Books: Practical Argumentation
G >>
George K. Pattee >> Practical Argumentation
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 | 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18
This necessity for an abundance of information precludes the idea,
held by some, that good debaters depend for their refutation on the
inspiration of the moment. Great speakers often spend incalculable
time in preparing to answer the arguments of the opposition. Webster's
_Reply to Hayne_, which is a recognized masterpiece of oratory,
and which is almost entirely refutation, was at first thought to have
been composed over night, but Webster declared that all the material
he had used had lain in his desk for months.
Refutation should come for the most part, though not entirely, in the
rebuttal. Unless one has made a thorough study of both sides of the
question, and is thus sure of his ground, anticipatory refutation is
dangerous. It is sometimes an excellent plan to take the wind out of
an opponent's sails by overthrowing an argument of his before he has a
chance to present it, but in doing this the debater must use the
greatest caution. To begin with, he must be sure that the argument he
refutes is of such a fundamental nature that it is essential to the
case of the other side, for if his opponent fails to use this point,
the debater not only has exposed himself to ridicule, but has wasted
valuable time. When one does refute in advance a point that must be
upheld by the opposition, a skillful opponent often can, by
calling attention to the fact that even those on the other side
recognize the importance and strength of this argument, destroy much
of the advantage that has been gained. To refute an argument before it
is advanced, sometimes brings failure and sometimes brings success. A
debater must exercise judgment.
One must also exercise a high degree of judgment in deciding where he
can most advantageously answer the arguments that have actually been
given. Whenever a debater presents so thorough and so strong proof
that the audience is likely to think that he has settled the question
and won the debate, the succeeding speaker on the opposite side will
have great difficulty in making any impression unless he can at the
start at least partially discredit the preceding argument. The
attitude of the audience will compel him to use refutation before
beginning his constructive work. On the other hand, if the preceding
argument has apparently produced but little effect, he may at once
begin to build his own proof. He should, however, show good reason for
postponing his refutation. To ignore the previous arguments entirely,
or arbitrarily to postpone answering them, is likely to give the
audience an unfavorable impression.
COMMON ERRORS IN REFUTATION. A common error in refutation is the
failure to attack an opponent's main arguments. Students especially
are wont to neglect fundamental principles, and instead of
overthrowing the points that count, occupy invaluable time with
trivial matters. To rebut unimportant details, admitted matter, mere
illustrations, and errors obviously due to haste in speaking, is a
fault that every debater should carefully avoid. Such trivialities the
audience immediately forgets, and to bring them up again and refute
them serves no worthy purpose whatever.
Another serious fault common to refutation in student debates is lack
of coherence. The student falls into this error when he rebuts a
miscellaneous lot of points without having first ascertained the
function of each and differentiated the main ideas from the
subordinate ones. Instead of looking at the argument as a whole and
attacking it with the concerted strength of all his forces, he fires
scattering shots, and does but little damage. In refutation a debater
must first see clearly the relation between each point that he rebuts
and the proposition, otherwise his work is wasted. Secondly, he must
make this relation perfectly plain to the audience. Instead of
overthrowing isolated statements, a debater should take up his
opponent's case as _a whole_ and weaken it as much as he can. He
should attack each main point. Coherent refutation adds much to the
effectiveness of a debate.
AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL FOR REFUTATION. In offering refutation, every
inexperienced debater has difficulty in laying his hands on just the
material that he desires to use. Possibly he remembers that he has
seen somewhere an article that proves the insincerity of a man who has
just been quoted as an authority; but if he can neither produce this
article nor state its substance, he might as well not know about it.
Perhaps he remembers having seen a table of statistics showing that
his opponent has erred in regard to the death rate in the Spanish-
American War; but unless he can produce the table, his knowledge is of
no avail. There is scarcely any time for searching through books or
unorganized notes; material to be of use must be instantly available.
Some definite system of arranging rebuttal material is absolutely
indispensable.
One method that has been tried with great success consists of putting
down on cards of a uniform size all the material that can possibly be
of use in refutation. These cards the debater then groups, in
alphabetical order, under headings that correspond to the main
divisions of the subject under discussion, and if it seems advisable
in any particular instance, he may group them under subdivisions of
the proposition. To be more explicit, if a debater thinks that the
opposition may question the financial success of a plan that he is
advocating, he should write out on as many cards as are necessary,
usually putting only one idea on each card, all the material that goes
to show why the plan should succeed and where it has succeeded.
Furthermore, if the plan has failed anywhere, he should put down,
providing he is able, explanations that will account for the failure
without condemning the system. These cards, then, would naturally be
arranged under some such heading as "Finance" or "Success." If the
debater wishes, he may also arrange his cards under subheadings. For
instance, those cards that go to show why the plan ought to succeed
could be put under the subheading, "Antecedent Probability"; those
that show where the plan has succeeded, under "Sign," and those that
account for failure of the plan in certain places, under the heading
"Failures." Any one at all familiar with a library card catalogue
will at once see the various possibilities for arranging these cards.
Cards for rebuttal should be made out about as follows:--
Proposition:--_Resolved,_ That profit-sharing and co-operative
methods generally afford the most promising solution of the labor
problem. (Affirmative.)
PRACTICABILITY
The Union Polishing Metal Plating Company has been successfully
operated under this method since 1902. (C. H. Quinn, Outlook, Vol.
LXXIII, page 452.)
PRACTICABILITY
The great iron works of Evansville, Wis., are operated under
this method. (G. L. McNutt, Ind., Vol. LV, page 619.)
The advantages of such a system are obvious. This method gives not
only one debater, but the whole team, almost instant command of all
the material that has been collected. One can find what he wants, and
find it hastily; he is not obliged to spend much valuable time in
hunting after needed evidence and thus neglect large portions of the
speech that is being delivered. A debater should begin on the
classification of rebuttal material almost as soon as he begins to
read on his subject. In this way he will save all the material that he
gathers, and his catalogued information will be of assistance to him
in drawing his brief and in constructing his main argument as well as
in making refutation at the time of the debate.
WHAT EACH DEBATER MUST DO.
THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. Upon the first speaker for the
affirmative falls the duty of interpreting the proposition. Since the
subject of analysis has already been fully discussed, but few
directions need be given here. It may be well, however, to emphasize
the qualities of clearness and fairness. A debate, unlike a written
argument, cannot be studied and re-read time and again. For this
reason, unless the proposition is explained in the very simplest
language and by means of the very clearest definitions and
illustrations, many people in the audience will not understand what
the debate is about. Long words and high-sounding phrases have no
place here. The debater must aim to reach not merely those who are
familiar with the subject, but also those to whom the question is
absolutely new. If, when the first speaker has finished, any attentive
listener of average intelligence fails to understand both the subject
of the debate and the attitude of the affirmative side, the speech has
been a failure.
Then, too, the analysis of the proposition must be fair and just to
both sides. A debater has no right to strain or twist the meaning of
the proposition so as to gain any advantage for himself. In the first
place, this practice is dishonest, and an honorable debater does not
wish to win by trickery or fraud. Secondly, such an act almost always
brings defeat. The fact that a debate is being held, presupposes a
subject about which reasonable men may differ. If a debater interprets
the proposition so that only one reasonable side exists, manifestly he
must be in error, and upon the exposure of this error he is sure to
lose the decision.
In debate, therefore, clearness and fairness should especially
characterize the four steps that are taken in analyzing the
proposition: to define terms, to explain the proposition as a whole,
to discover the issues, and to make the partition.
Upon the completion of the introduction, the first debater for the
affirmative proceeds to the discussion, and later, should he be the
only contestant on the affirmative side, to the conclusion. But if, as
is usually the case, there be several debaters on each side, he takes
up only one or two main points of the proof. In handling this proof he
must be sure so to correlate his work with the work of his colleagues
that, in the minds of the audience, it will all hang together as a
united whole. To accomplish this object, he may, as he finishes with
his partition, state what points he will discuss himself, and what
points will be handled by the affirmative speakers that are to succeed
him; and he must, without fail, when he nears the end of his allotted
time, hastily summarize the proof that he has given, and outline the
proof that is to follow. In this way he may keep the intervening
speeches of his opponents from entirely destroying the continuity that
should exist between his speech and the speeches of his colleagues.
THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR THE NEGATIVE. It rests with the first speaker
for the negative to determine whether the introduction as presented by
the affirmative is satisfactory, whether the analysis of the
proposition is clear, adequate, and fair. If the affirmative has erred
in any respect, it is the duty of the first negative debater to supply
the deficiency or make the correction; otherwise he errs equally with
the affirmative. If the affirmative has failed to explain the
proposition so that it is generally understood, the negative is sure
to win favor with the audience by spending a few moments in
elucidating the subject of controversy. If the affirmative debater has
analyzed the question inadequately or unfairly, the negative debater
should not begin to establish proof until he has set these
preliminaries straight. In correcting an unfair analysis, it is never
enough that one merely make objections or even give an introduction of
his own; he must, in brief form--and often a single sentence is
sufficient--show to the satisfaction of the audience that his opponent
has not interpreted the proposition correctly. On the other hand, if
the first speaker for the negative considers the introduction given by
the affirmative perfectly fair and satisfactory, he can pass by it
without comment, and begin his own argument either with refutation or
with a statement of the points that the negative side will establish
in attacking the proposition.
It is thus apparent that a debater who opens a negative argument must
depend for the beginning of his speech rather on a thorough
understanding of the subject in all its details and fundamental
principles than on a speech that he has to deliver word for word. To
repeat an introduction that has already been given is absurd; to fail
to correct an introduction that, as a whole, is obscure or is unfair,
is to merit defeat. It may be added, by way of caution, that when a
debater supplies any deficiencies in the speech of his predecessor, he
should do this without any appearance of "smartness" or personal
antagonism. Even if the affirmative debater has been manifestly
unfair, the negative speaker will do well to correct this unfairness
in a friendly, though in a forceful manner.
As soon as the introduction is out of the way, the negative speaker
proceeds to the discussion. Two courses are open to him: he may at
once refute his predecessor's arguments, or he may proceed to take up
his constructive proof, giving reason for postponing the refutation.
As this matter has already been discussed, it is only necessary to say
that the course he should choose depends largely upon the strength of
the preceding argument. The same directions that have been given to
the affirmative debater for connecting his work to his colleagues'
apply equally to the negative. Summaries and outlines aid greatly in
binding the arguments of a debating team into one compact mass.
THE OTHER SPEAKERS. About the only practical suggestion which can be
made to the other speakers is that they adapt their constructive work
to that of their colleagues, and deploy their refutation so as to
hammer the principal positions of their opponents. Each debater may or
may not begin his speech with refutation, but he should always begin
his main argument with a terse, clear summary of what has been said on
his side, and in closing he should not only summarize his own
arguments, but he should also give again, in very brief form, the gist
of what has been proved by his colleagues. In addition, any speaker
except the last one on each side, may, if he thinks best, give an
outline of the argument to follow. In making these summaries, a
debater must always avoid stating them in so bald and crude a form as
to make them monotonous and offensive. He ought rather to use all the
ingenuity at his command in an attempt to make this repetition
exceedingly forceful.
It often happens that an inexperienced debater never reaches his
conclusion. While he is still in the midst of his proof, his allotment
of time expires, and he is forced to sit down, leaving his speech
hanging in the air. Such an experience is both awkward and disastrous;
a skillful debater never allows it to happen. The peroration is the
most important part of an argument, and on it the debater should
lavish his greatest care. To omit it is almost the same as to have
made no speech at all. As soon as the debater perceives that he has
but a short time left, he should at once bring this main speech to a
close, and even though he may have to omit important ideas, begin at
once on his conclusion. As is pointed out in Chapter X, the conclusion
consists both of a summary and an emotional appeal. What emotion shall
be aroused and how it shall apply to the summarized headings can
largely be determined beforehand. Some debaters go so far as to commit
this conclusion to memory. This practice is not recommended except in
special cases, and yet a debater should be so familiar with his
peroration that he will have no difficulty in putting it into vigorous
and pleasing language.
REBUTTAL SPEECHES. A rebuttal speech usually furnishes an excellent
test of a debater's mastery of his subject. It shows whether or not he
comprehends the fundamental principles that underly the argument. If
he does not understand fundamentals, he cannot distinguish between
what is worth answering and what is trivial. If he is not perfectly
familiar with the arguments on both sides of the question, his
refutation will be scattering; that is, he will rebut only a few of
his opponent's headings, those for which, in his scanty preparation,
he has discovered some answer. On the other hand, if he really
understands the subject, he will deal largely with main ideas; and if
his knowledge of the subject is as extensive as it should be, he will
almost invariably be able to offer some opposition to every main
heading used by the opposition.
When a debate is held between only two contestants, each one has to
refute the whole argument of his opponent. In this case there are no
complications; but when two teams are debating, the members of each
must decide among themselves as to how the rebuttal shall be handled.
One way is for each member to refute all he can, working independently
of his colleagues. Much better results are secured, however, when a
team works systematically. In the first place, a team should always
resolve the opposing arguments into a hasty brief. The main points of
the opposition can then be assigned for rebuttal to the various
members of the team, and each debater can give thorough treatment to
his assignment. In this way every point is sure to be covered, and
there will be little, if any, duplication of work.
Such a course presupposes very careful preparation on the part of the
debaters. It means that each member of the team must have sufficient
knowledge and material at his command to oppose with credit any
argument that may be advanced. In general, the assignment of headings
for rebuttal may be such that each debater will refute those points of
which he took an opposite view in his main speech, but as it is
usually desirable to rebut arguments in the same order in which they
were originally given, no member of the team can afford to shirk
mastering each detail that in any way has a vital bearing upon the
proposition.
THE LAST REBUTTAL SPEAKER. The work of the last speaker on each side
differs somewhat from the work of his colleagues. All the speakers try
to overthrow the opposing arguments, and by means of summaries keep
their case as a whole before the audience. The last speaker devotes
far less time to pure refutation, gives a more detailed summary, and,
in addition, compares and contrasts the arguments of his side with the
arguments of the opposition. This last process is called "amplifying
and diminishing."
It is not always necessary to prove a main heading false in order to
destroy its effectiveness. A debater may of necessity have to admit
that the opposition has successfully established the points it set out
to prove. In such a case, he cannot do better than to acknowledge the
correctness of his opponent's proof, and then remembering that an
audience awards a decision by a comparison of the relative weight of
the proof of each side, amplify the importance of his own arguments,
point by point, and diminish the importance of the arguments advanced
by the other side.
For instance, in a debate on the question as to whether immigration
should be restricted, the affirmative might maintain that unrestricted
immigration brings serious political evils, and the negative might
show that the policy of nonrestriction greatly increases the wealth of
the country. If neither of these contentions be successfully refuted,
the favor of the audience will incline towards the affirmative or the
negative, as far as those two points are concerned, according as they
think that political purity or economic prosperity is the more
important. Plainly, it would be for the interest of the affirmative to
convince the audience that the preservation of political integrity is
of greater moment than any mere material gain.
In many respects the last rebuttal speeches on each side are the most
conspicuous and decisive parts of a debate. If the last speech is
hesitating and weak, it is liable to ruin all preceding efforts, even
though they were of the highest order; if it is enthusiastic and
strong, it will often cover up preceding defects, and turn defeat into
victory. Because of its importance this portion of the work usually
falls to the best debater on the team, and if he is wise he will give
it his greatest thought and care. In this speech he should strive in
every possible way to attain perfection. His delivery should be
emphatic and pleasing; his ideas should be logically arranged; and his
knowledge of what he has to say should be so complete that there will
be no hesitation, no groping for words. Furthermore, he should
introduce an element of persuasion; to reach both the minds and the
hearts of his hearers is essential for the greatest success. All this
has to be done in a short time, yet to be of a high rank even the
shortest closing speeches must contain these characteristics.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF DEBATE.
An argument, like other kinds of composition, should possess the
qualities of style known as Clearness, Force, and Elegance, and should
in all respects observe the principles of Unity, Selection, Coherence,
Proportion, Emphasis, and Variety. Since the student from his study of
Rhetoric is already familiar with these matters, it would be
superfluous to dwell upon them in this book. A good written argument,
however, does not always make a good debate; limited time for
speaking, lack of opportunity for the audience to grasp ideas and to
reflect upon them, the presence of strong opposing arguments that must
be met and overthrown with still stronger arguments,--these conditions
render the heightening of certain characteristics indispensable in a
debate.
Above all else the successful debater is forceful. He uses every
possible device for driving home his arguments. He bends every effort
toward making his ideas so plain and so emphatic that the audience
will understand them and _remember_ them. Realizing that the
audience cannot, like the reader of a written article, peruse the
argument a second time, he uses words and expressions that cause his
thoughts to stick fast wherever they fall.
STATISTICS. Statistics improperly used are dry and uninteresting; they
often spoil an otherwise forceful and persuasive debate. The trouble
often lies, strange to say, in the accuracy with which the figures are
given. A brain that is already doing its utmost to accept almost
instantaneously a multitude of facts and comprehend their
significance, or a brain that is somewhat sluggish and lazy, refuses
to be burdened with uninteresting and unimportant details. For this
reason, when a debater speaks of 10,564,792 people, the brain becomes
wearied with the numbers and in disgust is apt to turn away from the
whole matter. On the other hand, the round sum 10,000,000 not only
does not burden the brain, but also, under ordinary conditions, gives
in a rather forceful manner the information it was intended to convey.
"About five hundred" presents a much more vivid picture than "four
hundred and eighty-six" or "five hundred and eighteen"; "fifteen per
cent." is stronger than "fifteen and one-tenth per cent."; the
expression "eighty years" seems to indicate a longer period of time
than "eighty-two years, seven months, and twenty-nine days."
If one is to quote statistics, he should always, unless the
circumstances be very unusual, use round numbers. Figures themselves,
however, are often less emphatic than other methods of expression. The
ordinary mind can not grasp the significance of large numbers. That
the state of Texas contains over a quarter of a million of square
miles means little to the average person; he neither remembers the
exact area of other states nor can he realize what an immense
territory these figures stand for. The following quotation gives the
area of Texas in much more vivid and forceful language:--
If you take Texas by the upper corner and swing it on that as a pivot,
you will lop off the lower end of California, cut through Idaho,
overlap South Dakota, touch Michigan, bisect Ohio, reach West
Virginia, cut through North Carolina and South Carolina, lop off all
the western side of Florida, and blanket the greater part of the Gulf
of Mexico.
To say that the American farmer produced in 1907 a crop worth, at the
farm, seven and one-half billions of dollars, conveys little idea of
the magnitude of the harvest. A current magazine has couched the same
estimate in less exact but in far more emphatic language:--
Suppose that all of last year's corn had been shipped to Europe; it
would have required over four thousand express steamers of 18,000 tons
register to deliver it. Suppose that the year's wheat had all been
sent to save the Far East from a great famine: the largest fleet in
the world, with its four hundred vessels of all sizes, would have
required fifteen round trips to move it. Take tobacco,--such a minor
crop that most people never think of it in connection with farming:--
if last year's tobacco crop had been made into cigars, the supply
would have lasted 153,000 men for fifty years, each man smoking ten
cigars a day.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 | 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18