

earth till he cannot rise? For more than two hundred years

heretics were burned, and not by mobs, not by lynch law, but

by the decrees of the councils, at the instigation of

theologians, and with the sanction of the laws and religions

of nations; and was this a reason for keeping up the fires,

that they had burned two hundred years? In the Eastern world

successive despots, not for two hundred years, but for twice

two thousand have claimed the right of life and death over

millions, and, with no law but their own will, have

beheaded, bowstrung, starved, tortured unhappy men without

number who have incurred their wrath; and does the lapse of

so many centuries sanctify murder and ferocious power?

Attacking a Speaker's Character or Principles. Sometimes a speaker who

finds himself unable to attack the truth of a proposition, or the

arguments cited to support it, changes his tactics from the

subject-matter to the opponent himself and delivers an attack upon his

character, principles, or former beliefs and statements. This is

called the _argumentum ad hominem_. In no sense is it really argument;

it is irrelevant attack, and should be answered in a clear accurate

demonstration of its unsuitability to the topic under consideration.

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 passions 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 attitude 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 assertions 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 assumed 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

superstitions 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 _assert_ 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, anticipate 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 circumstances of the occasion, of the material presented,

of the attitude 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

anticipate 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 Analogy. The caution was given that reasoning from

analogy 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 analogy 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 coarse 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 God 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 assisted 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 Constitution 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 circumstances, 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

rebuttal 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

rebuttal 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 rebuttal 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

participants 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 classroom training has developed in them--knowledge of material,

plan of presentation, skill in expression, conviction and persuasion

of manner, graceful acceptance of defeat.

Debating Demands a Decision. Debating goes one step farther than

merely argumentative speaking. Debating demands a decision upon the

case, it requires a judgment, a registered action. Again in this

respect it is like a game.

EXERCISES

1. Make a list of propositions which have been debated or might be

debated in a courtroom.

2. Make another list of propositions which have been debated or might

be debated in legislative bodies.

3. Make a list of propositions which might be debated in business.

4. As far as is possible, indicate the decisions upon them.

5. Choose some proposition on which there is considerable difference

of opinion in the class. Make a list of those who favor and those who

oppose. Speak upon the proposition, alternating affirmative and

negative.

6. Discuss the speeches delivered in the fifth exercise.

Persons Involved in a Debate. Who are the persons involved in a

regular debate? They are the presiding officer, the speakers

themselves, the audience, the judges.

The Presiding Officer. Every debate has a presiding officer. The

Vice-President of the United States is the presiding officer of the

Senate. The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House of

Representatives. If you will refer to Chapter IV on _Beginning the

Speech_ you will see several other titles of presiding officers. In

school debates the head of the institution may act in that capacity,

or some person of note may be invited to preside. In regular classroom

work the instructor may serve as presiding officer, or some member of

the class may be chosen or appointed. The latter method is the

best--after the instructor has shown by example just what the duties

of such a position are.

The presiding officer should announce the topic of debate in a short

introductory speech. He should read the names of the speakers on the

affirmative and those on the negative side. He should stipulate the

terms of the debate--length of each speech, time for rebuttal, order

of rebuttal, method of keeping speakers within time limits, conditions

of judgment (material, presentation, etc.), announce the judges, and

finally introduce the first speaker; then the subsequent speakers. At

the close he might refer to the fact of the debate's being ended, he

might rehearse the conditions of judgment, and request the judges to

retire to consider their decision. Practice varies as to who shall

deliver the decision of the judges to the audience. Sometimes the

chairman elected by the judges announces the decision. Sometimes the

judges hand the decision to the presiding officer who announces it.

The Debaters. Beyond saying that the speakers must do their best,

there is nothing to be added here about their duty in the debate

except to issue one warning to them in connection with the next

personal element to be considered--the audience.

The Audience. Debaters must remember that in practically no

circumstances outside legislative bodies are the audience and the

judges ever the same. Debaters argue to convince the judges--not the

entire audience, who are really as disconnected from the decision of

the debate as are the straggling spectators and listeners in a

courtroom detached from the jury who render the verdict of guilty or

not guilty. The debater must therefore speak for the judges, not for

his audience. Many a debating team has in the course of its speeches

won all the applause only to be bitterly disappointed in the end by

hearing the decision awarded to the other side. Recall the warnings

given in the previous chapters against the tempting fallacies of

appealing to crowd feelings and prejudices.

In classroom debates it is a good distribution of responsibility to

make all the members not participating in the speaking act as judges

and cast votes in rendering a decision. This makes the judges and the

audience one. Moreover it changes the mere listener into a

discriminating judge. If the instructor cares to carry this matter of

responsibility one step farther, he can ask the members of the class

to explain and justify their votes.

The audience, when it is also the judge, has the responsibility of

careful attention, analysis, and comparison. It is too much to expect

usual general audiences to refuse to be moved by unworthy pleas and

misrepresentations, to accord approval only to the best speakers and

the soundest arguments. But surely in a class of public speakers any

such tricks and schemes should be received with stolid frigidity.

Nothing is so damaging to appeals to prejudice, spread-eagleism, and

fustian bombast as an impassive reception.

The Judges. In any debate the judges are of supreme importance. They

decide the merits of the speakers themselves. The judges are of

infinitely more importance than the audience. In interscholastic

debates men of some prominence are invited to act as judges. In the

instructions to them it should be made clear that they are not to

decide which side of a proposition they themselves approve. They are

to decide which group of speakers does the best work. They should try

to be merely the impersonal registers of comparative merit. They

should sink their own feelings as every teacher must when he hears a

good speech from one of his own students supporting something to which

the instructor is opposed. Good judges of debates realize this and

frequently award decisions to speakers who support opposite positions

to their personal opinions. They must not be like the judges in an

interscholastic debate who announced their decision thus, "The judges

have decided that China must not be dismembered." That was an

interesting fact perhaps, but it had nothing to do with their duty as

judges of that debate.

In business, the buyer, the head of the department, the board of

directors, constitute the judges who render the decision. In

legislative assemblies the audience and judges are practically

identical, for after the debate upon a measure is concluded, those who

have listened to it render individual verdicts by casting their votes.

In such cases we frequently see decisions rendered not upon the merits

of the debate, but according to class prejudice, personal opinion, or

party lines. This is why so many great argumentative speeches were

accounted failures at the time of their delivery. Delivered to secure

majority votes they failed to carry conviction to the point of

changing immediate action, and so in the small temporary sense they

were failures. In legal trials the jury is the real judge, although by

our peculiar misapplication of the term a different person entirely is

called judge. In court the judge is in reality more often merely the

presiding officer. He oversees the observance of all the rules of

court practice, keeps lawyers within the regulations, instructs the

jury, receives the decision from them, and then applies the law.

Every lawyer speaks--not to convince the judge--but to convince the

jury to render a decision in his favor.

Scholastic Debating. Choosing the Proposition. In school debating the

proposition may be assigned by the instructor or it may be chosen by

him from a number submitted by the class. The class itself may choose

by vote a proposition for debate. In interscholastic debating the

practice now usually followed is for one school to submit the

proposition and for the second school to decide which side it prefers

to support. In any method the aim should be to give neither side any

advantage over the other. The speakers upon the team may be selected

before the question of debate is known. It seems better, when

possible, to make the subject known first and then secure as speakers

upon both sides, students who have actual beliefs upon the topic. Such

personal conviction always results in keener rivalry.

Time Limits. Since no debate of this kind must last too long, time

restrictions must be agreed upon. In every class, conditions will

determine these terms. Three or four speakers upon each side make a

good team. If each is allowed six minutes the debate should come well

within an hour and still allow some time for voting upon the

presentations. It should be distinctly understood that a time limit

upon a speaker must be observed by him or be enforced by the presiding

officer.

The speakers upon one side will arrange among themselves the order in

which they will speak but there should be a clear understanding

beforehand as to whether rebuttal speeches are to be allowed.

Rebuttal Speeches. Rebuttal speeches are additional speeches allowed

to some or all the speakers of a debating team after the regular

argumentative speeches have been delivered. In an extended formal

debate all the speakers may thus appear a second time. In less lengthy

discussions only some of them may be permitted to appear a second

time. As the last speaker has the advantage of making the final

impression upon the judges it is usual to offset this by reversing the

order of rebuttal. In the first speeches the negative always delivers

the last speech. Sometimes the first affirmative speaker is allowed to

follow with the single speech in rebuttal. If the team consist of

three speakers and all are allowed to appear in rebuttal the entire

order is as follows.

_First Part Rebuttal_

First affirmative First negative

First negative First affirmative

Second affirmative Second negative

Second negative Second affirmative

Third affirmative Third negative

Third negative Third affirmative

If not all the speakers are to speak in rebuttal the team itself

decides which of its members shall speak for all.

Preparation. The proposition should be decided on and the teams

selected long enough in advance to allow for adequate preparation.

Every means should be employed to secure sufficient material in

effective arrangement. Once constituted, the team should consider

itself a unit. Work should be planned in conference and distributed

among the speakers. At frequent meetings they should present to the

side all they are able to find. They should lay out a comprehensive

plan of support of their own side. They should anticipate the

arguments likely to be advanced by the other, and should provide for

disposing of them if they are important enough to require refuting. It

is a good rule for every member of a debating team to know all the

material on his side, even though part of it is definitely assigned to

another speaker.

This preliminary planning should be upon a definite method. A good

outline to use, although some parts may be discarded in the debate

itself, is the following simple one.

I. State the proposition clearly.

1. Define the terms.

2. Explain it as a whole.

II. Give a history of the case.

1. Show its present bearing or aspect.

III. State the issues.

IV. Prove.

V. Refute.

VI. Conclude.

Finding the Issues. In debating, since time is so valuable, a speaker

must not wander afield. He must use all his ability, all his material

to prove his contention. It will help him to reject material not

relevant if he knows exactly what is at issue between the two sides.

It was avoiding the issue to answer the charge that Charles I was a

tyrant by replying that he was a good husband. Unless debaters realize

exactly what must be proven to make their position secure, there will

be really no debate, for the two sides will never meet in a clash of

opinion. They will pass each other without meeting, and instead of a

debate they will present a series of argumentative speeches. This

failure to state issues clearly and to support or refute them

convincingly is one of the most common faults of all debating. In

ordinary conversation a frequently heard criticism of a discussion or

speech or article is "But that was not the point at issue at all."

These issues must appear in the preliminary plans, in the finished

brief, and in the debate itself.

The only point in issue between us is, how long after an

author's death the State shall recognize a copyright in his

representatives and assigns; and it can, I think, hardly be

disputed by any rational man that this is a point which the

legislature is free to determine in the way which may appear

to be most conducive to the general good.

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY: _Copyright_, 1841

Mr. President, the very first question that challenges our

attention in the matter of a league of nations is the

question of whether a war in Europe is a matter of concern

to the United States. The ultraopponents of any league of

nations assert that European quarrels and European battles

are no concern of ours. If that be true, we may well pause

before obligating ourselves to make them our concern. Is it

true?

SENATOR P.J. MCCUMBER: _The League of Nations_,

1919

The best method of finding the issues is to put down in two columns

the main contentions of both sides. By eliminating those entries which

are least important and those which have least bearing upon the

present case the issues may be reduced to those which the debate

should cover. Any possible attempt to cloud the issues on the part of

the opposing side can thus be forestalled. All the speakers on one

side should participate in this analysis of the proposition to find

and state the issues.

The New York _Tribune_, by parallel columns, brought out these chief

points of difference between the Paris plan and Senator Knox's for the

League of Nations.

THE KNOX PLAN THE PARIS PLAN

League formed of all, not Under Article VII it is provided

a portion, of the nations of that no state shall be

the world. admitted unless it is able to

give guaranties of its intention

to observe its international

obligations and conform

to the principles

prescribed by the League

in regard to it's naval and

military forces and armaments.

War to be declared an Article XVI provides that

international crime, and any should any of the high

nation engaging in war, except contracting parties break

in self-defense when covenants under Article XII

actually attacked, to be punished (relating to arbitration) it

by the world as an shall be deemed to have committed

international criminal. an act of war against

the League, which undertakes

to exercise economic

pressure; and it is to be the

duty of the executive council

to recommend what military

or naval force the members

of the League shall contribute

to be used to protect

the covenants of the League.

The Monroe Doctrine to None of these matters is

be safeguarded; also our mentioned specifically, but

immigration policy and our President Wilson has said

right to expel aliens. that the League will "extend

the Monroe Doctrine to the

whole world" and that domestic

and internal questions

are not a concern of the

League.

Our right to maintain military Article VIII says: "The

and naval establishments executive council shall also

and coaling stations, determine for the consideration

and our right to fortify the and action of the several

Panama Canal and our governments what military

frontiers to be safeguarded. equipment and armament is

fair and reasonable and in

proportion to the scale of

forces laid down in the program

of disarmament, and

these limits when adopted

shall not be exceeded without

the permission of the executive

council."

An international court to Article XIV provides for

be empowered by the League the establishment of a "permanent

to call upon the signatory court of international

Powers to enforce its decrees justice," but its powers are

against unwilling states by limited to hearing and determining

force, economic pressure, or "any matter

otherwise. The constitution which the parties recognize

of the League to provide, as suitable for submission to

however, that decrees against it for arbitration" under

an American Power shall be Article XIII.

enforced by the nations of

this hemisphere, and decrees

against a country of the

eastern hemisphere by the

Powers of that hemisphere.

Team Work. With the plan agreed upon by the speakers, the brief made

out, and the material distributed, each speaker can go to work in

earnest to prepare his single speech. The best method has been

outlined in this book. His notes should be accurate, clear, easily

manipulated. His quotations should be exact, authoritative. By no

means should he memorize his speech. Such stilted delivery would

result in a series of formal declamations. With his mind stocked with

exactly what his particular speech is to cover, yet familiar enough

with the material of his colleagues to use it should he need it, the

debater is ready for the contest.

Manipulating Material. The speakers on a side should keep all their

material according to some system. If cards are used, arguments to be

used in the main debate might be arranged in one place, material for

rebuttal in another, quotations and statistics in still another. Then

if the other side introduces a point not anticipated it should be easy

to find the refuting or explaining material at once to counteract its

influence in the next speech, if it should be disposed of at once. If

slips of paper are used, different colors might indicate different

kinds of material. Books, papers, reports, to be used should always be

within available distance. While a speaker for the other side is

advancing arguments the speaker who will follow him should be able to

change, if necessary, his entire plan of defense or attack to meet the

manoeuver. He should select from the various divisions upon the

table the material he needs, and launch at once into a speech which

meets squarely all the contentions advanced by his predecessor. This

instantaneous commandeering of material is likely to be most usual in

rebuttal, but a good debater must be able to resort to it at a

second's notice.

The First Affirmative Speaker. The first affirmative speaker must

deliver some kind of introduction to the contentions which his side

intends to advance. It is his duty to be concise and clear in this. He

must not use too much time. If the proposition needs defining and

applying he must not fail to do it. He must not give the negative the

opportunity to explain and apply to its own purposes the meaning of

the proposition. He should state in language which the hearers will

remember exactly what the issues are. He can help his own side by

outlining exactly what the affirmative intends to prove. He may

indicate just what portions will be treated by his colleagues. He

should never stop with merely introducing and outlining. Every speaker

must advance proof, the first as well as the others. If the

preliminary statements by the first affirmative speaker are clearly

and convincingly delivered, and if he places a few strong, supporting

reasons before the judges, he will have started his side very well

upon its course of debating. The last sentences of his speech should

drive home the points he has proved.

The First Negative Speaker. The first negative speaker either agrees

with the definitions and application of the proposition as announced

by the first affirmative speaker or he disagrees with them. If the

latter, the mere statement of his disagreement is not sufficient.

Contradiction is not proof. He must refute the definition and

application of the proposition by strong reasoning and ample proof. If

his side does not admit the issues as already presented he must

explain or prove them away and establish in their place the issues his

side sees in the discussion. When the two sides disagree concerning

the issues there is a second proposition erected for discussion at

once and the argument upon this second matter may crowd out the

attempted argument upon the main proposition. To obviate such shifting

many schools have the sides exchange briefs or statements of issues

before the debate so that some agreement will be reached upon

essentials.

In addition to the matters just enumerated the first negative speaker

should outline the plan his side will follow, promising exactly what

things will be established by his colleagues. If he feels that the

first affirmative speaker has advanced proofs strong enough to require

instant refutation he should be able to meet those points at once and

dispose of them. If they do not require immediate answering, or if

they may safely be left for later refutation in the regular rebuttal,

he may content himself with simply announcing that they will be

answered. He should not allow the audience to believe that his side

cannot meet them.

He must not give the impression that he is evading them. If he has to

admit their truth, let him frankly say so, showing, if possible, how

they do not apply or do not prove all that is claimed for them, or

that though they seem strong in support of the affirmative the

negative side has still stronger arguments which by comparison refute

at least their effect.

The first negative speaker should not stop with mere refutation. If

the first affirmative has advanced proofs, and the first negative

disposes of them, the debate is exactly where it was at the beginning.

The negative speaker must add convincing arguments of his own. It is a

good thing to start with one of the strongest negative arguments in

the material.

The Second Affirmative and Second Negative Speakers. The second

affirmative and the second negative speakers have very much the same

kind of speech to make. Taking the immediate cues from the preceding

speaker each may at first pay some attention to the remarks of his

opponent. Here again there must be quickly decided the question

already brought up by the first negative speech--shall arguments be

refuted at once or reserved for such treatment in rebuttal? When this

decision is made the next duty of each of these second speakers is to

advance his side according to the plan laid down by his first

colleague. He must make good the advance notice given of his team.

Each position of a debater has its peculiar tasks. The middle speaker

must not allow the interest aroused by the first to lag. If anything,

his material and manner must indicate a rise over the opening speech.

He must start at the place where the first speaker stopped and carry

on the contention to the place at which it has been agreed he will

deliver it to the concluding speaker for his side. If this connection

among all the speeches of one side is quite plain to the audience an

impression of unity and coherence will be made upon them. This will

contribute to the effect of cogent reasoning. They will realize that

instead of listening to a group of detached utterances they have been

following a chain of reasoning every link of which is closely

connected with all that precedes and follows.

The Concluding Affirmative Speaker. The concluding affirmative speaker

must not devote his entire speech to a conclusion by giving an

extensive summary or recapitulation. He must present arguments.

Realizing that this is the last chance for original argument from his

side he may be assigned the very strongest argument of all to deliver,

for the effect of what he says must last beyond the concluding speech

of the negative. It would likewise be a mistake for him to do nothing

more than argue in his concluding speech. Several persons have

intervened since his first colleague outlined their side and announced

what they would prove. It is his duty to show that the affirmative has

actually done what it set out to do. By amplifying and diminishing he

may also show how the negative had not carried out its avowed

intention of disproving the affirmative's position and proving

conclusively its own. The concluding speech for the affirmative is an

excellent test of a debater's ability to adapt himself to conditions

which may have been entirely unforeseen when the debate began, of his

keenness in analyzing the strength of the affirmative and exposing

the weakness of the negative, of his power in impressing the arguments

of his colleagues as well as his own upon the audience, and of his

skill in bringing to a well-rounded, impressive conclusion his side's

part in the debate.

The Concluding Negative Speaker. The concluding negative speaker must

judge whether his immediate predecessor, the concluding affirmative

speaker, has been able to gain the verdict of the judges. If he fears

that he has, he must strive to argue that conviction away. He too must

advance proof finally to strengthen the negative side. He must make

his speech answer to his first colleague's announced scheme, or if

some change in the line of development has been necessitated, he must

make clear why the first was replaced by the one the debaters have

followed. If the arguments of the negative have proved what it was

declared they would, the last speaker should emphasize that fact

beyond any question in any one's mind. Finally he should save time for

a fitting conclusion. This brings the debate proper to a close.

Restrictions in Rebuttal. In rebuttal--if it be provided--the main

restrictions are two. The speeches are shorter than the earlier ones.

No new lines of argument may be introduced. Only lines of proof

already brought forward may be considered. Since the speeches are

shorter and the material is restricted there is always the disposition

to use rebuttal speeches for refutation only. This is a mistake.

Refute, but remember always that constructive argument is more likely

to win decisions than destructive. Dispose of as many points of the

opponents as possible, but reiterate the supporting reasons of your

own. Many speakers waste their rebuttals by trying to cover too many

points. They therefore have insufficient time to prove anything, so

they fall back upon bare contradiction and assertion. Such

presentations are mere jumbles of statements. Choose a few important

phases of the opposing side's contention. Refute them. Choose the

telling aspects of your own case. Emphasize them.

Manner in Debating. Be as earnest and convincing in your speeches as

you can. Never yield to the temptation to indulge in personalities.

Recall that other speakers should never be mentioned by name. They are

identified by their order and their side, as "The first speaker on the

affirmative" or "The speaker who preceded me," or "My colleague," or

"My opponent." Avoid using these with tones and phrases of sarcasm and

bitterness. Be fair and courteous in every way. Never indulge in such

belittling expressions as "No one understands what he is trying to

prove. He reels off a string of figures which mean nothing." Never

indulge in cheap wit or attempts at satiric humor.

Prepare so adequately, analyze so keenly, argue so logically, speak so

convincingly, that even when your side loses, your opponents will have

to admit that you forced them to do better than they had any idea they

could.

CHAPTER XIII

SPEAKING UPON SPECIAL OCCASIONS

Speech-making in the Professions. If a student enter a profession in

which speech-making is the regular means of gaining his livelihood--as

in law, religion, or lecturing--he will find it necessary to secure

training in the technical methods applying to the particular kind of

speech-making in which he will indulge. This book does not attempt to

prepare any one for mastery of such special forms. The student will,

however, be helping himself if he examines critically every delivery

of a legal argument, sermon, or lecture he hears, for many of the

rules illustrated by them and the impressions made by their speakers,

can be transferred as models to be imitated or specimens to be avoided

in his own more restricted and less important world.

Speaking upon Special Occasions. Every American may be called upon to

speak upon some special occasion. If he does well at his first

appearance he may be invited or required by circumstances to speak

upon many occasions. The person who can interest audiences by

effective delivery of suitable material fittingly adapted to the

particular occasion is always in demand. Within the narrower confines

of educational institutions the opportunities for the student to

appear before his schoolmates are as numerous as in real life. Some

preliminary knowledge coupled with much practice will produce deep

satisfaction upon successful achievement and result in rapid steps of

self-development.

Without pretending to provide for all possible circumstances in which

students and others may be called upon to speak, this chapter will

list some of the special occasions for which speeches should be

prepared.

Speeches of Presiding Officers. On practically all occasions there is

a presiding officer whose chief duty is to introduce to the audience

the various speakers. The one great fault of speeches of introduction

is that they are too long. The introducer sincerely means not to

consume too much time, but in the endeavor to do justice to the

occasion or the speaker he becomes involved in his remarks until they

wander far from his definite purpose. He wearies the audience before

the important speaker begins. An introducer should not become so

unconscious of his real task as to fall into this error. In other

cases the fault is not so innocent. Many a person called upon to

introduce a speaker takes advantage of the chance to express his own

opinions. He drops into the discourtesy of using for his own ends a

condition of passive attention which was not created for him. One

large audience which had assembled to hear a lecturer was kept from

listening to him while for twenty minutes the introducer aired his own

pet theories. Of course members of the audience discussed among

themselves the inappropriateness of such remarks, but it is doubtful

whether any criticism reached the offender.

A newspaper recently had the courage to voice the feelings of

audiences.

It seems that a good deal of the time of the audience at the

Coliseum the other night was taken by those who introduced

the speakers of the evening. We are told in one account of

the meeting that the audience was at times impatient of

these preliminaries and even howled once or twice for those

it had come to hear.... We are informed that all those

introducing the speakers said something about not having

risen to speak at length, and that one of them protested his

inability to speak with any facility. Both these professions

are characteristic of those introducing speakers of the

evening. Yet, strangely enough, the same always happens.

That is, the preliminaries wear the audience out before the

people it came to hear can get at it.

In introducing a speaker never be too long-winded. Tactfully,

gracefully, courteously, put before the audience such facts as the

occasion, the reason for the topic of the speech, the fitness and

appropriateness of the choice of the speaker, then present the man or

woman. Be extremely careful of facts and names. A nominating speaker

at a great political convention ruined the effect of a speech by

confusedly giving several first names to a distinguished man. It is

embarrassing to a speaker to have to correct at the very beginning of

his remarks a misstatement made by the presiding officer. But a man

from one university cannot allow the audience to identify him with

another. The author of a book wants its title correctly given. A

public official desires to be associated in people's minds with the

department he actually controls.

The main purpose of a speech of introduction is to do for the

succeeding speaker what the chapter on beginning the speech

suggested--to render the audience attentive and well-disposed, to

introduce the topic, and in addition to present the speaker.

Choosing a Theme. The speaker at a special occasion must choose the

theme with due regard to the subject and the occasion. Frequently his

theme will be suggested to him, so that it will already bear a close

relation to the occasion when he begins its preparation. The next

matter he must consider with extreme care is the treatment. Shall it be

serious, informative, argumentative, humorous, scoffing, ironic? To

decide this he must weigh carefully the significance of the occasion.

Selecting the inappropriate manner of treatment means risking the

success of the speech. Recall how many men and speeches you have heard

criticized as being "out of harmony with the meeting," or "not in

spirit with the proceedings," and you will realize how necessary to

the successful presentation is this delicate adjustment of the speech

to the mood of the circumstances.

The After-dinner Speech. When men and women have met to partake of

good food under charming surroundings and have enjoyed legitimate

gastronomic delights it is regrettable that a disagreeable element

should be added by a series of dull, long-winded, un-appropriate

after-dinner speeches. The preceding adjectives suggest the chief

faults of those persons who are repeatedly asked to speak upon such

occasions. They so often miss the mark. Because after-dinner speaking

is so informal it is proportionally difficult. When called upon, a

person feels that he must acknowledge the compliment by saying

something. This, however, is not really enough. He must choose his

theme and style of treatment from the occasion. If the toastmaster

assign the topic he is safe so far as that is concerned, but he must

still be careful of his treatment.

A speaker at a dinner of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, in which

membership is awarded for rank in cultural as contrasted with

practical, technical studies, seized upon the chance to deliver a

rather long, quite detailed legal explanation of the parole system for

convicted offenders against laws. At a dinner given by the

Pennsylvania Society in a state far from their original homes the

members were praised to the skies for preserving the love of their

native state and marking their identity in a district so distant and

different. This was quite appropriate for an introduction but the

speaker then turned abruptly to one of his political speeches and

berated the foreigner in America for not becoming at once an entirely

made-over citizen. The speech contradicted its own sentiments. A wrong

emphasis was placed upon its material. A disquieting impression was

made upon the Pennsylvanians. At the conclusion they felt that they

were guilty for having kept the love of their native soil; according

to the tone of the speaker they should have accepted their new

residence and wiped out all traces of any early ties.

An after-dinner speaker should remember that dinners are usually marks

of sociability, goodfellowship, congratulation, celebration,

commemoration. Speeches should answer to such motives. The apt

illustration, the clever twist, the really good story or anecdote, the

surprise ending, all have their places here, if they are used with

grace, good humor, and tact. This does not preclude elements of

information and seriousness, but such matters should be introduced

skilfully, discussed sparingly, enforced pointedly.

The Commemorative Speech. Besides dinners, other gatherings may

require commemorative addresses. These speeches are longer, more

formal. The success of a debating team, the successful season of an

athletic organization, the termination of a civic project, the

election of a candidate, the celebration of an historic event, the

tribute to a great man, suggest the kinds of occasions in which

commemorative addresses should be made.

Chosen with more care than the after-dinner speaker, the person on

such an occasion has larger themes with which to deal, a longer time

for their development, and an audience more surely attuned to

sympathetic reception. He has more time for preparation also. In minor

circumstances, such as the first three or four enumerated in the

preceding paragraph, the note is usually congratulation for victory.

Except in tone and length these speeches are not very different from

after-dinner remarks. But when the occasion is more dignified, the

circumstances more significant, addresses take on a different aspect.

They become more soberly judicial, more temperately laudatory, more

feelingly impressive. At such times public speaking approaches most

closely to the old-fashioned idea of oratory, now so rapidly passing

away, in its attempt to impress upon the audience the greatness of the

occasion in which it is participating. The laying of a corner-stone,

the completion of a monument or building, a national holiday, the

birthday of a great man, the date of an epoch-marking event, bring

forth eulogistic tributes like Webster's speech at Bunker Hill,

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Secretary Lane's Flag Day speech.

False Eloquence. The beginner will not have many opportunities of

delivering such remarkable addresses, but in his small sphere he will

have chances to do similar things. He must beware of several faults of

which the unwary are usually guilty. Recognizing the wonderful

eloquence of the masterpieces of such kinds of address he may want to

reproduce its effects by imitating its apparent methods. Nothing could

be worse. The style of the great eulogy, born of the occasion and the

speaker, becomes only exaggerated bombast and nonsense from the lips

of a student. Exaggeration, high sounding terms, flowery language,

involved constructions, do not produce eloquence in the speaker. They

produce discomfort, often smiles of ridicule, in the audience. Many a

student intending to cover himself with glory by eulogizing the

martyred McKinley or the dead Roosevelt has succeeded only in covering

himself with derision. Simplicity, straightforwardness, fair

statement, should be the aims of beginning speakers upon such

occasions.

Speeches of Presentation and Acceptance. Standing between the two

classes of speeches just discussed are speeches of presentation and

acceptance. In practically all circumstances where such remarks are

suitable there are present mingled feelings of celebration and

commemoration. There is joy over something accomplished, and

remembrance of merit or success. So the person making a speech of

presentation must mingle the two feelings as he and the audience

experience them. Taking his cue from the tone of the occasion he must

fit his remarks to that mood. He may be as bright and sparkling and as

amusing as a refined court jester. He may be as impressive and serious

as a judge. The treatment must be determined by the circumstances.

The speaker who replies must take his cue from the presenter. While

the first has the advantage of carrying out his plan as prepared, the

second can only dimly anticipate the theme he will express. At any

rate he cannot so surely provide his beginning. That must come

spontaneously from the turn given the material by his predecessor,

although the recipient may pass by a transition to the remarks he

prepared in advance.

The observations which obtain in the presentation and acceptance of a

material object--as a book, a silver tea set, a medal, an art

gallery--apply just as well to the bestowal and acceptance of an

honor, such as a degree from a university, an office, an appointment

as head of a committee or as foreign representative, or membership in

a society. Speeches upon such occasions are likely to be more formal

than those delivered upon the transfer of a gift. The bestower may

cite the reasons for the honor, the fitness of the recipient, the

mutual honors and obligations, and conclude with hopes of further

attainments or services. The recipient may reply from a personal

angle, explaining not only his appreciation, but his sense of

obligation to a trust or duty, his methods of fulfilling his

responsibilities, his modestly phrased hope or belief in his ultimate

success.

The Inaugural Speech. In this last-named respect the speech of the

recipient of an honor is closely related to the speech of a person

inaugurated to office. This applies to all official positions to which

persons are elected or appointed. The examples which will spring into

students' minds are the inaugural speeches of Presidents of the United

States. A study of these will furnish hints for the newly installed

incumbent of more humble positions. In material they are likely to be

retrospective and anticipatory. They trace past causes up to present

effects, then pass on to discuss future plans and methods. Every

officer in his official capacity has something to do. Newspaper

articles will give you ideas of what officials should be doing. The

office holder at the beginning of his term should make clear to his

constituency, his organization, his class, his society, his school,

just what he intends to try to do. He must be careful not to

antagonize possible supporters by antagonistic remarks or opinions. He

should try to show reason and expediency in all he urges. He should

temper satisfaction and triumph with seriousness and resolve. Facts

and arguments will be of more consequence than opinions and promises.

The speech should be carefully planned in advance, clearly expressed,

plainly delivered. Its statements should be weighed, as everyone of

them may be used later as reasons for support or attack. To avoid such

consequences the careful politician often indulges in glittering

generalities which mean nothing. A student in such conditions should

face issues squarely, and without stirring up unnecessary antagonism,

announce his principles clearly and firmly. If he has changed his

opinion upon any subject he may just as well state his position so

that no misunderstanding may arise later.

In the exercise of his regular activities a person will have many

opportunities to deliver this kind of speech.

The Nominating Speech. Recommendation of himself by a candidate for

office does not fall within the plan of this book. Students, however,

may indulge in canvassing votes for their favorite candidates, and

this in some instances, leads to public speaking in class and mass

meetings, assemblies, and the like. Of similar import is the

nominating speech in which a member of a society, committee, meeting,

offers the name of his candidate for the votes of as many as will

indorse him. In nominating, it is a usual trick of arrangement to give

first all the qualifications of the person whose election is to be

urged, advancing all reasons possible for the choice, and uttering his

name only in the very last words of the nominating speech. This plan

works up to a cumulative effect which should deeply impress the

hearers at the mention of the candidate's name.

In nominating speeches and in arguments supporting a candidate the

deliverer should remember two things. Constructive proof is better

than destructive attack; assertion of opinion and personal preference

is not proof. If it seems necessary at times to show the fitness of

one candidate by contrast with another, never descend to

personalities, never inject a tone of personal attack, of cheap wit,

of ill-natured abuse. If such practices are resorted to by others,

answer or disregard them with the courteous attention they deserve, no

more. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into any discussion remote

from the main issue--the qualifications of your own candidate. If you

speak frequently upon such a theme--as you may during an extended

campaign--notice which of your arguments make the strongest

impressions upon the hearers. Discard the weaker ones to place more

and more emphasis upon the convincing reasons. Never fail to study

other speakers engaged in similar attempts. American life every day

provides you with illustrations to study.

The Speech in Support of a Measure. When, instead of a candidate, you

are supporting some measure to be adopted, some reform to be

instituted, some change to be inaugurated, your task is easier in one

respect. There will be less temptation to indulge in personal matters.

You will find it easier to adhere to your theme. In such attempts to

mold public opinion--whether it be the collective opinion of a small

school class, or a million voters--you will find opportunities for the

inclusion of everything you know of the particular subject and of all

human nature. Convinced yourself of the worthiness of your cause, bend

every mental and intellectual effort to making others understand as

you do, see as you do. If your reasoning is clear and converting, if

your manner is direct and sincere, you should be able to induce others

to believe as you do.

The Persuasive Speech. In public speaking upon occasions when votes

are to be cast, where reforms are to be instituted, where changes are

to be inaugurated, you have not finished when you have turned the

mental attitude, and done no more. You must arouse the will to act.

Votes must be cast for the measure you approve. The reform you urge

must be financed at once. The change must be registered. To accomplish

such a purpose you must do more than merely prove; you must persuade.

In the use of his power over people to induce them to noble,

high-minded action lies the supreme importance of the public speaker.

EXERCISES

1. Choose some recent event which you and your friends might celebrate

by a dinner. As toastmaster, deliver the first after-dinner remarks

drawing attention to the occasion and introducing some one to speak.

2. Deliver the after-dinner speech just introduced.

3. Introduce some other member of the class, who is not closely

connected with the event being celebrated, and who therefore is a

guest.

4. Deliver this speech, being careful to make your remarks correspond

to the preceding.

5. A debating team has won a victory. Deliver the speech such a

victory deserves.

6. An athletic team has won a victory. As a non-participant, present

the trophy.

7. An athletic team has finished a season without winning the

championship. Speak upon such a result.

8. The city or state has finished some great project. Speak upon its

significance.

9. Address an audience of girls or women upon their right to vote.

10. Speak in approval of some recently elected official in your

community.

11. Choose some single event in the history of your immediate

locality. Speak upon it.

12. Deliver a commemorative address suitable for the next holiday.

13. Bring into prominence some man or woman connected with the past of

your community.

14. An unheralded hero.

15. "They also serve who only stand and wait."

16. "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war."

17. Deliver the speech to accompany the presentation of a set of

books.

18. Present to your community some needed memorial park, building, or

other monument.

19. Accept the gift for the community.

20. Challenge another class to debate.

21. Urge upon some organization support of some civic measure.

22. As a representative of the students present some request to the

authorities.

23. A meeting has been called to hear you because of your association

with some organization or movement. Deliver the speech.

24. Some measure or movement is not being supported as it should be. A

meeting of people likely to be interested has been called. Address the

meeting.

25. Appeal to your immediate associates to support some charitable

work.

26. Some organization has recently started a new project. Speak to it

upon its task.

27. An organization has successfully accomplished a new project.

Congratulate it.

28. Some early associate of yours has won recognition or success or

fame away from home. He is about to return. Speak to your companions

showing why they should honor him.

29. Choose some person or event worthy of commemoration. Arrange a

series of detailed topics and distribute them among members of the

class. Set a day for their presentation.

30. Choose a chairman. On the appointed day have him introduce the

topic and the speakers.

CHAPTER XIV

DRAMATICS

Difference between Public Speaking and Acting. In practically all the

aspects of public speaking you deliver your own thoughts in your own

words. In dramatic presentation you deliver the words already written

by some one else; and in addition, while you are delivering these

remarks you speak as though you were no longer yourself, but a totally

different person. This is the chief distinction between speaking in

public and acting. While you must memorize the lines you deliver when

you try to act like a character other than yourself, speeches in

dramatic production are not like usual memorized selections. Usually a

memorized selection does not express the feelings or opinions of a

certain character, but is likely to be descriptive or narrative. Both

prose and verse passages contain more than the uttered words of a

single person.

As preparation for exercise in dramatics, whether simple or elaborate,

training in memorizing and practice in speaking are extremely

valuable. Memorizing may make the material grow so familiar that it

loses its interest for the speaker. Pupils frequently recite committed

material so listlessly that they merely bore hearers. Such a

disposition to monotony should be neutralized by the ability to speak

well in public.

Naturalness and Sincerity. When you speak lines from a play inject as

much naturalness and sincerity into your delivery as you can command.

Speak the words as though they really express your own ideas and

feelings. If you feel that you must exaggerate slightly because of the

impression the remark is intended to make, rely more upon emphasis

than upon any other device to secure an effect. Never slip into an

affected manner of delivering any speech. No matter what kind of

acting you have seen upon amateur or professional stage, you must

remember that moderation is the first essential of the best acting.

Recall what Shakespeare had Hamlet say to the players.

Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus: but use all

gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind

of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give

it smoothness. Oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious,

periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split

the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of

nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise.

Character Delineation. In taking part in a play you must do more than

simply recite words spoken by some one other than yourself. You must

really act like that person. This adds to the simple delivery of

speeches all those other traits by which persons in real life are

different from one another. Such complete identification of your

personality with that of the person you are trying to represent in a

play is termed character delineation, or characterization.

You may believe that you cannot represent an Indian chief or a British

queen, or an Egyptian slave, or a secret service agent, but if you

will recall your childish pastime of day-dreaming you will see at once

that you have quite frequently identified yourself with some one else,

and in that other character you have made yourself experience the

strangest and most thrilling adventures. When you study a rôle in a

scene or play, use your imagination in that same manner. In a short

time it will be easy for you to think as that other character would.

Then you have become identified with him. The first step in your

delineation has been taken.

Visualize in your mind's eye--your imagination--the circumstances in

which that character is placed in the play. See yourself looking,

moving, acting as he would. Then talk as that character would in those

circumstances. Make him react as he would naturally in the situations

in which the dramatist has placed him.

Let us try to make this more definite. Suppose a boy is chosen to act

the part of an old man. An old man does not speak as rapidly as a boy

does. He will have to change the speed of his speech. But suppose the

old man is moved to wrath, would his words come slowly? Would he speak

distinctly or would he almost choke?

The girl who is delineating a foreign woman must picture her accent

and hesitation in speaking English. She would give to her face the

rather vacant questioning look such a woman would have as the English

speech flits about her, too quickly for her to comprehend all of it.

The girl who tries to present a British queen in a Shakespeare play

must not act as a pupil does in the school corridor. Yet if that queen

is stricken in her feelings as a mother, might not all the royal

dignity melt away, and her Majesty act like any sorrowing woman?

EXERCISES

You are sitting at a table or desk. The telephone rings. You pick up

the receiver. A person at the other end invites you to dinner. Deliver

your part of the conversation.

1. Speak in your own character.

2. Speak as a busy, quick-tempered old man in his disordered office.

3. Speak as a tired wife who hasn't had a relief for weeks from the

drudgery of house-work.

4. Speak as a young debutante who has been entertained every day for

weeks.

5. Speak as the office boy.

6. Speak as an over-polite foreigner.

7. Delineate some other kind of person.

Improvisations are here given first because such exercises depend upon

the pupil's original interpretation of a character. The pupil is

required to do so much clear thinking about the character he

represents that he really creates it.

Dialogues. As it is easier to get two people to speak naturally than

where more are involved we shall begin conversation with dialogues.

Each character will find the lines springing spontaneously from the

situation. In dramatic composition any speech delivered by a character

is called a line, no matter how short or long it is.

As you deliver the dialogues suggested by the exercises try to make

your speeches sound natural. Talk as real people talk. Make the

remarks conversational, or colloquial, as this style is also termed.

What things will make conversation realistic? In actual talk, people

anticipate. Speakers do not wait for others to finish. They interrupt.

They indicate opinions and impressions by facial expression and slight

bodily movements. Tone changes as feelings change.

Try to make your remarks convey to the audience the circumstances

surrounding the dialogue. Let the conversation make some point clear.

Before you begin, determine in your own mind the characterization you

intend to present.

Situation. A girl buys some fruit from the keeper of a stand at a

street corner.

What kind of girl? Age? Manner of speaking? Courteous? Flippant?

Well-bred? Slangy? Working girl? Visitor to town?

What kind of man? Age? American? Foreigner? From what country?

Dialect? Disposition? Suspicious? Sympathetic?

Weather? Season of year? Do they talk about that? About themselves?

Does the heat make her long for her home in the country? Does the cold

make him think of his native Italy or Greece? Will her remarks change

his short, gruff answers to interested questions about her home? Will

his enthusiasm for his native land change her flippancy to interest in

far-off romantic countries? How would the last detail impress the

change, if you decide to have one? Might he call her back and force

her to take a gift? Might she deliver an impressive phrase, then dash

away as though startled by her exhibition of sympathetic feeling?

These are mere suggestions. Two pupils might present the scene as

indicated by these questions. Two others might show it as broadly

comic, and end by having the girl--at a safe distance--triumphantly

show that she had stolen a second fruit. That might give him the cue

to end in a tirade of almost inarticulate abuse, or he might stand in

silence, expressing by his face the emotions surging over him. And his

feeling need not be entirely anger, either. It might border on

admiration for her amazing audacity, or pathetic helplessness, or

comic despair, or determination to "get even" next time.

Before you attempt to present any of the following suggestive

exercises you should consider every possibility carefully and decide

definitely and consistently all the questions that may arise

concerning every detail.

EXERCISES

1. Let a boy come into the room and try to induce a girl (the mistress

of a house) to have a telephone installed. Make the dialogue realistic

and interesting.

2. Let a girl demonstrate a vacuum cleaner (or some other appliance)

to another girl (mistress of a house).

3. Let a boy apply for a position to a man in an office.

4. Let a boy dictate a letter to a gum-chewing, fidgety, harum-scarum

stenographer.

5. Let this stenographer tell the telephone girl about this.

6. Show how a younger sister might talk at a baseball or football game

to her slightly older brother who was coerced into bringing her with

him.

7. Show a fastidious woman at a dress goods counter, and the tired,

but courteous clerk. Do not caricature, but try to give an air of

reality to this.

8. Show how two young friends who have not seen each other for weeks

might talk when they meet again.

9. Deliver the thoughts of a pupil at eleven o'clock at night trying

to choose the topic for an English composition due the next morning.

Have him talk to his mother, or father, or older brother, or sister.

10. A foreign woman speaking and understanding little English, with a

ticket to Springfield, has by mistake boarded a through train which

does not stop there. The conductor, a man, and woman try to explain to

her what she must do.

11. Let three different pairs of pupils represent the girl and the

fruit seller cited in the paragraphs preceding these exercises.

12. A young man takes a girl riding in a new automobile. Reproduce

parts of the ride.

13. Two graduates of your school meet after many years in a distant

place. Reproduce their reminiscenses.

14. A woman in a car or coach has lost or misplaced her transfer or

ticket. Give the conversation between her and the conductor.

15. Let various pairs of pupils reproduce the conversations of patrons

of moving pictures.

16. Suggest other characters in appropriate situations. Present them

before the class.

Characters Conceived by Others. In all the preceding exercises you

have been quite unrestricted in your interpretation. You have been

able to make up entirely the character you presented. Except for a few

stated details of sex, age, occupation, nature, no suggestions were

given of the person indicated. Delineation is fairly easy to

construct when you are given such a free choice of all possibilities.

The next kind of exercise will involve a restriction to make the

acting a little more like the acting of a rôle in a regular play. Even

here, however, a great deal is left to the pupil's thought and

decision.

How much chance there may be for such individual thought and decision

in a finished play written by a careful dramatist may be illustrated

by _Fame and the Poet_ by Lord Dunsany. One of the characters is a

Lieutenant-Major who calls upon a poet in London. Nothing is said

about his costume. In one city an actor asked the British consul. He

said officers of the army do not wear their uniforms except when in

active service, but on the British stage one great actor had by his

example created the convention of wearing the uniform. In another city

at exactly the same time the author himself was asked the same

question. He said that by no means should the actor wear a uniform.