TERMS AND ISSUES
In getting ready, one of the most important steps is for you and
_your opponents_ to get together and talk over the question and agree
beforehand on just what it covers and what it does not cover. You wish
to avoid all confusion on these points, or at least you should wish to.
Some men—and boys—think it smart to leave the question uncertain and
indefinite so that—as they mistakenly suppose—they may increase their own
chances of success. They feel that if they can only have a wide enough
range in the discussion some of their arguments will probably hit the
point and win their case for them. Too many times, however, the point at
which they are aiming is the decision of the judges and not the logical
and irresistible culmination of the argument.
The difference is like that between shooting with a shot gun and a rifle.
In the first case if only your shot scatter enough you may bring down
your game. In the second case, if _your aim is true_, you are sure to
score a hit. The first case calls for a sense of general direction and
not much more; the second calls for precision, accuracy, and its result
should be inevitable.
=An Understanding With Your Opponents.=—By thus coming to an
understanding with your opponents you will avoid confusion; you will
reduce the proposition to its simplest terms, and you can narrow your
own argument to a few clearly defined channels. You will, however, do
much more than that: you will make the contest worth while by a manly
agreement which will avoid any attempt to obscure the real question. You
might be able so to becloud your opponents that you could possibly fool
them as to your real essential points and so prevent an adequate reply.
If you should succeed in so doing, although you might be able to “put it
over” on your opponents and the judges of the debate, you would not be
fair. Experienced judges, however, would probably detect your purpose and
penalize you for it.
Not only is this determination of the essence of a question absolutely
necessary in preparing for a debate; it prepares you for even more vital
work in later life. Remember what we have said all along, that the
real value of effective debating is its education for the unconscious
exercise in later life of the mental habits thus acquired. So when in
later life if you and those with whom you differ get together and talk
over the _terms_ of a question before you allow yourselves to debate
the _substance_ of that question, you will frequently find there is
no question left for discussion. As you define this and that term, you
will come nearer and nearer together. More times than not, you will find
that you have so much in common, that you have nothing between you for
disagreement. The question will always be simplified; many times it will
disappear altogether.
If, however, someone should urge that you may be losing some of the
educative value of debate by thus avoiding such subtleties and trickeries
as I have just been condemning, let me remind you again, that the real
value of agreement, whether in the debating club or in later and more
real life, is not in _just winning_ but in determining just _what should
be done_. Your purpose to arrive at a correct course of action will
be strengthened, not weakened, by clearing away the unnecessary and
non-essential points at the beginning.
Remember, moreover, that to harmonize differences is as good mental
training as to accentuate them; to eliminate them, as to crystallize
them. To think constructively is a vastly more valuable mental habit
than to think negatively. When you and your opponents think alike,
whether in debate or real life, when you agree upon a certain part of
the question between you, you have cleared the way for at least that
much of constructive thought. Finally, such agreement is necessary to
coöperation, and coöperation is absolutely essential to any action
whether it is a trip to Mount Washington, a campaign against Philip of
Macedon, or the carrying out of a certain policy toward the Philippines.
We must work together or not at all. Some may pull at the load, some may
push, but the load must go in one direction. To get the load anywhere
you must have a common purpose; this simplification of the question will
help you to find it. In debate, after the question has been defined and
limited, you must present your arguments so clearly and conclusively that
your opponent as well as your judges will agree that your course is wise
and will be ready to follow the line of action that your conclusion calls
for. Otherwise your opponents, if they be equally honest and efficient,
in mind and method, have the right to demand the same surrender from you.
So, as the first step in your debate, get together, bar out the matter
decided upon as outside of your debate, and settle the issues clearly.
By the way, that step is the first in a law suit; when the issues are
clearly defined, the actual trial takes very little time. A law suit is
just one form of debate, and your debate must have its issues settled
as clearly. In the Philippine question referred to on page 22 you would
select some one of the four possible subjects and you would state it
something like this, “Resolved: that the United States should grant the
Philippines immediate independence;” now your issue is stated.
=Don’t Try to Do It All Alone.=—Before you begin your own personal work
of preparation, you and your colleagues must meet and apportion the work
among yourselves. Do not think you must cover all the ground yourself,
unless of course, you are alone in the debate. No matter how many
associates you have, however, you must have a broad general view of the
whole subject but each one on your side must select some particular part
of the subject which he alone will present.
=Origin of the Question.=—After these preliminaries are thus arranged
and you start your own work, first analyze your question and find its
starting point, which in any argument lies in the real or alleged
existence of a human need. Certain evils are said to exist. The first
step is to prove or disprove the existence of these evils. If they are
shown to be facts, the next question and the first step in the argument
is to show that a certain remedy will remove the evils.
Let us assume that the general question of conservation is prominent in
the thought of your patrol, if you are a Scout, and you have decided
to discuss it in your debates. Your scout life has kept you so much
in the open and scoutcraft has so much to do with forestry, that the
whole subject is of interest to you. Besides you realize that it is a
question which really affects many public interests, and that its correct
solution means a great deal to the whole country. You will first decide
what branch of that subject you will consider. When you have decided to
consider the conservation of forests alone, for example, you have at once
removed a good deal which would otherwise have rendered your load heavy;
you need not consider water power or coal fields or minerals of any kind
and a host of such matters which under the general topic would have had
an equal claim for attention.
Now that you have limited your question to forests, you first inquire
what is really meant by conservation, why forests should be “conserved,”
why should they be protected? Is there an evil which this form of
conservation will remove? This is the starting point of your argument,
for unless some one is complaining, or ought to complain, there is no
need of discussing the matter at all. You will therefore first find out
if anyone is complaining of evils growing out of the government’s policy
towards its forests, or, if people are not complaining particularly,
will the policy now enforced be likely to produce conditions which will
work hardships and produce complaints? On the other hand, will these
results happen if the present policy of the government is not followed?
You see your argument must start somewhere and this starting point is
found in some need which should be remedied. This is a process very
similar to the work you accomplished when you were going over matters
with your opponents. But it goes more into detail and it is concerned
only with the question as it has finally been decided upon. It is equally
necessary, however, and you cannot be too careful at this point if you
would have the debate a thing of beautiful logic.
=Definition of Terms.=—After you have fixed and stated your starting
point, you next define all doubtful terms. In a sense you thus mark out
the channels for your debate, for your argument will flow steadily and
unhampered if in the beginning you clear away any débris of misunderstood
expressions or doubtful words. For example, if the form of your question
is, “Resolved: that the present policy of the United States government
toward forest conservation should be strengthened,” you would first
define forests, then conservation, then the policy of the United States
toward it, and finally what you mean by “strengthened.” Unless you define
“forests,” for example, you may talk and think of a white pine forest
in Idaho, your opponent may have in mind some cut over forests in Maine
and their reforestration, and your audience and judges have still other
tracts in mind. You may think it makes no difference what kind of forest
is meant, what particular tracts of timber are understood. If so, all
right; only say so in your definition. Make it clear just what you are
talking about, an Idaho or Maine or North Carolina forest or all forests
generally. Your definition of “conservation” will next follow, then your
definition of the policy of the government toward it. This will be found
by considering the actual laws governing forests and forest land and
their enforcement and interpretation by the officials of the government
administering those laws. Finally you will explain and define what you
mean by “strengthen.” You see all such terms clearly defined are a long
step ahead in your argument and, indeed, will often constitute the major
part of the argument.