THE PROPOSITION
I. The subject-matter of the proposition.
Argumentation demands a definite concrete subject. This subject must be
one about which there is a dispute; as for example, the liquor question.
There is a great controversy as to what ought to be done in this matter.
Many people contend that Prohibition, or the absolute forbidding of the
making or selling of all intoxicating liquors, is the best method of
procedure. On the other hand many people contend that High License, or
the regulating of the sale of such liquor, is the best method of
procedure. This is a proper subject for a written argument or an oral
debate, because the writer or speaker may take either Prohibition or
High License and show why, and in what way, it would benefit the
community. If he defends Prohibition he must prove that it will benefit
the community more than High License. If he defends High License he must
prove that it will benefit the community more than Prohibition. This
example illustrates what is meant by a definite, concrete subject about
which there is a dispute.
In selecting a subject for debate the following requirements should be
carefully observed:
_1. The subject must be interesting._
The subject must be one in which both speaker and audience have a real
interest. If the argument is written the subject must be one in which
the readers are interested. With this object in view, the question
selected should be practical rather than theoretical. That is, it should
be a question the final determination of which will affect the welfare
of the individual, the community, or the nation. No longer can interest
be aroused in a discussion of whether the pen is mightier than the
sword, or whether fire is more destructive than water. Objectionable in
like manner are the following questions taken from a book on debating
published in 1869: “Who is the most useful to society: the farmer or the
mechanic?”, “From which do we derive the greatest amount of pleasure:
hope or memory?”, “Are lawyers a benefit or a curse to society?”, “Is
there more pleasure in the pursuit than in the possession of a desired
object?”, “Who most deserves the esteem of mankind: the poet, the
statesman, or the warrior?”, and “Whether there is more pleasure derived
from the eye or the ear?” These and all similar subjects should be
avoided chiefly because they lack interest, since no practical result
can follow their determination. As well might one try to interest a
modern audience in the discussions of the ancient schoolmen, who grew
eloquent over a dispute as to how many angels could dance on the point
of a needle, whether there could be two hills without an intervening
valley, and whether God could make a yardstick with only one end. If men
are to be interested the speaker or writer must get close to the
questions which affect their everyday life at home and at work. If he
does this and his ideas are worth defending he will always find willing
hearers and readers.
Among interesting subjects for debate, questions of a local character
hold an important place. The advisability of building a town hall, an
athletic field, or a new bridge is very often more productive of genuine
interest than some weighty problem of national politics. Such questions
come close to the tax-payers and residents of any community, and at the
same time appeal to their pride, prejudice, and ambition. If the student
will but look about him he will find an abundance of controverted local
matter which will furnish excellent subjects for oral or written
arguments.
After the student has exhausted local subjects he may turn his attention
to the broader controversies of state and nation. Here the questions of
taxation, tariff, commerce, and international affairs afford ample scope
for the full development of the debater’s powers. The list of subjects
in the appendix may be found helpful in making a proper selection, but
preference should always be given to questions in which the people at
large are showing an active interest at the time of the debate. What
this interest is may be determined by consulting the current numbers of
the most widely circulating magazines and newspapers, such as the
“Independent,” “Nation,” “Harper’s Weekly,” and the various city
newspapers.
_2. Subjects for first practice should be those of which the debater has
a general knowledge_:
Since the object of the first few debates is to make the student
familiar with rules and forms, the subjects chosen should be within the
range of his information and experience. For this purpose subjects of a
local character are best adapted. The student should have had some
actual practice in debating before he attempts to take up questions
which require extended investigation. Such propositions as those
relating to the tariff, taxation, municipal problems, and Federal
control of industrial and commercial activities should be reserved for
more mature efforts.
The following subjects are fair examples of desirable questions for
first practice: (1) Should students who attain a rank of ninety per
cent, or higher, in their daily work be excused from examinations?, (2)
Should gymnasium work be made compulsory?, (3) Should first year
students at —— be allowed to engage in intercollegiate athletics?, (4)
Should the class rushes at the beginning of the college year be
discontinued?, (5) Should the game of football be abolished?
_3. The subject must be debatable._
If the first two requirements in regard to the choosing of a subject are
observed it is not probable that the question will be undebatable.
However, since it is always advisable to keep as far as may be from
one-sided questions, it is well to give this requirement some
consideration.
In the first place, the question must not be obviously true or obviously
false. The clearest examples of subjects objectionable because obviously
true are found in geometry. It is plain that an intelligent debate
cannot be held on the proposition, “Resolved, that the sum of the three
angles of a triangle is always equal to two right angles.” Equally
useless from the standpoint of argumentation is it to dispute that “All
men are mortal,” that “Huxley was a great scientist,” or that “Health is
more desirable than sickness.” Nevertheless questions just as obvious as
these are sometimes debated because their real character is concealed
under cover of confused language. The following question is a good
example of this, “Resolved, that breach of trust in high office is
reprehensible.” A moment’s thought will convince the reader that such a
proposition is not debatable because obviously true. On the other hand
propositions which are obviously false are sometimes worded so as to
have an appearance of validity. Such is the following, “Resolved, that
the only way to benefit humanity is to destroy the trusts.” To prove
this proposition it is necessary to show that education, religion, and
commerce cannot be made to benefit humanity. The proposition is not
debatable because it is obviously false.
In the second place, the question must be one which is capable of
approximate proof. It is not debatable if it cannot be proved
approximately true or false. The debater must be able, by means of
reasoning based upon the facts of the case, to arrive at a conclusion
either for or against the proposition. To make this possible, there must
be a common standard of comparison. This common standard does not exist
in the proposition “Resolved, that the lawyer is of more use to society
than the doctor,” because their work is entirely unlike and both are
necessary to the well-being of modern society. On the other hand it does
exist in the proposition “Resolved, that Federal control of life
insurance companies is preferable to State control.” This question
hinges on the comparative efficiency of the two means of control,
namely,—Federal and State, both of which are governmental in character.
Therefore a common standard of comparison exists which enables the
debater to show why one or the other method should be adopted.
Thus far we have dealt with the subject-matter of the proposition and
have seen that it must meet the three foregoing requirements. We must
now turn our attention to the phrasing of this subject in such a way
that it will form a suitable proposition for debate.
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A PROPOSITION
1. The subject must be interesting.
2. Subjects for first practice should be those of which the debater
has a general knowledge.
3. The subject must be debatable.
II. The wording of the proposition.
To those unfamiliar with the art of debate it often seems that when the
subject is chosen but a moment’s time is required to whip it into the
form of an acceptable proposition for a debate. This, however, is not
the case; the work is only half done. After an interesting, suitable,
and debatable subject has been chosen there still remains the important
task of expressing that subject in proper form.
The subject for debate should be stated in the form of a resolution. One
form of such resolution would be, “Resolved, that the Federal government
should levy a progressive income tax.” A mere statement of the subject
is not enough. One may write a description of “The Panama Canal,” or a
narrative on “The Adventures of a Civil Engineer in Panama,” or an
exposition on “The Cost of Building the Panama Canal,” but for an
argument one must take one side or the other of a resolution, as for
example, “Resolved, that the United States should fortify the Panama
Canal.” This resolution is usually termed the Proposition, and
corresponds to the motion, resolution, or bill presented in deliberative
assemblies such as state legislatures or the branches of Congress. The
proposition must contain one definite issue. In it there must be no
ambiguous words or phrases. Otherwise the debate is liable to degenerate
into a mere quibble over words or a dispute as to the meaning of the
proposition. Hence no issues will be squarely joined and after the
debate is over, neither the debaters, the judges, nor the audience will
feel satisfied or have reason to believe that any progress has been made
toward a right solution of the question.
The proposition for debate should be worded in accordance with the
following rules:
_1. The proposition should be so narrowed as to embody only one central
idea._
In the beginning there is always a tendency to make the proposition
cover too broad a field. This is rather a defect of wording than of
subject-matter. Let us take a proposition which is too broad, and narrow
it so that it will contain but a single idea. For this purpose we may
select the proposition, “Resolved, that freshmen should not be permitted
to take part in athletics.” As it stands, this proposition includes all
freshmen everywhere and prohibits them from taking part in athletics of
every kind. In other words the field which it covers is too broad. The
proposition treats of two things, freshmen and athletics. Let us first
make the provision in regard to freshmen definite, that is, narrow it
down to a field with definite limits. We can do this by making it apply
only to the freshmen of Columbia University or of any other specified
institution. Thus the collecting of material as well as the
determination of the issues involved becomes a much simpler matter. In
the second place let us make the provision in regard to athletics more
definite. As the proposition stands it excludes freshmen from all
athletics whatsoever, including inter-class and inter-society as well as
intercollegiate. Here again the field is too wide and some restriction
must be placed upon the subject-matter. Therefore we insert the word
“intercollegiate” before the word “athletics” in order that the field
for discussion may be narrowed down to a single, definite issue. With
these modifications the proposition now stands, “Resolved, that freshmen
at Columbia University should not be permitted to take part in
intercollegiate athletics,” which is an entirely satisfactory
proposition because it narrows the field of discussion to one definite,
central idea.
Though this difficulty will doubtless present itself in a variety of
forms, the principles stated above as well as the illustration, if kept
in mind by the student, will enable him to keep clear of this fault.
_2. The proposition should be stated in the affirmative._
The first argument is always presented by the affirmative. Upon the
affirmative rests the burden of proof and if the affirmative proves
nothing the decision goes to the negative. “He who affirms must prove.”
The affirmative has the burden of proving the proposition to be true,
the negative that of proving it false. Therefore the proposition must be
worded in the affirmative. This insures that some progress will have
been made at the end of the first speech.
The burden of proof rests upon the party who has the risk of
non-persuasion. The risk of non-persuasion rests upon the party who
would fail if no evidence were introduced. We have seen that the
affirmative would fail if no evidence were introduced, because he who
alleges must prove. Therefore the risk of non-persuasion rests on the
affirmative. To be more concrete, if you are attempting to prove to a
friend that he ought to do (or ought not to do) a certain thing, you
take the risk of not persuading him to do the thing that you ask, i. e.
the risk of non-persuasion is on you. Likewise the salesman who
approaches a customer with the purpose of selling him a bill of goods
incurs this same risk of non-persuasion, because he may not be able to
induce the customer to buy. Since, as in the above cases, the
affirmative must be given a chance to prove something before the
negative can reply, the proposition should always be worded in the
affirmative.
_3. The proposition should contain no ambiguous words._
After the proposition has been narrowed down to a single idea and has
then been stated in the affirmative, it should be carefully scrutinized
in order to determine whether it contains any ambiguous words. Ambiguous
words have a meaning so broad that they may be taken in more than one
sense. Such a word is “Anarchist.” This word may refer to a lawless
individual bent on assassination, or to a peaceable individual who has
merely the beliefs of an anarchist with no intention of putting them
into practice. Almost all general terms such as “Anarchist,” “Monroe
Doctrine,” “Civilization,” “Policy,” and “Trusts,” should be avoided
because they tend to make the proposition ambiguous. When such terms are
used they should be almost invariably accompanied by explanatory words.
The words selected for use in the proposition should have but one
meaning and should be so plain that there can be no reasonable dispute
as to their significance. If this rule is not complied with the
discussion will become a foolish quibble over the meaning of the
proposition rather than an intelligent debate upon the merits of the
question.
In the question, “Resolved, that trusts should be suppressed by law,”
there are three ambiguous words, (1) trusts, (2) suppressed, and (3)
law. While these words may not be ambiguous in ordinary speaking or
writing, they are not sufficiently definite to be used in a proposition.
The word “Trust” has several meanings and several shades of meaning.
Among these is the meaning which has recently been given to it,
indicating a combination of firms engaged in some special line of
business, as for example, “The Sugar Trust”, “The Oil Trust”, “The Steel
Trust”, etc. Even this one meaning has different variations. The term
“trust” as used in this sense may refer to a mere combination of
manufacturers, to a monopoly, or to a monopoly in restraint of trade. In
order to make the meaning of the proposition clear we may strike out the
ambiguous term “trusts” and insert “monopolies in restraint of trade.”
The word “suppressed” in this connection may have two well defined
meanings. It may mean either destruction or regulation. If the intent is
that the question shall hinge on whether or not monopolies in restraint
of trade should be destroyed or wiped out altogether, the word
“dissolved” or “destroyed” should be used. If, on the other hand, it is
intended that the issue shall be whether such organizations be allowed
to exist in their present form, but subject to governmental regulation
which will suppress their evil effects on trade, the word “regulated”
should be used. For the purpose in hand let us choose the latter
meaning.
The term “law” is also somewhat ambiguous, because there is more than
one legal agency which could deal with such organizations. Therefore we
will make plain which agency is intended by modifying the word “law” by
the word “Federal.” This makes the proposition, as corrected, read,
“Resolved, that monopolies in restraint of trade should be regulated by
Federal law.” The proposition as thus worded is fairly free from
ambiguity and leaves little opportunity for quibbling over the meaning
of the words in which it is stated.
The proposition must be so worded as to have the same meaning for both
the affirmative and the negative, and this meaning must be absolutely
clear and unambiguous.
_4. The proposition should be worded as briefly and simply as is
consistent with the foregoing requirements._
After the proposition has been worded in accordance with the foregoing
rules it should be carefully scrutinized to determine whether or not
there is a simpler form in which it may be cast without sacrificing any
of its excellencies. The simpler the wording of the proposition the
easier will be the work of determining the main issues and the
subsequent work of preparing the argument.
In dealing with broad general problems such as questions of finance,
commerce, and taxation, it sometimes happens that some issue is brought
in which is aside from the real merits of the controversy and yet so
vitally connected with it as to be logically inseparable. Either side
may present such material, with disastrous results if their opponents
have dealt solely with the real merits of the controversy. An instance
of this difficulty appeared in the debates of one of the Inter-State
leagues. For three or four successive years the questions chosen for the
annual debates were of the character indicated above. In many of the
debates one or the other side of the controversy would bring up the
constitutionality of the proposed measures. The charge would be made
that the proposition could not be decided in the affirmative because the
proposed measure was contrary to the constitution of the United States.
In almost every case this question vitally affected the final adoption
of the resolution, although it could well be excluded from a discussion
on the merits of the problem. The question was especially exasperating,
inasmuch as the judges for the debates were almost always selected from
the bench of the Supreme Court of the states composing the league and
from the Federal Courts. It was finally determined by the official board
of the league to append the phrase “Constitutionality conceded,” to all
propositions in which there was any likelihood that the question of
constitutionality could be made an issue. Thus in one instance the
proposition adopted was, “Resolved, that the Federal Government should
levy a progressive inheritance tax. Constitutionality conceded.”
This did not in any way interfere with the simple wording of the
proposition, and it did effectually prevent the debate from hinging on
an issue which would have prevented a full discussion of the merits of
the question. This method of excluding undesirable matter is preferable
to an attempt to include any restriction in the body of the proposition.
The latter method is quite likely to lead to difficulties, in the form
of ambiguities and their attendant evils, almost impossible to foresee
when the proposition is framed.
In conclusion, the debater must not forget that time spent in selecting
a proper subject and wording it in accordance with the foregoing rules
is time well spent. It will make the great task which lies before him
much easier, and it will enable him to arrive at definite conclusions.
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR WORDING THE PROPOSITION
1. The proposition should be so narrowed as to embody only one central
idea.
2. The proposition should be stated in the affirmative.
3. The proposition should contain no ambiguous words.
4. The proposition should be worded as briefly and simply as is
consistent with the foregoing rules.
EXERCISES IN SELECTING AND PHRASING THE PROPOSITION
1. Write out three propositions in accordance with the rules stated in
this chapter. The subject-matter of these propositions should be purely
local in character as suggested in the first and second sections.
2. Phrase, in proper form, one proposition on each of the following
subjects.
A. Sunday baseball.
B. Interstate commerce.
C. Labor unions.
D. United States Senators.
E. Prohibition.
F. Reciprocity.
3. Apply the appropriate rules to each of the following propositions and
point out where each is defective.
Resolved, that—
A. We derive more pleasure from hope than from memory.
B. Wit and humor are the same.
C. Education ought to be compulsory.
D. The law is a better profession than medicine.
E. The Federal Government should levy a tax on large incomes and limit
the amount of wealth which one man may possess.
F. It is expedient for the United States to build a larger navy.