CHAPTER I_Debating for boys

DEBATING FOR BOYS

WILLIAM HORTON FOSTER

New York

STURGIS & WALTON

COMPANY

1915

_All rights reserved_

BY THE PERRY MASON COMPANY

BY THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

BY STURGIS & WALTON COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published, August, 1915

PREFACE

The judge, in awful ermine, on the bench; the jury, glowering, in its

box; the prisoner, THE BOOK, in the dock: enter in humility, the attorney

for the defense, THE PREFACE.

“What excuse for existence has the prisoner?” thunders the judge in tones

that make the culprit’s leaves shake.

In cringing deference, the attorney for the defense falters, “None, your

lordship, none, but....”

Such is the scene that many prefaces suggest. This preface, however, is

different—and quite shameless. It says, merely, that the title “Debating

for Boys” carries its own statement of its reason for being. Boys

like to debate; debating will do them good. This volume is a simple,

unpretentious manual designed to help boys to debate efficiently—to get

from the most manly of all sports, and a royal sport it is, all of the

pleasure and profit it has to offer. The book is designed, first of all,

as an aid to the boy himself—in home, club, school, church—and, also, as

an aid to the father, club director, teacher, clergyman, all, in fact,

who are his friends and advisers.

I wish to thank _The Youth’s Companion_ for its courteous permission to

reprint one chapter which originally appeared upon its Boys’ Page; _Boys’

Life_, the Boy Scouts’ magazine, for kind consent to the republication

of much matter which first saw the light of print in its columns; Mr.

Henry Smith Chapman for valuable material upon parliamentary law; and Mr.

Warren Dunham Foster for his general editorial direction of the book.

Acknowledgment is due Mr. Rollo L. Lyman of the University of Chicago,

and Mr. George P. Baker of Harvard, whose methods of teaching

argumentation have become standard.

W. H. F.

Boston, Massachusetts.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I WHY BOYS SHOULD DEBATE 3

II WHAT DEBATE REALLY IS 13

III WHAT TO DEBATE 19

IV GETTING READY 25

V TERMS AND ISSUES 30

VI CLASH OF ARGUMENTS 38

VII EVIDENCE 47

VIII THE BRIEF 56

IX REFUTATION 71

X DELIVERY 79

XI FINAL SUGGESTIONS 83

XII HOW THE FAIRFIELD BOYS ORGANIZED 88

XIII THEIR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE 101

XIV THE FORD HALL TOWN MEETING 116

XV SOURCES OF MATERIAL 134

APPENDIX

A. QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 141

B. HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE 153

C. CONSTITUTION OF THE BOYS’ DEBATING CLUB OF FAIRFIELD 156

D. TABLE OF PARLIAMENTARY RULES 160

E. RULES OF THE FORD TOWN MEETING 164

DEBATING FOR BOYS

CHAPTER I

WHY BOYS SHOULD DEBATE

For two reasons I am going to discuss with you the theories of debating.

In the first place, the debate of the boys’ club, of the school society,

or of the city lyceum, is the same in form and method as the debates in

legislature or Congress. Any lad who is trained to debate, who knows his

subject, who is logical and direct, who is frightened neither at his

own voice nor of his opponent’s ability, will later in life be able to

meet an opponent in the larger halls of the capital. He will find it no

different in Washington than it was in the village school—his audience

will be larger and his judges different but the rules governing his

thought and its expression will be the same.

In the second place, when he is effectively trained in debate, he is also

completely equipped for the more informal thought and discussion which

is his daily habit. When from his study and practice of debating, he

knows something of logic, something of the ordinary rules of evidence,

something of the organization of an argument, he will be impatient and

intolerant of weak and jointless talk, even in informal discussion. Every

one has overheard in crowds talk which has passed for argument but has

been as formless as a jelly-fish—merely talk. It began nowhere and ended

nowhere. So I propose to discuss debating because it will prepare you for

the highest responsibilities which may be placed upon you, while at the

same time it will equip you for the everyday duties of active boyhood and

later manhood.

=Purpose of Debating.=—Remember then that debate is simply the spoken

argument presented formally; what is its purpose?

The answer is, not to beat the other side, but to get at the facts.

Now in some games, although of course it is of prime importance that the

contest be manly and the sport clean, there is a distinct value in the

strife itself and victory is sought for its own sake; the element of

right or wrong does not enter into the question at all. There is no right

or wrong to it. But in debate the purpose is not to win at any cost;

not to confuse the opponent, nor to trick him, but to win by absolute

strength of argument—to present such argument as will show the facts. In

debates the truth is wanted—not necessarily the decision, the victory.

For the purpose and object of debate is to determine upon some course of

action, to arrive at some decision; it is a poor sort of victory which

secures a decision at the expense of facts.

For example, suppose that you are a Boy Scout and that your patrol has

decided upon a hike to Mt. Rainier. The first question to discuss and

settle will be the best route to take. Jack Prentice may know the way

absolutely, but may not be nearly so fluent a talker as Frank Gordon, who

with very little knowledge of the proposed hike, could easily silence

poor Jack in the discussion.

What will be the effect of Frank’s victory, if he gains it? If Jack

is made to look ridiculous in discussion, if he loses his presence of

mind and so stammers over his statements that his fellow Scouts lose

patience and take Frank’s more fluent speech for fact and adopt his

proposed route, what will it all avail _if they take the wrong road_?

Will it not be a hollow victory in the end? And will his victory add to

Frank’s reputation, although his fellows may be very willing to admit

his cleverness? Will not that very cleverness make them all the more

unwilling to trust his future arguments, when they remember this failure?

On the other hand what about Jack? Is our only feeling toward him one

of sympathy? No, he should have trained his powers, he should have

early “found himself” so that he would not fall an easy victim to mere

cleverness. In other words, Frank is responsible for the use he made of

his powers, and Jack is responsible for the use he did not make of his.

If the patrol got caught off the road on the hike, I imagine they would

blame both Frank and Jack about equally.

=Debate Must Lead to Action.=—Now you may not at first see the parallel

between a debate on the best route for a proposed hike and a general

debate on conservation, for example. Both, however, are really governed

by the same rules and their purpose and object is the same. In the

plans for your hike, you proposed to do something, to go somewhere;

if the question of conservation is up for discussion it is with some

definite end in view, not simply as an excuse for general talk about

it. The discussion which does not lead to a definite plan of action is

not truly argument. If after your audience, whether it is your patrol,

your debating club, or later your legislature, has listened to you,

it says “What a fine speech!” you have failed. The audience should be

convinced to the point of action. Demosthenes said to his rival, “When

the Athenians listen to you they say ‘What a fine speech!’ When they

hear me they say, ‘Let’s go fight against Philip.’” So any argument, and

debate, must convince the hearers that the facts are as claimed, that the

deductions based upon these facts are sound and that the course advised

is correct. Finally and supremely, it must lead somewhere; it must have

a definite plan to propose and must lead the hearers to follow that plan.

=Benefits to the Individual.=—If, then, the purpose of debate is to

get at the facts and to determine the proper action to be taken with

reference to those facts, what are the benefits of debate to the debater

himself? They are many and varied.

=Training in Self-Control.=—In the first place, there is the training

in self-control which comes to the debater. Sometimes one can face a

physical emergency with fortitude when he shrinks from a situation which

calls for no physical pluck at all. Only a few years ago a famous Harvard

football player who had been the mainstay of his team in many a scrimmage

actually fainted away when he first attempted to take part in a debate.

When he was revived he was so disgusted with himself that he insisted on

trying again, and he did, after a fashion, go through his part in the

debate. Mortified at his failure, he persisted in as strenuous a course

in his debating class as ever had been imposed upon him by his football

coach. He won, and became one of Harvard’s star debaters. You see, the

physical self-control he had acquired on the gridiron was not available

to him in debate; but it is the skill in debate which is now helping him

in after life—not necessarily his football prowess.

=Training to Meet Emergencies.=—You will learn how to meet emergencies if

you become skillful in debate. Most of us can frame a fair argument if

we can sit quietly down and think it out with no one to bother us. But to

be able to control and command your resources so that they are ready for

quick action—that is a different ability—an ability that work in debating

will give you. If Jack has studied out his question he may be able to

give a very strong argument for it. But suppose Frank is there to ask

Jack questions or to suggest measures contrary to those he is advocating,

Jack is likely to lose in his argument unless he has so prepared himself

that Frank’s counter arguments have already been considered and provided

for. You will see that it is not enough to have arguments—you must have

them ready for use. It is a good deal like a camping equipment; it will

not aid you in the woods if it is packed away at home. This preparedness,

as far as argument is concerned, debating will teach you.

=Knowing—Not Doing.=—You know education is a process of preparing a man

to get the most out of himself and the most out of life. In many cases,

however, a boy _knows_ a great deal but can _do_ but very little. I have

known boys who could tell you all about the various methods of signaling

since Gideon trained his troop of warriors; yet, if you should ask these

boys, they couldn’t actually send the simplest message. They know, but

they can not do. Now the training in meeting emergencies which debating

gives a boy, lays the emphasis on quick decision, but above all on quick

decision that means action.

This training in self-control which practice in debating gives is

invaluable in after life. When the boy, for instance, is after a job, if

he has self-control he will be able to face his possible employer with

courage and to put up the front he is entitled to show. The timid boy,

however, will probably be unable to present his claims in a fashion that

shows their merit. Many other such cases will occur to any of you.

=Debating Forms Habits of Correct Speech.=—Next to its value in training

for self-control, practice in debating is valuable in the formation of

correct habits of speech. I do not mean the “fine writing” we recognize

so easily, which is sometimes beautiful but more often only funny. I mean

that direct English which aims to say certain things in the simplest

fashion and in the fewest words. Never to use a long word when a short

one will express the exact meaning, never to use a foreign word or a word

of foreign derivation when a plain Saxon word will do—a few such rules

as these will soon form a clear clean style, and no drill equals the

debate for the recognition of this style or its opposite, huge bombastic

statement. Haven’t you noticed how much worse a poor sentence sounds

than it looks? It is like comparing cannon balls with toy balloons—they

may look about the same size and may have the same general appearance

but to use them—well, I would rather juggle with toy balloons than with

cannon balls but the cannon balls would surely be the more reliable in an

argument; which do you think would carry the most weight?

You surely recognize a clear exact style when you hear it, and you

surely recognize slovenly careless speech when you hear it. Now you

can’t in debate have a clean clear style if you haven’t a clean cut

incisive argument—if you haven’t thought your subject through. And on

the contrary, your very work thinking your argument out will strengthen

your style and simplify your speech. Matters so ordinary as grammar and

pronunciation will unconsciously correct themselves when you hear your

own voice either gracing or disgracing your thought. Your vocabulary

will be enlarged, your diction clarified, and, on the physical side,

your articulation will be clearer and more distinct; you will learn to

stand squarely on both feet and not wander aimlessly about or sway as if

blown upon by contending breezes. You see, if you think a moment, that

every one of these things, so important to you whether as boy or man, is

drilled into you by practice in debate.

=Debating Means Constructive Thinking.=—In the next place, not only is

practice in debate invaluable in acquiring self-control and correct

habits of speech, but also it teaches you to organize your own powers;

it drills you in constructive thinking. In much of your school work, you

learn and recite the words of others—either of teachers or of textbook

writers. But if a subject for debate is proposed, you must think it out

yourself. For example, if some such question is proposed for your debate

as: “Is the conservation of the timber supply of the United States wise?”

you at once must by your own independent thinking prepare your argument.

Your teacher or other friends will aid you but you must work it out

yourself. You will first ask yourself what you mean and what is meant

generally by “conservation”; you will then ask where and how much the

same policy has been tried in other countries, why it should be tried

here and what results may be reasonably expected to follow the policy

here. You catalogue the reasons for and against the proposed policy and

weigh the moral questions involved, if any. You limit the question within

its proper bounds—in short you build up the structure of your argument

much as you would build a signal tower. You see that your foundations are

properly laid and that every upright and brace is properly placed and

jointed.

=Debaters Can Detect False Reasoning.=—Then when you have found yourself,

when you have acquired mastery of yourself, of your manner and of your

argument, practice in debating has an additional value still greater.

You will learn to recognize sound reasoning wherever you hear it and

will detect the false with equal ease. Without conscious effort on your

part, you will apply to the casual argument as you meet it, to the

public address, to the written article, to the newspaper editorial,

those standards by which you have built up your own argument. It will be

difficult for you to overlook inconsistency and false reasoning, for your

mind will have become accustomed to exact and clear thinking—your habits

of mind will have become standardized, as the factory expert would say.