CHAPTER VIII_The theory and practice of argumentation and debate

DELIVERING THE ARGUMENT

The statement is frequently made by those well versed in the art of

public speaking that a poor speech well delivered is much better than a

good speech poorly delivered. Again the statement is sometimes made that

in judging the efficiency of an oral argument, twenty-five per cent is

counted on the substance while seventy-five per cent is counted on the

delivery. Be that as it may, the delivery of an argument is certainly a

most important factor in determining its effect upon the hearer. Under

the head of delivery we might include the whole field of public speaking

and oratory, but since we are treating only of argument we must confine

our attention to those phases of public speaking which may be applied in

a practical way to the oral delivery of argumentative discourse.

I. Methods of delivering the argument.

_1. Reading._

To read an argument is certainly the most ineffective way to present it.

After all the work of constructing the argument is accomplished, it is

certainly poor policy to intrust its delivery to the lazy method of

reading it from the manuscript. Such a method presents all the

disadvantages of speaking with none of the advantages of reading. If the

argument is read, the reader can inform himself fully of its contents,

because he can read it slowly or rapidly as he chooses. Passages which

he does not thoroughly understand may be re-read. Moreover, he may go

back over the argument and review its main points as well as scrutinize

all the evidence offered to support them. But if the argument is read

from a manuscript, the listener must receive it at the rate of delivery

which is chosen by the reader. He cannot, as a general rule, ask that

the passages which are not clear to him, be re-read, and at the end he

is not permitted to go back and ponder over parts which appear to him to

be of doubtful validity, nor can he very well question the evidence

presented. Furthermore, the reader, being tied down to his manuscript,

cannot give the force or expression to the argument which would be

possible were he speaking directly to the persons addressed. He cannot

see by the look of understanding or perplexity on their faces, just what

parts of his argument are clear and what parts are not clear to them.

Again, the sympathy which should exist between speaker and audience is

almost entirely shut out. A manuscript stands like the Chinese wall

between the speaker and his audience.

The defects of this method of delivering an argument are pointed out

because there is a decided tendency on the part of college men, and a

few men of some reputation, to adopt this manner of presentation, which

is certainly the easiest way but which is generally as ineffective as it

is easy. Whenever it is important that real results be obtained, whether

in the class room, in a formal debate, or in real life, this method

should be avoided.

_2. Memorizing the argument verbatim._

The delivery of a speech memorized verbatim is certainly to be preferred

to reading, because it at least affords the speaker the opportunity of

stating his case directly to his audience, and permits the use of all

the arts of declamation; but since the speech is set in definite form it

precludes the modification necessary to adapt the argument to the

contentions advanced by the opposition. In college debating this form of

delivery is especially objectionable because from it the student derives

little practical benefit. As has already been pointed out, the great

value of debating lies in its training for the practical affairs of life

by teaching the student to frame his argument on the spur of the moment,

adapt it to the conditions of the particular situation which he is

facing, and present it in an effective manner. All of these advantages

are lost if the argument is committed to memory verbatim.

_3. Memorizing the argument by ideas._

By this method the written argument which has been prepared is made the

basis of the delivery. It furnishes a substantial foundation for the

speech. The argument has gone through the process of construction

according to the directions heretofore given. It is, therefore, an

efficient instrument of persuasion and the greatest results may be most

surely obtained by the method of memorizing the argument by ideas. The

three steps in this process of memorizing are as follows:

First, the argument should be read over slowly several times in order

that the speaker may get an accurate view of the production as a whole.

In most cases the student will have this much accomplished by the time

he has written out the argument in final form.

Second, the central idea of each paragraph should be memorized. As a

general rule, the paragraphs will conform to the topics of the brief.

That is, each topic in the brief, with the possible exception of the

lowest sub-topic, will be developed by means of a separate paragraph.

The central idea will, of course, be the thought expressed by the

statement in the brief which the paragraph is designed to develop.

However, this idea should be committed in the form in which it appears

in the finished argument, and not in the form in which it appears in the

brief. In this way each idea will be grasped in its relation to the rest

of the argument as well as in its relation to the manner in which it has

been elaborated in the paragraph. Each idea presented should then be

committed in its proper order so that the speaker can go through the

entire argument and state the idea expressed in each paragraph.

Third, the idea contained in each sentence of the paragraph should be

committed to memory. If the student has honestly constructed his

argument each statement in it means all and more than he expressed when

he wrote it out, therefore the committing of the idea contained in each

sentence should not be difficult. Furthermore, the idea should be

grasped in its completeness without reference to the words in which it

is expressed in the manuscript. In most cases it is well to remember the

key-word of each sentence, which expresses the central thought.

Sometimes more than one word is necessary for this purpose, but in any

event, only those words which embody the heart of the thought, should be

committed. All subsidiary words, or words explaining, expanding,

limiting, or showing transitions or relations should not be committed,

but should be left for spontaneous utterance at the moment of delivery.

This method of memorizing gives naturalness, directness, and spontaneity

to the delivery. It trains the speaker to keep his mind firmly fixed on

the subject in hand and it eliminates the danger of that monotony which

is the result of verbatim memorizing. Perhaps the most important

advantage of this method of delivery is the fact that it allows the

speaker to adapt his argument to the contentions of his opponent. Since

he has made himself thoroughly familiar with the material of his

argument but has not tied himself to any set form of words, his

expression is flexible. If the argument is to be delivered in a debate,

the speaker should practice delivering it so as to meet the various

contentions which may be advanced by the opposition. Then when the time

comes for the final presentation, he will be prepared to so word his

speech as to make it directly applicable to what has just been said on

the other side. Practice of this kind is needed in everyday life without

regard to the occupation in which the student may chance to engage.

There are other methods of delivery, but we need not give them extended

consideration. The argument might be delivered extempore from the brief.

This method however, is likely to be ineffective, since the speaker does

not express himself with definiteness and precision. Furthermore, he is

likely to occupy a great deal of time in presenting points which, if

carefully framed in forcible sentences, could be stated directly and

briefly. Again, the tendency to ramble is great when the purely

extempore method is used.

The speaker should first write out his argument even though he expects

to follow what he has written only in a general way. The very fact of

his having written out the argument will tend to make more definite his

own ideas of what he wishes to say. It blazes the trail or wears a sort

of path through the mind of the writer from which he is not likely to

deviate far when the final delivery is made. The method of

extemporaneous delivery, however, is not well adapted to the

presentation of a formal constructive argument, because it is too loose

and lacks the conciseness characterizing the method of committing by

ideas. After long periods of practice the student may be able to use the

purely extemporaneous method with good effect, but while he is a student

he should keep to the well-beaten path.

Still another method of delivery is to write out an introduction, a

conclusion, and certain important passages, and leave the rest to

extemporaneous delivery. This method may be used with considerable

success providing the time limit is not a consideration, and providing,

furthermore, that the speaker is an expert in making the transitions

from the committed to the uncommitted parts of his speech. With the

inexperienced speaker, this method usually results in a rapid, fiery

delivery of the committed parts and a hesitating, stammering, and

woefully ineffective delivery of the uncommitted portions. This attracts

the attention of the audience to the way in which the speech has been

prepared and takes the attention away from the subject of the debate.

From every standpoint the method of committing by ideas is by far the

best for both the experienced and the inexperienced speaker. It gives

him a command of his argument which inspires confidence. There is not

the haunting fear that the speech may be forgotten, a fear which

terrorizes the heart of all speakers who commit word for word.

If the debater chooses he may have a full outline of his argument

written out on cards and take these with him when he goes to face the

audience. No attempt need be made to hide these notes, for they are a

legitimate safeguard against emergencies. They should be carried boldly

and laid on a table near the speaker so that he can refer to them

readily if occasion demands. He should never take cards or notes from

his pocket. Such an action always gives the audience the impression that

the speaker is trying to do something which is beyond his powers. The

notes should be referred to deliberately and only when it is absolutely

necessary. To refer too often to notes indicates a lack of thorough

preparation and makes an unfavorable impression. The notes should be

ready for use, but they should seldom be used. In fact, the best

speakers usually leave their notes untouched.

II. Physical preparation for delivery.

Much harm results from the advice so frequently given to the debater

which counsels him to be natural. If accepted in its proper significance

this advice is sound and accords well with common sense. Too often,

however, it is taken as a license to disregard all rules of physical

training for public speaking, and to give no thought to physical

appearance and action while on the platform. On the contrary these

things are highly important. In a sense, physical preparation is

composed of trifles; such as, matters of position, gesture, and so

forth. But it is these things that make for perfection, and we are told

with truth that perfection is no trifle. The person who tells the

inexperienced debater to be natural has failed to distinguish between

natural and _habitual_. James Fox may have acquired a bad habit of

standing, when before an audience, with all his weight on one foot. We

are then erroneously told that that is his natural way of standing

because he always stands that way. On the contrary, that is his habitual

way of standing, for no normal individual naturally stands with all his

weight thrown upon one foot. Such bad habits must be overcome and good

habits formed and strengthened. Then, and then only, may we safely

instruct the debater to be natural.

_1. Position._

The position of the debater on the platform should indicate ease and

dignity of bearing. It should give him an appearance of stability and

should make easy and natural the use of gestures. The speaker should not

stand rigidly throughout his delivery in the same position which he

first took. He should move easily about the platform, and all movements

should be made deliberately, not abruptly. The position should not be

changed too often but when a change is desired the speaker should not

turn away from his audience or move sideways along the platform; he

should move back and up again in a V-shaped course.

The object of these suggestions is to enable the speaker to acquire ease

and naturalness of bearing, for nothing should be done in a stiff,

formal manner. Every position and movement should be so natural and

spontaneous that the attention of the audience will not be diverted to

the personal eccentricities of the speaker but will follow

uninterruptedly the progress of his argument.

_2. Voice._

There is no set way of addressing the audience. Good form and manners

vary with the locality. Neither is there a set method of delivering an

argument. Individual peculiarities vary so widely and the style of

delivery adapted to the personality of the debater is so difficult to

attain that we can only point out the most common faults and explain

general rules regarding delivery. The best training in actual practice

is debating under the direction of a competent instructor.

The voice of the speaker should be clear and strong. We cannot give here

any complete treatment of the methods of vocal training which make the

voice clear and strong, but, where opportunity affords, the student of

debate should have a thorough training in the art of public speaking.

Singing, under proper instruction, will also improve the volume and

quality of the voice as well as give the speaker greater voice control.

A few practical suggestions regarding the use of the voice may be given

some attention at this point.

It has been said that breath is the stuff of which the voice is made.

Attention must therefore be given to proper breathing. The entire lung

capacity should be used. The breath should be directed through the vocal

chords so as to produce a pure tone. The speaker should remember to keep

the throat muscles relaxed and the tongue, jaws, and lips out of the

way. These organs of speech are to be used to mould into clear-cut words

the stream of sound issuing from the vocal chords. Their function is not

to suppress sound but to modify it.

Words should be formed as near the lips as it is possible to make them.

The speaker must not fear to open his mouth and articulate distinctly.

Most words should be formed just back of the front teeth. So formed, the

sound is thrown out with force and resonance, for the hard palate or

roof of the mouth is a natural sounding board. If the speaker forms his

words far back in his mouth they issue only in incoherent mutterings.

Since an argument must be heard to be believed, the most thorough

preparation up to this point may be entirely offset by a poor delivery.

The enunciation of the speaker should be so clear and distinct that the

attention of those addressed will be fixed upon what he is saying, not

upon the way in which he is saying it.

Every word should be pronounced distinctly. Vagueness in delivery is

just as harmful as vagueness in language or substance. If one word in a

sentence is pronounced so ineffectively that it is not understood, it

may be impossible for the person hearing that sentence to grasp its

meaning. In any event it requires the listener to make the mental effort

of figuring out what the sentence means, and this mental effort tires

the hearer, prevents him from giving his undivided attention to the

substance of the argument, and ultimately results in his losing all

interest in the discussion. It is therefore plain that clear enunciation

is a matter of fundamental importance.

A clear, resonant voice is in itself a valuable asset for the debater.

It inspires respect and denotes self-reliance. However, loudness should

not be confused with distinctness, for mere loudness often accentuates,

rather than remedies poor articulation. The world at large is more ready

to believe a person who has a clear-cut, distinct way of speaking than

it is to believe one who utters his words in a slovenly manner. It is

often true that slovenly habits of speech indicate slovenly habits of

thinking and even slovenly morals. The habit of using the voice

effectively, however, is not one which can be put on and taken off at

will. The voice must be used correctly in everyday conversation as well

as in formal debating.

_3. Emphasis._

The debater must make plain the important parts of his argument by means

of emphasis. In speaking, as in writing, it is useless to try to

emphasize everything. Only those parts which have been emphasized in

writing out the argument should be emphasized in delivering it. An

attempt to emphasize everything results in no emphasis at all. The

speaker should therefore study his argument carefully and pick out the

parts which are indispensable to his position. The audience will not

perform this task of picking out the most important passages; the

speaker must do it himself. In the delivery these parts should be

emphasized by means of gestures, by speaking them more slowly and

deliberately, or by any other legitimate method.

_4. Key, rate, and inflection._

The debater should speak in his average key. By key we mean the pitch of

the voice in speaking. By average key is meant that key to which the

voice of the particular individual is especially adapted. Average key

should not be confused with habitual key. One may easily acquire the

habit of speaking either above or below the average key. The tendency of

the inexperienced orator is usually to speak in a key which is too high.

This defect is tiresome to both audience and speaker and should be

overcome at any cost, for the debater should speak in a key which is

easy and natural. This enables him to derive the benefit of full

inflection both upward and downward, and bestows confidence and ease.

A common fault of the inexperienced speaker is a too rapid rate of

delivery. In the beginning of the speech it is especially important that

every word be spoken slowly and distinctly. At no part of the speech

should the rate be so rapid as to prevent the audience from grasping the

full significance of what is being said. The average rate of delivery

has been computed to be one hundred and twenty-five words per minute,

allowing for pauses and transitions; but the rate should vary according

to the speaker, the subject, and the audience. First of all the rate

should be adapted to the thought and to the emotion. Simple ideas can be

presented rapidly, while complex ideas must be presented slowly. In all

cases the audience should be given ample time to grasp the ideas

presented. With this caution in mind the speaker may dwell upon the

important thoughts and emotions and pass lightly and quickly over the

unimportant. Thought and emotion must be fully appreciated by the

speaker at the time of delivery, and this appreciation should be

indicated in part by the rate of speaking. In general it may be said

that the emotions of awe, grandeur, reverence, sorrow, etc., should be

voiced with a slow movement, while emotions of joy, anger, indignation,

enthusiasm, etc., should be voiced with a rapid movement. However the

student should be careful to avoid either a jerky or a drawling

delivery. These faults are due usually to a failure to dwell upon the

vowel sounds. No set rule can be established, but all of these things

should be considered by the speaker when he is preparing to deliver his

argument.

Inflection should be used to give variety to the argument, to bring out

the special significance of important passages, and to show the bearing

which the evidence has upon the general principles. The amateur speaker

usually varies his inflection according to the punctuation. This is not

a safe rule to follow. The falling inflection indicates that the thought

is complete, but not that the end of the sentence has been reached. In

argumentative speaking the falling inflection is most frequently used

because it indicates positive assertion. It denotes confidence in what

is being said. On the other hand, the rising inflection denotes doubt,

indecision, negation, or appeal. It is often necessary to express all of

these attitudes in delivering an argument; but the falling inflection,

which denotes a positive statement, should predominate.

_5. Gesture._

The memorizing of gestures is as ineffective as is the memorizing of

words. Both tend to make the delivery mechanical and hence should be

carefully avoided. The student should never pick out certain emphatic

parts in his discourse and seek to emphasize them by means of gestures

which he has studied out and practiced. In fact gesturing is not a

necessity in the delivering of an argument. It is certain that poor

gesturing is worse than none at all. Gestures add to the effectiveness

of an argument only when they are simple and natural. As a general rule

they are natural only when they are made spontaneously. Here, again,

practice before a competent instructor, or at least before a sensible

critic, is indispensable. Every gesture that is made must appear as a

natural effort to be understood and believed.

The student should learn to use gestures, not in connection with any

particular argument but in connection with the expression of his own

thought and feeling. Here, again, the instruction to be natural may

prove misleading. The speaker may be naturally awkward, or at least his

gesturing may be awkward, and thus produce only a desire to laugh on the

part of the audience. This natural awkwardness must be overcome and

replaced by a natural gracefulness. The gestures used in argumentation

need not be elaborate, in fact simple gestures are more effective. The

gesture should seem to be a part of the thought or emotion, and training

should be resorted to only for the purpose of securing naturalness,

gracefulness, and ease. In gesturing, only that which is natural in the

right way, that which enforces the thought instead of diverting

attention from it, is effective.

_6. Transitions._

The transition from one part of the speech to another should be clearly

indicated. In constructing the argument these transition points were

made plain by means of transition sentences showing the division between

the introduction and the proof, the main issues of the proof and each

subordinate issue, and the proof and conclusion. When the argument is to

be delivered, however, the delivery should make these transition points

stand out like white mile posts. In this way two advantages are gained.

First, the structure of the argument is vividly impressed upon the mind

of the hearer. Second, these transitions break the monotony of the

speech and keep alive the interest of the audience. In beginning each

new main issue, and often in beginning the presentation of an important

piece of evidence, the speaker should drop to the conversational tone.

He should talk directly to his audience as though it were an individual.

Then he should gradually increase the force of his delivery until he is

speaking in his strongest persuasive manner. This method gives variety

to the argument, and thus prevents it from growing monotonous.

Furthermore, it insures a better appreciation of the argument as a

whole.

Other devices which may be used in connection with the above method for

marking transitions are, (1) varying the inflections, (2) changing the

rate of delivery, (3) using appropriate gestures, (4) changing the mode

of emphasis, (5) making use of pauses, and (6) changing position on the

platform. All of these devices must be used with skill and ease. Nothing

should appear abrupt and fantastic, but each part of the speech should

be made to blend gracefully with the whole argument.

_7. Presenting charts._

In presenting a series of statistics the necessity for large charts,

which may be hung up at the back of the platform and explained by the

speaker, is almost absolute. No audience can keep in mind a mass of

statistics. The oral presentation of figures makes little real

impression upon the minds of the hearers and serves to confuse rather

than to enlighten. Therefore these figures must be presented so that the

audience can see them. Statistics should be carefully tabulated in

accordance with the following form:

┌─────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┐

│ │ Real Estate │Personal Property│

├─────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤

│United States │ 77:13 │ 22:87 │

│New England States │ 71:50 │ 28:50 │

│Middle States │ 86:60 │ 13:40 │

│Southern States │ 70:77 │ 29:23 │

│Western States │ 74:09 │ 25:91 │

│Territories │ 46:81 │ 53:19 │

├─────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┤

│Source: United States Census Report—1880—Vol. VII—pp. 17. │

└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The chart and the letters and figures upon it should be large enough to

be seen clearly by all auditors.

To set forth tables of statistics is not the only use to which these

charts may be put. They may be used to illustrate territorial conditions

by means of maps, to show comparisons by means of lines, squares, or

circles, and for as many other purposes as the ingenuity of the speaker

can invent. In formal debating contests a set of carefully prepared

charts usually gives a distinct advantage to their possessors. They

stand for something definite, something which the judges and audience

may see with their own eyes. These charts may be hung up and left open,

but it is often better to have a thin sheet of paper pinned over them.

When a chart is to be used either the speaker or one of his colleagues

may remove the sheet of paper. It should then be left open to the gaze

of the audience throughout the entire discussion. If several charts are

used and all of them cannot be left exposed to view, the most important

one should be placed in the favored position.

In explaining a chart the speaker should make use of his most

conversational delivery. He should take a light pointer in the hand

nearest the chart and direct the attention of his hearers to the figures

as he states them. In doing this the speaker should always face the

audience and talk to them instead of to the chart. He should be so

familiar with the material on the chart that he needs only to glance at

it for the purpose of directing attention to each new figure as he

starts to explain its significance. A carefully prepared chart, clearly

explained in accordance with the foregoing directions, is a valuable aid

to interest and clearness in the delivery of any argument.

III. Mental preparation for delivery.

In the last section we concerned ourselves with matters relating to the

form of delivery; with things primarily physical. We now turn to the

substance of delivery and consider things primarily mental. The attitude

of mind which the speaker maintains toward his subject and his auditors

is a powerful factor in persuasion.

_1. Directness._

Clear, intense thinking should always accompany the delivery of an

argument. The mental attitude of the speaker must be one of alert,

business-like attention. With the attention of the speaker riveted upon

the object of his argument, the audience will be compelled to follow him

straight to the conclusion. The simple directness of the speaker who

keeps his mind firmly fixed on his subject is irresistible.

No ostentation or striving after effect should be allowed to hold a

place in the speaker’s thoughts, for the day of bombastic oratory is

passed. This is a practical age; the world demands results, and results

demand directness. Simplicity of thought begets simplicity of

expression, and the orator with but a single idea underlying his

argument has this irresistible power.

In delivering the argument the debater must forget himself, so far as

his preparation and personality are concerned, and think only of what he

is saying. The simple conversational style in which two persons discuss

a subject of vital interest to them is usually direct. This directness

comes from the vital interest of the speakers and their desire to make

their ideas plain. The same conversational directness should exist in

debating. Very often the speaker can obtain greater directness by

picking out two or three people in various parts of the audience and

talking to them. In a formal debating contest the debater sometimes

picks out the judges and talks to them. The use of this method does not

ignore the rest of the audience, because the debater is speaking to the

audience as a whole, and it does give force and directness to the

delivery.

The greatest orators of modern times have been noted for their

simplicity and natural directness. In fact, this was clearly the

predominating characteristic of the style of Abraham Lincoln and Wendell

Phillips; and even Webster, highly endowed as he was with natural

attributes which made his style grand rather than simple, was above all

else noted for his directness.

_2. Earnestness._

Earnestness is the basis of persuasion. The man who is in earnest about

anything is bound to accomplish something. By this earnestness we do not

mean that which is assumed for the occasion, but that earnestness which

comes from deep convictions. Without the quality of earnestness the

debater becomes a mere speaker of words. For any particular occasion,

the speaker should prepare himself by forming in his own mind strong

convictions regarding his subject. In formal debating a speaker is

sometimes compelled to argue against his convictions. In such a case the

best he can do is to present his position. As a general rule the

questions discussed in class and debating contests are so evenly

balanced and so broad in their application that to arrive at a just

conclusion requires more investigation than the ordinary debater can

well undertake. The debater should, therefore, be content to fulfil his

function as a defender of the truth. He should make his investigation

thorough before championing any cause in real life. Having found the

proper cause for the exercise of his skill he must first convince

himself of its worth; then only can he present his case with the

earnestness of conviction.

In general the mental preparation of the speaker who strives for

earnestness must begin far back in his career. Sincerity is not

something which can be brought out for parade on special occasions. The

orator who wishes to impress his fellow men with his sincerity must in

all his thoughts and actions be sincere himself. If this fundamental

preparation in common integrity does not exist within the speaker, that

fact will be recognized by his audience. His words will carry neither

weight nor conviction because the hearer must inevitably declare with

Emerson “What you are speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say.”

The earnestness of the speaker must be the result of high principles,

lofty character, and a firm and sincere conviction of the worth of his

cause. He must have a deep sympathy with his cause and with his

auditors. He must possess a wide knowledge of human nature which will

enable him to appeal to the emotions of his hearers in a sympathetic

manner. He must take their point of view and feel as he would have them

feel in regard to his subject. Then all the force of his being will

awake to fortify and render invincible his argument. In this way it will

become a conquering instrument of persuasion. The arts of the orator

must be employed to lead men, not to drive them. The speaker must take

the attitude that he is merely one of his audience who has found out

something worth while and who earnestly desires to share his discovery

with his neighbors. Anything approaching a patronizing air, or an “I am

holier (or wiser) than thou attitude,” is fatal to sympathy and

earnestness. He should follow the simple direct method of taking his

hearers into his confidence and talking to them as though he feels that

they are as wise and good as himself. He should watch the expressions of

sympathy or hostility on their faces and lead them quietly along the

road of earnestness, the end of which is persuasion.

_3. Confidence._

The speaker’s confidence in himself and in his cause should be absolute.

The time for hesitation and self-questioning has passed when the speaker

stands before his audience. Then he should feel himself master of the

situation. He must take the attitude of mind which befits an expert or a

professional. By this we do not mean an ostentatious show of knowledge

or insolent superiority. The directions contained in the last section

should be a sufficient guarantee against such an attitude. But the

speaker must honestly think that he is engaged in an important and

commendable undertaking and that he has the ability to carry it through

successfully. In order to do this he must assume an attitude of unbiased

fairness and honesty. His manner should indicate that he feels himself

responsible for the truth. He must never appear to be concealing

anything from his hearers, nor should he appear to be taking advantage

of his opponents or depriving them of any credit to which they are

justly entitled. Never should he misquote an opponent or put an

unfavorable interpretation upon what that opponent has said. An audience

loves fair play and the knowledge that he is making a fair fight, with

everything above board, gives confidence to the speaker.

A speaker should always exercise self-control. At no time should he put

all his force into the language which he uses. He should always maintain

a reserve force which will give a background of power to his delivery.

Never should he allow his temper to be ruffled by anything that may

happen during the discussion; to indulge in an outburst of temper is

positively belittling. Washington’s advice to young men was “Conquer the

territory under your own hat.” This is an apt expression for the debater

to keep constantly in mind. The complete self-reliance which puts the

speaker at his ease is acquired only by practice. In fact, many great

speakers have gone through life facing a period of nervousness just

before appearing before their audiences. This trait, however, is not

necessarily an evil. The speaker should always appreciate the importance

of the occasion and his own responsibility. If he does this to the

extent of having his emotions aroused it often makes his delivery more

direct, earnest, and confident. The point to be remembered is that he

must have that confidence which convinces his hearers that his argument

is the result of clean, clear-cut thinking, and persuades them to act in

accordance with the truth which that argument reveals.

The power of a speaker does not exist in the development of any one

trait. He must study methods of delivery, and must not weary of

painstaking physical and mental preparation. Back of all of this must be

the man himself, entrenched in mental and moral strength. No defect is

too trifling to be overcome by constant vigilance, no improvement so

unimportant as not to merit the most arduous striving. The student who

is ambitious to acquire the art of persuasion should practice constantly

and neglect no opportunity to appear before an audience. For every

principle gleaned from these pages the debater must provide himself with

ninety-nine opportunities for practice. It is only by actual practice

that anyone can hope to travel far along the road which leads to the

goal of perfection.

PART II

THE THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE

CHAPTER I

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

All persons of average intelligence and education are able to

distinguish an obviously sound argument from an obviously false

argument. No knowledge of argumentation or logic is necessary to enable

such persons to perceive the truth of one or the falsity of the other.

However, the line which separates the true from the false, or the sound

from the unsound, is not always clearly marked. In fact most arguments

involve a consideration of so many factors that their truth or falsity

is very difficult to determine. It is for this reason that we must study

the various theoretical forms in which an argument may be presented.

I. The application of processes of reasoning to argumentation.

Logic deals with the formal process of reasoning. It tests the validity

of a reasoning process by applying certain principles which will reveal

its strength or weakness. It is not essential to know the science of

logic in order to reason or to argue well. Many of our most profound

thinkers have possessed only a superficial knowledge of that subject. A

knowledge of the forms of reasoning which logic considers, or of the

names applied to them, is by no means indispensable to an intelligent

argument or debate. Nevertheless, an exact knowledge of logical

processes of reasoning as applied to the construction of arguments is

absolutely indispensable to him who would become master of the Art of

Argumentation and Debate.

There are two uses to which the debater must put these correct processes

of reasoning. In the first place, he must use them to test the validity

of his own arguments. In the second place, he must use them to test the

validity of his opponents’ arguments. Both of these uses will suggest to

the mind of the student the importance of the application of processes

of reasoning to argumentation.

An argument is seldom presented in such a form that it is possible to

apply logical reasoning processes to it as it stands. Usually some parts

are omitted and others are expanded or modified for the purpose of

greater effect in persuasion. The student must therefore grasp the

essential parts of his argument before he can arrange them in the formal

manner which logic demands. This very exercise of cutting up a

discussion into parts for the purpose of determining whether it is

rightly constructed is a mental exercise of unusual value. Furthermore,

it reveals any weak places in the argument and shows where it must be

made strong if it is to be effective. In like manner the debater is able

to apply the same processes to the arguments of his opponents to show

their weaknesses and enable him to direct his efforts toward these

vulnerable points.

II. Inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is the process by which we arrive at a general

conclusion through the observation of concrete particulars. I have read

_Treasure Island_ and I found it interesting. Moreover, I have read

_Kidnapped_, _David Balfour_, _Prince Otto_, and _St. Ives_, all of

which were interesting to me. All of these books were written by Robert

Louis Stevenson, and after I had read them I arrived at the general

conclusion that all books written by Robert Louis Stevenson were

interesting. I made use of this conclusion by searching in the library

for other books by this same author, for I felt sure that if I could

find another of his books it would be interesting. However, we are not

now concerned with the uses to be made of this process of reasoning, but

rather with its exact form. The process by which I arrived at the

conclusion that all of Stevenson’s works are interesting is a fair

example of inductive reasoning. I had five specific instances all

pointing to the same conclusion. I had observed five of Stevenson’s

books and I reached a conclusion regarding all of them. The conclusion

included those which I had not read as well as those which I had read.

This process conforms to our definition that inductive reasoning is the

process by which we arrive at a general conclusion through the

observation of concrete particulars.

In this way we arrive at many conclusions upon which we rely in our

daily life. We go to a certain place at ten minutes past the hour for

the purpose of boarding a street car which will take us to the city. We

do this because for many months we have been accustomed to go to this

same place at this particular time and there we have always found a

street car which took us to the city. Each one of the instances in which

we have done this is a concrete particular tending to support the

general conclusion that if we go to a certain place at a certain time we

shall find a car which will take us to the city.

A further investigation of this process of inductive reasoning reveals

the fact that it may be divided into two sharply defined classes, (1)

perfect inductions, and (2) imperfect inductions. A perfect induction is

one in which all the particular instances upon which a conclusion is

based can be examined directly. For example, if I am aware that each one

of the twenty men who are taking this course in Argumentation expect to

be civil engineers I may safely state the general conclusion that “All

the men who are taking this course in Argumentation expect to be civil

engineers.” This is a perfect induction, because I have included in the

conclusion only those men who are taking this course; there are only

twenty men and investigation has shown that each of them expects to be a

civil engineer. Therefore, it is plain that there can be no opportunity

for error. Every particular instance relied upon can be accounted for

and no instance outside of these is brought within the conclusion. The

induction is therefore perfect.

An imperfect induction is one in which the conclusion extends beyond the

concrete specific instances upon which it is based. The examples already

given regarding Stevenson’s novels and the street car are imperfect

inductions. I have not read all of Stevenson’s novels and I may yet find

one that is not interesting to me. Regarding the induction about the

street car, it is sufficient to note that if the car were late or failed

to appear at all, the conclusion would be of no value in that specific

instance. Likewise I may state the general inductive conclusion that all

roses are fragrant. I base this conclusion upon a great number of

specific instances. The rose that I plucked yesterday was fragrant;

those which I observed in the conservatory last month were fragrant; the

roses which bloom in my door-yard each summer are fragrant; all the

roses that I have known since I was old enough to notice such matters

have been fragrant. Upon this great number of specific instances I base

my inductive conclusion. It will be observed, however, that my

conclusion is not confined to the roses which I have seen but that it

extends beyond and includes all roses of every kind everywhere. It is

therefore an imperfect induction. As it stands it would be impossible to

make this induction a perfect one, because it would be an impossible

task to examine every rose in the world. The only way in which the

induction can be made perfect is to restrict the conclusion to cover

only the specific instances upon which it is based. The conclusion would

then be, “All the roses to which I have ever given attention were

fragrant.”

But it may not suit our purpose thus to restrict the conclusion. We may

wish to make use of it in its broad general significance. Every day we

are compelled to act upon imperfect inductions, as in the case of the

street car. In such cases we must resort to certain rules or tests

whereby we can determine the probability of the truth of the imperfect

induction. We shall consider these rules or tests after we have

discussed the application of inductive reasoning to inductive argument.

III. The application of inductive reasoning to inductive argument.

We have seen the nature of the process of induction and have observed

the distinction between the perfect and the imperfect. Let us now

consider the application of the inductive process to arguments. The

occurrence of this process in all argumentative discourse is frequent. A

simple illustration of its application is furnished in connection with

the proposition “Resolved, that the Federal Government should levy an

income tax.” The affirmative in the course of its investigation finds

that this tax has proved practicable in Switzerland, Germany, France,

and England. Further investigation discloses the fact that these are the

only countries in which this particular form of taxation has been

adopted. From these particular instances, namely,—Switzerland, Germany,

France, and England, the general inductive conclusion may be drawn that

“The income tax has proved practicable in all the countries in which it

has been adopted.” This is a perfect inductive conclusion.

In presenting this induction in an argument, the conclusion should be

stated first. Then each of the countries in which the income tax has

been adopted should be discussed and evidence introduced to show that it

has proved practicable in every case. Finally, evidence should be

brought forth to show that the countries named are the only ones in

which the tax has been adopted. The conclusion should be stated in the

form of a summary, which leaves the argument complete. It is a perfect

inductive argument. While the reasoning process cannot be assailed, the

facts upon which the induction is based may be disproved. Those

advancing the argument must therefore be sure that the facts alleged are

supported by sufficient evidence, while those seeking to overthrow the

argument should be diligent in their search for evidence showing the

weakness or impracticability of the tax in one or all of the countries

cited.

From the above illustration it is plain that the validity of the

reasoning of a perfect induction is easily determined. The mind at once

determines whether or not the specific instances presented warrant the

conclusion reached. The question of the validity of a perfect inductive

argument is largely a question of fact. With the imperfect induction,

however, the situation is somewhat different, for we have seen that the

conclusion extends beyond the actual facts upon which it is based. From

an examination of several observed specific instances a conclusion is

drawn which covers instances unobserved. By it we pass from the known to

the unknown. This process is sometimes called the inductive hazard. The

application of this form of reasoning to argument is illustrated by the

imperfect induction which is made by Lincoln in his Cooper Institute

Address. Here he draws a conclusion as to what all the framers of the

original Constitution thought about the slavery problem, by producing

evidence to show what a part of them thought about it. After introducing

specific evidence to show what each of twenty-three of these men

thought, he says:

“Here then we have twenty-three of our thirty-nine fathers ‘who framed

the government under which we live’, who have, upon their official

responsibility and their corporeal oaths, acted upon the very question

which the text affirms ‘they understood just as well, and even better,

than we do now’; and twenty-one of them—a clear majority of the whole

thirty-nine—so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political

impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper

division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the

Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the

Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.

Thus the twenty-one acted; and as actions speak louder than words, so

actions under such responsibility speak still louder....

“The remaining sixteen of the ‘thirty-nine’, so far as I have

discovered, have left no trace of their understanding upon the direct

question of Federal control in the Federal Territories. But there is

much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would

not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers,

had it been manifested at all....

“The sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the

original Constitution, twenty-one—a clear majority of the

whole—certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal

authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal

Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories; while

all the rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably,

was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original

Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question

‘better than we.’”

The true test of an imperfect induction is not its sufficiency for the

person who uses it, but its sufficiency for those to whom it is

addressed. The argument is designed to produce a definite effect and in

order to do this it must fulfil certain conditions. Even when these

conditions are fulfilled the effect of the argument is problematical.

Nevertheless, in order to approach its maximum efficiency an inductive

argument must meet the requirements explained in the following section.

IV. Requirements for an effective inductive argument.

_1. Perfect inductions._

In a perfect induction in which we have seen that the conclusion

includes only the specific instances that have actually been examined,

the only requirement is that the facts upon which it is based be true.

The student must observe the rules regarding the sufficiency of

evidence. He must be sure that he has introduced evidence which shows

conclusively that each specific instance cited in support of the

conclusion is true as a matter of fact. If he allows conjecture to enter

into any one of them he cannot claim for his argument the solidity which

characterizes the perfect induction. If in arguing for the necessity of

additional sources of revenue for the United States government, he has

stated the perfect inductive conclusion that “The expenditures of the

United States government for the last three years have greatly exceeded

its receipts,” he must substantiate his induction by exact reference to

the reports of the Treasurer of the United States for the last three

years. An investigation of these references must reveal the fact that

each of these years has shown a large deficit. The greatest temptation

against which the student will have to guard is that of careless

generalization. He may know that a conclusion includes four specific

instances. He may be certain that three of them support the conclusion,

but he is not quite sure about the fourth. Nevertheless he conjectures

regarding its validity and heedlessly proceeds to his conclusion. This

is a bad habit to cultivate, because it results in loose, inaccurate

thinking. A perfect induction should never be stated in an argument

until each specific instance upon which it is based, and which it

includes, has been determined to be an unquestioned fact.

_2. Imperfect inductions._

The requirements for an imperfect induction are somewhat involved and

demand the exercise of sound judgment in their application. An imperfect

induction can never be relied upon with the same confidence that may be

reposed in a perfect induction. This truth is apparent from the nature

of the imperfect induction. In order to measure up to a high standard of

effectiveness an imperfect induction must comply with the following

requirements.

_A. The number of specific instances supporting the conclusion must be

sufficiently large to offset the probability of coincidence._

The problem of determining the number of specific instances which will

justify us in relying upon an imperfect induction is most difficult. As

we shall presently see, this number varies greatly with different

classes of persons, events, and things about which we wish to reach

conclusions. But before we consider this difficulty we must be sure that

we have enough instances at hand to eliminate the element of chance. At

least from the argumentative standpoint this is the most practical

method of procedure. Suppose the student in his preparation for an

argument finds that during the last year there has been a decrease in

the value of manufactured articles produced in the state of Texas, that

a similar decrease is shown in the state of New York, and that

statistics relating to the state of Delaware show the same result. These

facts could not be used to support the conclusion that the value of

manufactured products of all the states of the Union has decreased

during the last year, because it may be only a coincidence that their

value has decreased in the states named. In all the other states of the

Union there may have been an increase. The conclusion stated should

belong to a perfect induction and could only stand upon proof of the

fact that the value of the products manufactured in each and every one

of the states showed a decrease. Moreover, it would not be safe to state

the conclusion that the value of manufactured products in general shows

a falling off in value during the past year and to cite the three

instances named in support of that contention. In fact, the probability

of coincidence is too great to enable us to arrive at any inductive

conclusion other than that the manufactured products of Texas, New York,

and Delaware for the past year show a decrease in value.

The student must be constantly on guard against this loose method of

inductive reasoning. It is most prolific in indefinite and loosely

stated conclusions seeking to masquerade under an appearance of

validity. He should always examine his own conclusions as well as those

of his opponent for the purpose of finding out whether the instances

used to support them are merely the result of chance or coincidence. Let

us suppose that the decrease observed in the three states named above

has suggested the probability of the truth of one of the conclusions.

The investigator should at once pick out a few of the most prominent

manufacturing states and find statistics showing manufacturing values in

them. For example, he might consult Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio,

Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. If the same decrease is found to have

existed in these states the truth of the inductive conclusion becomes

much more probable and at the same time the probability of coincidence

becomes correspondingly less. The student, however, should continue his

investigations and examine the statistics regarding all the

manufacturing states of the Union. He should then frame his conclusion

in such a way that it will stand supported by the evidence of all the

specific instances.

_B. The class of persons, events, or things about which the induction is

made must be reasonably homogeneous._

After we have seen three or four elephants we feel pretty safe in saying

that all elephants have trunks. After we have seen three or four red

schoolhouses we do not feel safe in saying that all schoolhouses are

red. The first class of objects is homogeneous, the second is not.

Therefore we may safely generalize regarding the appearance and

characteristics of all elephants from the three or four specimens which

have come beneath our notice. As a class they possess in a marked degree

common traits of character and appearance. No one member of the species

is radically different from any other member. With schoolhouses,

however, the situation is quite different. All schoolhouses in a given

community may be built alike and the first three or four seen by an

individual might be painted red; but since the class of schoolhouses is

not homogeneous, he cannot therefore correctly arrive at the imperfect

inductive conclusion that all schoolhouses are red. This illustration

should indicate to the student who would employ imperfect induction that

it is necessary to be careful in drawing a broad conclusion covering a

class of persons, events, or things whose members he does not know to be

reasonably homogeneous with respect to the point about which he wishes

to argue.

To advance a step further in the consideration of this requirement, we

must remember that it applies only to the homogeneity of the particular

characteristic of the class regarding which a conclusion is desired. For

example, if it is desired to arrive at some conclusion regarding the

color of all schoolhouses, the inductive process could not well be

applied because the class is by no means homogeneous in regard to this

particular characteristic. However, if it is desired to arrive at a

conclusion regarding the use to which all schoolhouses are put the

imperfect induction may safely be used because the class is reasonably

homogeneous in this characteristic.

_C. The specific instances cited in support of the conclusion must be

fair examples._

In an imperfect inductive argument the instances upon which the

conclusion is based must be fairly representative of the class of

persons, events, or things which it includes. A debater in an

interscholastic contest took three examples of cities having the

commission plan of city government as a basis for his argument in

support of the proposition that all American cities should adopt the

commission form of city government. He began by showing that the three

cities,—Galveston, Des Moines, and Grand Rapids, were fair examples of

American cities. He showed that they did not represent the exceedingly

large cities nor the exceedingly small cities but that they possessed

the chief characteristics of both. He produced evidence to prove that

they were directly representative of nine-tenths of the cities in

America and that the principles of government which would work well in

these three cities, taken as examples, would work equally well in any

American city. He then showed that the commission plan of city

government had worked well in the three examples which he had proved to

be fairly representative of all American cities.

The greatest temptation to error is that of selecting examples or

incidents which are most favorable to the debater’s contentions. Such

action is a flagrant violation of the great principle which should

govern all argumentative discourse—the principle that truth should stand

supreme over all contentions. It is not only dishonest to select unfair

examples, but it is disloyal to those who uphold the debater in his

efforts to persuade. Never should an example be presented which

possesses characteristics unusual to the class which it purports to

represent. An earnest effort should always be made to obtain the fairest

examples possible.

_D. Careful investigation must disclose no exceptions._

A person should seldom rely upon his own uncontradicted experience to

support an inductive conclusion. The small child concludes that all

children have fathers and mothers because it has a father and mother.

The tropical savage concludes that all parts of the earth are warm

because the part in which he lives is warm. Similarly we find reasonable

persons adopting like generalizations based upon their own

uncontradicted experience. The business man denounces all public

officials as dishonest because he has found that two or three are

dishonest. The farmer denounces all lawyers as dishonest because one

lawyer has treated him dishonestly. In each of these cases it is evident

that a little careful investigation would disclose enough exceptions to

overthrow the conclusion.

The debater should examine his own inductions as well as those of his

opponent for the purpose of discovering possible exceptions. The man who

declared that all trades-union men are anarchists would have found the

exceptions to his rule so overwhelming as to make his conclusion appear

ridiculous. The difficulty is that the abnormal and exceptional

instances which we know loom so large in our minds that they become

prejudices and crowd out calm reason. The few union men who have

destroyed life and property should not be made the specific instances

supporting an induction regarding the whole class of trades-union men.

The few college men who drink, swear, and carouse should not be made the

specific instances supporting an induction regarding the whole class of

college men. Every induction should be examined carefully for the

purpose of discovering exceptions.

_E. The conclusion must be reasonable._

After all the foregoing requirements have been met there still remains

one essential. The conclusion must be reasonable. This is the ultimate

test of validity. We have become so familiar with the usual course of

nature that we instinctively question that which appears to run contrary

thereto. Nothing occurs without an adequate cause. Upon this principle

we base our judgment regarding all matters which transcend our own

experience. Most of us have passed the superstitious days when the

breaking of a looking glass was regarded as a sure sign that someone in

the family would die before the end of the year. Even the time-honored

Friday and number thirteen with their attendant superstitious disasters

no longer have a large following. Scientific investigation and the

present age of commercialism have crowded out superstition and put

common sense in its place. The average mind is highly reasonable and

requires some causal connection between the breaking of a looking glass

and the death of a person. It would refuse to believe that one caused

the other, or that one was the sign of the other, even though there

might be a hundred instances to warrant the induction and not one to

contradict it. The final requirement for an imperfect inductive argument

is that it be reasonable.

SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR AN IMPERFECT INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

1. The number of specific instances supporting the conclusion must be

sufficiently large to offset the probability of coincidence.

2. The class of persons, events, or things about which the induction

is made must be reasonably homogeneous.

3. The specific instances cited in support of the conclusion must be

fair examples.

4. Careful investigation must disclose no exceptions.

5. The conclusion must be reasonable.

EXERCISES

1. Are the following inductions perfect or imperfect?

(1) All men are mortal.

(2) All Irving’s books are interesting (or uninteresting).

(3) All the presidents of the United States who have been

assassinated were Republicans.

(4) “Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and

Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure

and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be

misunderstood.”

Emerson, _Self-Reliance_

(5) Money is the root of all evil.

2. Give in full the specific instances upon which each of the

foregoing inductions is based.

3. Apply the requirements for validity to each of the inductions in

exercise one, and state the result.

4. Write an inductive argument of four hundred words.

CHAPTER II

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Deductive argument consists of the application of deductive processes of

reasoning to argumentative discourse. This process of applying logical

principles is somewhat more complicated than that involved in induction.

In some respects it is more important that the student thoroughly master

deduction than it is that he master induction. Fallacies are more easily

concealed in the deductive process than in the inductive process.

Nevertheless, when the fallacy is once detected it can be set forth

clearly by anyone who understands this form of reasoning. Neither the

inductive nor the deductive form of reasoning is often found alone. Most

arguments contain both of these processes and in some cases they are

very closely interwoven. This fact necessitates a thorough study of both

processes. From this standpoint a knowledge of one form is as important

as a knowledge of the other. In order that we may thoroughly understand

the application of the deductive process to argument we must first

consider separately that process of reasoning.

I. Deductive reasoning.

By deductive reasoning we arrive at a conclusion regarding a particular

person, event, or thing by reason of our knowledge regarding the whole

class to which the particular person, event, or thing belongs. In this

sense it is the opposite of induction. We conclude that a particular

book is interesting because we know that all the books written by the

author of this book are interesting. We may say that deductive reasoning

begins where inductive reasoning leaves off. For example, we found that

we could arrive at the imperfect inductive conclusion that all of

Stevenson’s books are interesting because each one of a number of his

books which we had read was interesting. Since (1) the number of

specific instances cited were sufficient to offset the probability of

coincidence, (2) the class was fairly homogeneous, (3) the examples were

fair, (4) we found upon investigation that there were no exceptions, and

(5) from the character of the author and other circumstances the

conclusion seemed reasonable, we concluded that our induction was sound.

Now, taking this conclusion as true we may apply it to any one of

Stevenson’s works not yet examined and thus determine that that work is

interesting. It must be kept in mind, however, that a deduction based

upon an imperfect induction is no stronger than that imperfect

induction. The imperfect induction gains no strength by reason of its

having a valid deduction based upon it. Nevertheless, unsound arguments

are often given a superficial appearance of validity by this means.

We may more clearly indicate the relation of the inductive and the

deductive process by arranging the material of the foregoing

illustration in the following manner.

_A. Inductive process._

1. Specific instances.

(1) _Treasure Island_, written by Stevenson is interesting.

(2) _Kidnapped_, written by Stevenson is interesting.

(3) _David Balfour_, written by Stevenson is interesting.

(4) _Prince Otto_, written by Stevenson is interesting.

(5) _St. Ives_, written by Stevenson is interesting.

2. Conclusion: All books written by Stevenson are interesting.

_B. Deductive process._

1. Major Premise: All books written by Stevenson are interesting.

2. Minor Premise: _The Silverado Squatters_ was written by

Stevenson.

3. Conclusion: Therefore _The Silverado Squatters_ is interesting.

It will be observed that the inductive conclusion forms the first

statement, the basis, or what is called in logic, the major premise of

the deductive process. By induction we build several specific instances

into a conclusion, and from that conclusion we reason down again to one

particular instance. This illustration should serve to make plain to the

student the relation between induction and deduction and the reason why

the two processes are so often combined in an argument.

In logic the deductive form presented above is called a syllogism. It

consists of three statements called Major Premise, Minor Premise, and

Conclusion. This syllogism occurs in different forms, but we are

concerned with only the typical form above presented, because it is to

this form that we intend to reduce our own arguments and the arguments

of our opponents in order that we may test their validity.

Each statement in a syllogism is composed of two parts, called terms.

The names of these terms as well as their proper location in the

syllogism are indicated by the following form:

Middle term. │ Major term.

—————————————————————│———————————————————————————

1. Major Premise: All college men │should study argumentation.

Minor term. │ Middle term.

—————————————————————│———————————————————————————

2. Minor Premise: Paul Morton │ is a college man.

Minor term. │ Major term.

—————————————————————│———————————————————————————

3. Conclusion: Therefore Paul Morton│should study argumentation.

The student will observe that each statement in the syllogism is

composed of two terms and that each term appears twice in the entire

syllogism, but only once in any one statement. The major term represents

the largest element in the syllogism namely,—the class of persons who

should study argumentation. The minor term represents the smallest

element in the syllogism namely,—Paul Morton, the particular person

about whom a conclusion is reached. The middle term serves as an

intermediary or connecting link which binds the minor term to the major

term. It does not appear in the conclusion but is cast away after it has

served its purpose in assigning the minor term,—Paul Morton, to the

major term,—those who should study argumentation.

In the typical form of the syllogism with which we are concerned the

major premise should always be in the universal affirmative-form. By

universal affirmative is meant that the assertion is made with regard to

the class as a whole as: “All men are mortal,” “All laws should be

obeyed,” “All students should pay their bills,” etc. No part of the

class of persons, events, or things about which an assertion is made

should be left outside the statement as would be the case if the

statements read—“Some laws should be obeyed,” “Some students should pay

their bills.”

From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the deductive

syllogism, in order to be valid, must be constructed in accordance with

certain well defined rules. In books of logic the student will find

these rules discussed at some length and their application set forth in

detail. For our purpose it is only necessary to refer to them and keep

them clearly in mind in connection with the discussion here given. The

rules of the syllogism with which we are concerned are as follows:

1. A syllogism must contain three terms, Major term, Minor term, and

Middle term.

2. A syllogism must consist of three complete statements, Major Premise,

Minor Premise, and Conclusion.

3. The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises. A

term is distributed when it is universal in its application or taken in

its whole length of meaning.

4. A term cannot be distributed in the conclusion unless it is

distributed in the premises.

5. No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises.

6. A negative conclusion always follows one negative premise and a

negative conclusion cannot be obtained unless one of the premises is

negative.

For the purpose of making more plain the relation between the terms and

the statements in a syllogism let us consider the old method of

graphical representation by means of circles.

I. All college men should study argumentation.

II. Paul Morton is a college man.

III. Paul Morton should study argumentation.

From the diagrams on the following page it is seen that in the major

premise the middle term must be wholly included within the major term.

The entire class of college men must be included within the class of

those who should study argumentation. Not one single college man must be

left outside the class. In the minor premise the minor term must be

clearly and unmistakably included within the middle term. Paul Morton

must be a college man. He must not be a banker or a janitor. In the

conclusion the minor term must be included within the major term. This

position inevitably results from the two preceding situations. If the

middle term, college men, is wholly included within the major term,

those who should study argumentation, and if the minor term, Paul

Morton, is wholly included within the middle term, college men, then it

cannot be otherwise than that the minor term is included within the

major term. In other words, Paul Morton is definitely assigned to the

class of those who should study argumentation.

[Illustration:

I MAJOR PREMISE

(Major Term)

Men who should study argumentation

(Middle Term)

College men

]

[Illustration:

II MINOR PREMISE

(Middle Term)

College men

(Minor Term)

Paul Morton

]

[Illustration:

III CONCLUSION

(Major Term)

Men who should study argumentation

(Minor Term)

Paul Morton

]

We may represent the whole syllogism in the following manner:

[Illustration:

(Major Term)

Men who should study argumentation

(Middle Term)

College men

(Minor Term)

Paul Morton

]

The student should be sure that he has mastered each step in the

construction of a valid syllogism of the typical form before he passes

on to the following section of this chapter.

II. The application of deductive reasoning to deductive argument.

From our examination of the deductive process of reasoning we cannot but

realize its importance when applied to the construction of an argument.

One cannot advance far into any argumentative discourse without

encountering deduction in some form. A student in a class debate

defended the following proposition with the inductive arguments given

below: “Resolved that tariff should be imposed for revenue only.” In his

introduction the student declared that the protective tariff should be

removed. In support of his contention he offered five substantial

reasons which he claimed included the vital points at issue. These

reasons were as follows:

A. High duties encourage the formation of trusts.

B. The high cost of living results from protection.

C. Protection is unjust to the American people.

D. Protection breeds corruption.

E. The usefulness of the protective tariff has long ceased.

Each of the above reasons for the removal of the protective tariff is a

deductive argument. The complete deductive process is seen when we state

each argument in syllogistic form.

1. All things which encourage the formation of trusts should be

abolished.

2. The protective tariff encourages the formation of trusts.