CHAPTER XII : DEBATING
The Ideal of Debating. A long time ago so admirable a man as William
Penn stated the high ideal of all real debating whether practised in
the limited range of school interests or in the extended field of
life's activities.
In all debates let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an
unjust interest; and endeavor to gain, rather than to expose
thy antagonist.
The quotation states exactly the true aim of all debating--the
conclusion of the right, the truth rather than the securing of a
decision over an opponent. The same rules which animate the true lover
of sports, the clear distinction which is instilled into all
participants of amateur athletics of the meanings and significance of
the two terms _sportsman_ and _sport_, can be carried over to apply to
school activities in debating. Honest differences of opinion among
people upon countless questions will always furnish enough material
for regular debating so that no one need ever do violence to his
convictions.
Value of Debate. One of the greatest educational values of practice in
debate is that the ability it develops can be applied instantly in the
life beyond the schoolroom, that it operates in every person's daily
life. There are differences in the manner in which debating is
carried on in the two places, but practice in the earlier will result
in skill and self-confidence in the second.
Debate in Actual Life. The most marked difference between debates in
the two phases of life is the difference of form. In academic circles
debate is a well-regulated game between matched sides. In actual life
only in certain professions are the rules well defined. In most cases
the debating is disguised under different forms, though the essential
purposes and methods are the same.
Debate between lawyers in courts--technically termed pleading--is the
most formal of all professional debating. Its regulations are found in
the stabilized court procedure which every lawyer must master and
obey.
Much looser than the formal debate of the court room is the
speech-making of the legislative organization from the lowest township
board meeting up to the Senate of the United States. Of course the
members of such bodies are regulated by certain restrictions, but the
speeches are not likely to be curbed in time as are academic
performances, nor are the speakers likely to follow a prearranged
order, nor are they always equally balanced in number, nor do they
agree so carefully upon "team work." Sometimes in a legislative body
the first speaker may be on the negative side, which is quite contrary
to all the rules of regularly conducted debates. All the speakers may
also be on one side of a measure, the opposing side not deigning to
reply, resting secure in the knowledge of how many votes they can
control when the real test of power comes.
Most informal of all are the general discussions in which business
matters are decided. In these the speeches are never so set as in the
two preceding kinds. The men are less formal in their relations and
addresses to one another. The steps are less marked in their changes.
Yet underneath the seeming lack of regulation there is the framework
of debate, for there is always present the sense of two sides upon
every proposition, whether it be the purchase of new office equipment
for a distant agent, an increase of salary for employees, or the
increase of capitalization. Certain speakers support some proposition.
Others oppose it until they are convinced and won over to the
affirmative side, or until they are out-voted.
Two men seated in an office may themselves be debaters, audience, and
judges of their own argumentative opinions. They may in themselves
fill all the requirements of a real debate. They deliver the speeches
on the affirmative and negative sides. Each listens to the arguments
of his opponent. And finally, the pair together give a decision upon
the merits of the arguments presented.
On all such occasions the speakers need and use just those qualities
which classroom training has developed in them--knowledge of material,
plan of presentation, skill in expression, conviction and persuasion
of manner, graceful acceptance of defeat.
Debating Demands a Decision. Debating goes one step farther than
merely argumentative speaking. Debating demands a decision upon the
case, it requires a judgment, a registered action. Again in this
respect it is like a game.
EXERCISES
1. Make a list of propositions which have been debated or might be
debated in a courtroom.
2. Make another list of propositions which have been debated or might
be debated in legislative bodies.
3. Make a list of propositions which might be debated in business.
4. As far as is possible, indicate the decisions upon them.
5. Choose some proposition on which there is considerable difference
of opinion in the class. Make a list of those who favor and those who
oppose. Speak upon the proposition, alternating affirmative and
negative.
6. Discuss the speeches delivered in the fifth exercise.
Persons Involved in a Debate. Who are the persons involved in a
regular debate? They are the presiding officer, the speakers
themselves, the audience, the judges.
The Presiding Officer. Every debate has a presiding officer. The
Vice-President of the United States is the presiding officer of the
Senate. The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House of
Representatives. If you will refer to Chapter IV on _Beginning the
Speech_ you will see several other titles of presiding officers. In
school debates the head of the institution may act in that capacity,
or some person of note may be invited to preside. In regular classroom
work the instructor may serve as presiding officer, or some member of
the class may be chosen or appointed. The latter method is the
best--after the instructor has shown by example just what the duties
of such a position are.
The presiding officer should announce the topic of debate in a short
introductory speech. He should read the names of the speakers on the
affirmative and those on the negative side. He should stipulate the
terms of the debate--length of each speech, time for rebuttal, order
of rebuttal, method of keeping speakers within time limits, conditions
of judgment (material, presentation, etc.), announce the judges, and
finally introduce the first speaker; then the subsequent speakers. At
the close he might refer to the fact of the debate's being ended, he
might rehearse the conditions of judgment, and request the judges to
retire to consider their decision. Practice varies as to who shall
deliver the decision of the judges to the audience. Sometimes the
chairman elected by the judges announces the decision. Sometimes the
judges hand the decision to the presiding officer who announces it.
The Debaters. Beyond saying that the speakers must do their best,
there is nothing to be added here about their duty in the debate
except to issue one warning to them in connection with the next
personal element to be considered--the audience.
The Audience. Debaters must remember that in practically no
circumstances outside legislative bodies are the audience and the
judges ever the same. Debaters argue to convince the judges--not the
entire audience, who are really as disconnected from the decision of
the debate as are the straggling spectators and listeners in a
courtroom detached from the jury who render the verdict of guilty or
not guilty. The debater must therefore speak for the judges, not for
his audience. Many a debating team has in the course of its speeches
won all the applause only to be bitterly disappointed in the end by
hearing the decision awarded to the other side. Recall the warnings
given in the previous chapters against the tempting fallacies of
appealing to crowd feelings and prejudices.
In classroom debates it is a good distribution of responsibility to
make all the members not participating in the speaking act as judges
and cast votes in rendering a decision. This makes the judges and the
audience one. Moreover it changes the mere listener into a
discriminating judge. If the instructor cares to carry this matter of
responsibility one step farther, he can ask the members of the class
to explain and justify their votes.
The audience, when it is also the judge, has the responsibility of
careful attention, analysis, and comparison. It is too much to expect
usual general audiences to refuse to be moved by unworthy pleas and
misrepresentations, to accord approval only to the best speakers and
the soundest arguments. But surely in a class of public speakers any
such tricks and schemes should be received with stolid frigidity.
Nothing is so damaging to appeals to prejudice, spread-eagleism, and
fustian bombast as an impassive reception.
The Judges. In any debate the judges are of supreme importance. They
decide the merits of the speakers themselves. The judges are of
infinitely more importance than the audience. In interscholastic
debates men of some prominence are invited to act as judges. In the
instructions to them it should be made clear that they are not to
decide which side of a proposition they themselves approve. They are
to decide which group of speakers does the best work. They should try
to be merely the impersonal registers of comparative merit. They
should sink their own feelings as every teacher must when he hears a
good speech from one of his own students supporting something to which
the instructor is opposed. Good judges of debates realize this and
frequently award decisions to speakers who support opposite positions
to their personal opinions. They must not be like the judges in an
interscholastic debate who announced their decision thus, "The judges
have decided that China must not be dismembered." That was an
interesting fact perhaps, but it had nothing to do with their duty as
judges of that debate.
In business, the buyer, the head of the department, the board of
directors, constitute the judges who render the decision. In
legislative assemblies the audience and judges are practically
identical, for after the debate upon a measure is concluded, those who
have listened to it render individual verdicts by casting their votes.
In such cases we frequently see decisions rendered not upon the merits
of the debate, but according to class prejudice, personal opinion, or
party lines. This is why so many great argumentative speeches were
accounted failures at the time of their delivery. Delivered to secure
majority votes they failed to carry conviction to the point of
changing immediate action, and so in the small temporary sense they
were failures. In legal trials the jury is the real judge, although by
our peculiar misapplication of the term a different person entirely is
called judge. In court the judge is in reality more often merely the
presiding officer. He oversees the observance of all the rules of
court practice, keeps lawyers within the regulations, instructs the
jury, receives the decision from them, and then applies the law.
Every lawyer speaks--not to convince the judge--but to convince the
jury to render a decision in his favor.
Scholastic Debating. Choosing the Proposition. In school debating the
proposition may be assigned by the instructor or it may be chosen by
him from a number submitted by the class. The class itself may choose
by vote a proposition for debate. In interscholastic debating the
practice now usually followed is for one school to submit the
proposition and for the second school to decide which side it prefers
to support. In any method the aim should be to give neither side any
advantage over the other. The speakers upon the team may be selected
before the question of debate is known. It seems better, when
possible, to make the subject known first and then secure as speakers
upon both sides, students who have actual beliefs upon the topic. Such
personal conviction always results in keener rivalry.
Time Limits. Since no debate of this kind must last too long, time
restrictions must be agreed upon. In every class, conditions will
determine these terms. Three or four speakers upon each side make a
good team. If each is allowed six minutes the debate should come well
within an hour and still allow some time for voting upon the
presentations. It should be distinctly understood that a time limit
upon a speaker must be observed by him or be enforced by the presiding
officer.
The speakers upon one side will arrange among themselves the order in
which they will speak but there should be a clear understanding
beforehand as to whether rebuttal speeches are to be allowed.
Rebuttal Speeches. Rebuttal speeches are additional speeches allowed
to some or all the speakers of a debating team after the regular
argumentative speeches have been delivered. In an extended formal
debate all the speakers may thus appear a second time. In less lengthy
discussions only some of them may be permitted to appear a second
time. As the last speaker has the advantage of making the final
impression upon the judges it is usual to offset this by reversing the
order of rebuttal. In the first speeches the negative always delivers
the last speech. Sometimes the first affirmative speaker is allowed to
follow with the single speech in rebuttal. If the team consist of
three speakers and all are allowed to appear in rebuttal the entire
order is as follows.
_First Part Rebuttal_
First affirmative First negative
First negative First affirmative
Second affirmative Second negative
Second negative Second affirmative
Third affirmative Third negative
Third negative Third affirmative
If not all the speakers are to speak in rebuttal the team itself
decides which of its members shall speak for all.
Preparation. The proposition should be decided on and the teams
selected long enough in advance to allow for adequate preparation.
Every means should be employed to secure sufficient material in
effective arrangement. Once constituted, the team should consider
itself a unit. Work should be planned in conference and distributed
among the speakers. At frequent meetings they should present to the
side all they are able to find. They should lay out a comprehensive
plan of support of their own side. They should anticipate the
arguments likely to be advanced by the other, and should provide for
disposing of them if they are important enough to require refuting. It
is a good rule for every member of a debating team to know all the
material on his side, even though part of it is definitely assigned to
another speaker.
This preliminary planning should be upon a definite method. A good
outline to use, although some parts may be discarded in the debate
itself, is the following simple one.
I. State the proposition clearly.
1. Define the terms.
2. Explain it as a whole.
II. Give a history of the case.
1. Show its present bearing or aspect.
III. State the issues.
IV. Prove.
V. Refute.
VI. Conclude.
Finding the Issues. In debating, since time is so valuable, a speaker
must not wander afield. He must use all his ability, all his material
to prove his contention. It will help him to reject material not
relevant if he knows exactly what is at issue between the two sides.
It was avoiding the issue to answer the charge that Charles I was a
tyrant by replying that he was a good husband. Unless debaters realize
exactly what must be proven to make their position secure, there will
be really no debate, for the two sides will never meet in a clash of
opinion. They will pass each other without meeting, and instead of a
debate they will present a series of argumentative speeches. This
failure to state issues clearly and to support or refute them
convincingly is one of the most common faults of all debating. In
ordinary conversation a frequently heard criticism of a discussion or
speech or article is "But that was not the point at issue at all."
These issues must appear in the preliminary plans, in the finished
brief, and in the debate itself.
The only point in issue between us is, how long after an
author's death the State shall recognize a copyright in his
representatives and assigns; and it can, I think, hardly be
disputed by any rational man that this is a point which the
legislature is free to determine in the way which may appear
to be most conducive to the general good.
THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY: _Copyright_, 1841
Mr. President, the very first question that challenges our
attention in the matter of a league of nations is the
question of whether a war in Europe is a matter of concern
to the United States. The ultraopponents of any league of
nations assert that European quarrels and European battles
are no concern of ours. If that be true, we may well pause
before obligating ourselves to make them our concern. Is it
true?
SENATOR P.J. MCCUMBER: _The League of Nations_,
1919
The best method of finding the issues is to put down in two columns
the main contentions of both sides. By eliminating those entries which
are least important and those which have least bearing upon the
present case the issues may be reduced to those which the debate
should cover. Any possible attempt to cloud the issues on the part of
the opposing side can thus be forestalled. All the speakers on one
side should participate in this analysis of the proposition to find
and state the issues.
The New York _Tribune_, by parallel columns, brought out these chief
points of difference between the Paris plan and Senator Knox's for the
League of Nations.
THE KNOX PLAN THE PARIS PLAN
League formed of all, not Under Article VII it is provided
a portion, of the nations of that no state shall be
the world. admitted unless it is able to
give guaranties of its intention
to observe its international
obligations and conform
to the principles
prescribed by the League
in regard to it's naval and
military forces and armaments.
War to be declared an Article XVI provides that
international crime, and any should any of the high
nation engaging in war, except contracting parties break
in self-defense when covenants under Article XII
actually attacked, to be punished (relating to arbitration) it
by the world as an shall be deemed to have committed
international criminal. an act of war against
the League, which undertakes
to exercise economic
pressure; and it is to be the
duty of the executive council
to recommend what military
or naval force the members
of the League shall contribute
to be used to protect
the covenants of the League.
The Monroe Doctrine to None of these matters is
be safeguarded; also our mentioned specifically, but
immigration policy and our President Wilson has said
right to expel aliens. that the League will "extend
the Monroe Doctrine to the
whole world" and that domestic
and internal questions
are not a concern of the
League.
Our right to maintain military Article VIII says: "The
and naval establishments executive council shall also
and coaling stations, determine for the consideration
and our right to fortify the and action of the several
Panama Canal and our governments what military
frontiers to be safeguarded. equipment and armament is
fair and reasonable and in
proportion to the scale of
forces laid down in the program
of disarmament, and
these limits when adopted
shall not be exceeded without
the permission of the executive
council."
An international court to Article XIV provides for
be empowered by the League the establishment of a "permanent
to call upon the signatory court of international
Powers to enforce its decrees justice," but its powers are
against unwilling states by limited to hearing and determining
force, economic pressure, or "any matter
otherwise. The constitution which the parties recognize
of the League to provide, as suitable for submission to
however, that decrees against it for arbitration" under
an American Power shall be Article XIII.
enforced by the nations of
this hemisphere, and decrees
against a country of the
eastern hemisphere by the
Powers of that hemisphere.
Team Work. With the plan agreed upon by the speakers, the brief made
out, and the material distributed, each speaker can go to work in
earnest to prepare his single speech. The best method has been
outlined in this book. His notes should be accurate, clear, easily
manipulated. His quotations should be exact, authoritative. By no
means should he memorize his speech. Such stilted delivery would
result in a series of formal declamations. With his mind stocked with
exactly what his particular speech is to cover, yet familiar enough
with the material of his colleagues to use it should he need it, the
debater is ready for the contest.
Manipulating Material. The speakers on a side should keep all their
material according to some system. If cards are used, arguments to be
used in the main debate might be arranged in one place, material for
rebuttal in another, quotations and statistics in still another. Then
if the other side introduces a point not anticipated it should be easy
to find the refuting or explaining material at once to counteract its
influence in the next speech, if it should be disposed of at once. If
slips of paper are used, different colors might indicate different
kinds of material. Books, papers, reports, to be used should always be
within available distance. While a speaker for the other side is
advancing arguments the speaker who will follow him should be able to
change, if necessary, his entire plan of defense or attack to meet the
manoeuver. He should select from the various divisions upon the
table the material he needs, and launch at once into a speech which
meets squarely all the contentions advanced by his predecessor. This
instantaneous commandeering of material is likely to be most usual in
rebuttal, but a good debater must be able to resort to it at a
second's notice.
The First Affirmative Speaker. The first affirmative speaker must
deliver some kind of introduction to the contentions which his side
intends to advance. It is his duty to be concise and clear in this. He
must not use too much time. If the proposition needs defining and
applying he must not fail to do it. He must not give the negative the
opportunity to explain and apply to its own purposes the meaning of
the proposition. He should state in language which the hearers will
remember exactly what the issues are. He can help his own side by
outlining exactly what the affirmative intends to prove. He may
indicate just what portions will be treated by his colleagues. He
should never stop with merely introducing and outlining. Every speaker
must advance proof, the first as well as the others. If the
preliminary statements by the first affirmative speaker are clearly
and convincingly delivered, and if he places a few strong, supporting
reasons before the judges, he will have started his side very well
upon its course of debating. The last sentences of his speech should
drive home the points he has proved.
The First Negative Speaker. The first negative speaker either agrees
with the definitions and application of the proposition as announced
by the first affirmative speaker or he disagrees with them. If the
latter, the mere statement of his disagreement is not sufficient.
Contradiction is not proof. He must refute the definition and
application of the proposition by strong reasoning and ample proof. If
his side does not admit the issues as already presented he must
explain or prove them away and establish in their place the issues his
side sees in the discussion. When the two sides disagree concerning
the issues there is a second proposition erected for discussion at
once and the argument upon this second matter may crowd out the
attempted argument upon the main proposition. To obviate such shifting
many schools have the sides exchange briefs or statements of issues
before the debate so that some agreement will be reached upon
essentials.
In addition to the matters just enumerated the first negative speaker
should outline the plan his side will follow, promising exactly what
things will be established by his colleagues. If he feels that the
first affirmative speaker has advanced proofs strong enough to require
instant refutation he should be able to meet those points at once and
dispose of them. If they do not require immediate answering, or if
they may safely be left for later refutation in the regular rebuttal,
he may content himself with simply announcing that they will be
answered. He should not allow the audience to believe that his side
cannot meet them.
He must not give the impression that he is evading them. If he has to
admit their truth, let him frankly say so, showing, if possible, how
they do not apply or do not prove all that is claimed for them, or
that though they seem strong in support of the affirmative the
negative side has still stronger arguments which by comparison refute
at least their effect.
The first negative speaker should not stop with mere refutation. If
the first affirmative has advanced proofs, and the first negative
disposes of them, the debate is exactly where it was at the beginning.
The negative speaker must add convincing arguments of his own. It is a
good thing to start with one of the strongest negative arguments in
the material.
The Second Affirmative and Second Negative Speakers. The second
affirmative and the second negative speakers have very much the same
kind of speech to make. Taking the immediate cues from the preceding
speaker each may at first pay some attention to the remarks of his
opponent. Here again there must be quickly decided the question
already brought up by the first negative speech--shall arguments be
refuted at once or reserved for such treatment in rebuttal? When this
decision is made the next duty of each of these second speakers is to
advance his side according to the plan laid down by his first
colleague. He must make good the advance notice given of his team.
Each position of a debater has its peculiar tasks. The middle speaker
must not allow the interest aroused by the first to lag. If anything,
his material and manner must indicate a rise over the opening speech.
He must start at the place where the first speaker stopped and carry
on the contention to the place at which it has been agreed he will
deliver it to the concluding speaker for his side. If this connection
among all the speeches of one side is quite plain to the audience an
impression of unity and coherence will be made upon them. This will
contribute to the effect of cogent reasoning. They will realize that
instead of listening to a group of detached utterances they have been
following a chain of reasoning every link of which is closely
connected with all that precedes and follows.
The Concluding Affirmative Speaker. The concluding affirmative speaker
must not devote his entire speech to a conclusion by giving an
extensive summary or recapitulation. He must present arguments.
Realizing that this is the last chance for original argument from his
side he may be assigned the very strongest argument of all to deliver,
for the effect of what he says must last beyond the concluding speech
of the negative. It would likewise be a mistake for him to do nothing
more than argue in his concluding speech. Several persons have
intervened since his first colleague outlined their side and announced
what they would prove. It is his duty to show that the affirmative has
actually done what it set out to do. By amplifying and diminishing he
may also show how the negative had not carried out its avowed
intention of disproving the affirmative's position and proving
conclusively its own. The concluding speech for the affirmative is an
excellent test of a debater's ability to adapt himself to conditions
which may have been entirely unforeseen when the debate began, of his
keenness in analyzing the strength of the affirmative and exposing
the weakness of the negative, of his power in impressing the arguments
of his colleagues as well as his own upon the audience, and of his
skill in bringing to a well-rounded, impressive conclusion his side's
part in the debate.
The Concluding Negative Speaker. The concluding negative speaker must
judge whether his immediate predecessor, the concluding affirmative
speaker, has been able to gain the verdict of the judges. If he fears
that he has, he must strive to argue that conviction away. He too must
advance proof finally to strengthen the negative side. He must make
his speech answer to his first colleague's announced scheme, or if
some change in the line of development has been necessitated, he must
make clear why the first was replaced by the one the debaters have
followed. If the arguments of the negative have proved what it was
declared they would, the last speaker should emphasize that fact
beyond any question in any one's mind. Finally he should save time for
a fitting conclusion. This brings the debate proper to a close.
Restrictions in Rebuttal. In rebuttal--if it be provided--the main
restrictions are two. The speeches are shorter than the earlier ones.
No new lines of argument may be introduced. Only lines of proof
already brought forward may be considered. Since the speeches are
shorter and the material is restricted there is always the disposition
to use rebuttal speeches for refutation only. This is a mistake.
Refute, but remember always that constructive argument is more likely
to win decisions than destructive. Dispose of as many points of the
opponents as possible, but reiterate the supporting reasons of your
own. Many speakers waste their rebuttals by trying to cover too many
points. They therefore have insufficient time to prove anything, so
they fall back upon bare contradiction and assertion. Such
presentations are mere jumbles of statements. Choose a few important
phases of the opposing side's contention. Refute them. Choose the
telling aspects of your own case. Emphasize them.
Manner in Debating. Be as earnest and convincing in your speeches as
you can. Never yield to the temptation to indulge in personalities.
Recall that other speakers should never be mentioned by name. They are
identified by their order and their side, as "The first speaker on the
affirmative" or "The speaker who preceded me," or "My colleague," or
"My opponent." Avoid using these with tones and phrases of sarcasm and
bitterness. Be fair and courteous in every way. Never indulge in such
belittling expressions as "No one understands what he is trying to
prove. He reels off a string of figures which mean nothing." Never
indulge in cheap wit or attempts at satiric humor.
Prepare so adequately, analyze so keenly, argue so logically, speak so
convincingly, that even when your side loses, your opponents will have
to admit that you forced them to do better than they had any idea they
could.
CHAPTER XIII : SPEAKING UPON SPECIAL OCCASIONS
PUBLIC SPEAKING By CLARENCE STRATTON
|