CHAPTER XI : REFUTING
Answering the Other Side. It has been said already that even in a
single argumentative speech some account must be taken of the
possibility among the audience of the belief in other views. A speaker
must always assume that people will believe otherwise than he does.
In such cases as debate or questioning after a speech is made, this
opposing side will very clearly be brought out, so that any person
training for any kind of public speaking will give much attention to
the contentions of others in order to strengthen his own convictions
as displayed in his speeches.
A sincere thinker may believe that trial before a group of competent
judges is a better procedure than trial by jury. Were he to speak upon
such a proposition he would realize that he would meet at once the
solid opposition of the general opinion that jury trials, sanctioned
by long practice, are in some mysterious way symbolic of the liberty
and equality of mankind. Before he could expect to arouse sympathetic
understanding he would have to answer all the possible objections and
reasons against his new scheme. This he would do by refutation, by
disproving the soundness of the arguments against his scheme. He could
cite the evident and recorded injustices committed by juries. He could
bring before them the impossibility of securing an intelligent
verdict from a group of farmers, anxious to get to their farms for
harvest, sitting in a case through July, while the days passed in
lengthy examinations of witnesses--one man was on the stand eight
days--and the lawyers bandied words and names like socialist, pagan,
bolsheviki, anarchy, ideal republic, Aristotle, Plato, Herbert
Spencer, Karl Marx, Tolstoi, Jane Addams, Lenin. Then when he felt
assured he had removed all the reasons for supporting the present jury
system he could proceed to advance his own substitute.
Need and Value of Refutation. In all argumentation, therefore,
refutation is valuable and necessary. By it opposing arguments are
reasoned away, their real value is determined, or they are answered
and demolished if they are false or faulty. To acquire any readiness
as a speaker or debater a person must pay a great deal of attention to
refutation. It has also an additional value. It has been stated that
every argumentative speaker must study the other side of every
question upon which he is to speak. One great debater declared that if
he had time to study only one side of a proposition or law case he
would devote that time to the other side. Study your own position from
the point of view of the other side. Consider carefully what arguments
that side will naturally advance. In fact, try to refute your own
arguments exactly as some opponent would, or get some friend to try to
refute your statements. Many a speaker has gained power in reasoning
by having his views attacked by members of his family who would
individually and collectively try to drive him into a corner. In
actual amount, perhaps you will never deliver as much refutation of
an opponent as you will conjure up in your mind against your own
speeches. Perhaps, also, this great amount advanced by you in testing
your own position will prevent your opponents from ever finding in
your delivered arguments much against which they can pit their own
powers of refutation.
In judging your own production you will have to imagine yourself on
the other side, so the methods will be the same for all purposes of
self-help or weakening of an opponent's views.
Contradiction Is Not Refutation. In the first place contradiction is
not refutation. No unsupported fact or statement has any value in
argumentation. Such expressions as "I don't believe, I don't think so,
I don't agree" introduce not arguments, but personal opinions. You
must, to make your refutation valuable, _prove_ your position. Never
allow your attempts at refutation to descend to mere denial or
quibbling. Be prepared to support, to prove everything you say.
Three Phases of Refutation. In general, refutation consists of three
phases:
1. The analysis of the opposite side.
2. The classification of the arguments according to importance.
3. The answering of only the strongest points.
Analysis of Opposing Side for Accuracy. In the first analysis, you
will probably examine the opposing statements to test their accuracy.
Mere slips, so evident that they deceive no one, you may disregard
entirely, but gross error of fact or conclusion you should note and
correct in unmistakably plain terms. The kind of statement which
gives insufficient data should be classed in analysis with this same
kind of erroneous statement. A shoe dealer in arguing for increased
prices might quote correctly the rising cost of materials, but if he
stopped there, you in refutation should be able to show that profits
had already risen to 57%, and so turn his own figures against him.
Another class of refutation similar to this is the questioning of
authorities. Something concerning this has already been said. In a
recent trial a lawyer cast doubt upon the value of a passage read from
a book by declaring its author could never have written such a thing.
In refutation the opposing lawyer said, "You will find that passage on
page 253 of his _Essays and Letters."_ Public speakers, realizing that
errors of statement are likely to be the first to be picked out for
correction, and recognizing the damaging effect of such conviction in
error of fact and testimony, are extremely careful not to render
themselves liable to attack upon such points. Yet they may. We are
told by Webster's biographers that in later periods of his life he was
detected in errors of law in cases being argued before the court, and
refuted in statement. To catch such slips requires two things of the
successful speaker. He must be in possession of the facts himself. He
must be mentally alert to see the falsity and know how to answer it.
Begging the Question. The expression "begging the question" is often
heard as a fallacy in argument. In its simplest form it is similar to
inaccurate statement, for it includes assertions introduced without
proof, and the statement of things as taken for granted without
attempting to prove them, yet using them to prove other statements.
Sometimes, also, a careless thinker, through an extended group of
paragraphs will end by taking as proven exactly the proposition he
started out to prove, when close analysis will show that nowhere
during the discussion does he actually prove it. As this is frequent
in amateur debates, students should be on their guard against it.
Ignoring the Question. The same kind of flimsy mental process results
in ignoring the question. Instead of sticking closely to the
proposition to be proved the speaker argues beside the point, proving
not the entire proposition but merely a portion of it. Or in some
manner he may shift his ground and emerge, having proven the wrong
point or something he did not start out to consider. An amateur
theatrical producer whose playhouse had been closed by the police for
violating the terms of his license started out to defend his action,
but ended by proving that all men are equal. In fact he wound up by
quoting the poem by Burns, "A Man's a Man for A' That." Such a
shifting of propositions is a frequent error of speakers. It occurs so
often that one might be disposed to term it a mere trick to deceive,
or a clever though unscrupulous device to secure support for a weak
claim. One of the first ways for the speaker to avoid it is to be able
to recognize it when it occurs. One of the most quoted instances of
its effective unmasking is the following by Macaulay.
The advocates of Charles, like the advocates of other
malefactors against whom overwhelming evidence is produced,
generally decline all controversy about the facts, and
content themselves with calling testimony to character. He
had so many private virtues! And had James the Second no
private virtues! Was Oliver Cromwell, his bitterest enemies
themselves being judges, destitute of private virtues? And
what, after all, are the virtues ascribed to Charles? A
religious zeal, not more sincere than that of his son, and
fully as weak and narrow-minded, and a few of the ordinary
household decencies which half the tombstones in England
claim for those who lie beneath them. A good father! A good
husband! Ample apologies indeed for fifteen years of
persecution, tyranny, and falsehood!
We charge him with having broken his coronation oath; and we
are told that he kept his marriage vow! We accuse him of
having given up his people to merciless inflictions of the
most hot-headed and hard-hearted of prelates; and the
defence is, that he took his little son on his knee and
kissed him! We censure him for having violated the articles
of the Petition of Right, after having, for good and
valuable consideration, promised to observe them; and we are
informed that he was accustomed to hear prayers at six
o'clock in the morning! It is to such considerations as
these, together with his Vandyke dress, his handsome face,
and his peaked beard, that he owes, we verily believe, most
of his popularity with the present generation.
Appealing to Prejudice or Passions. The question is also ignored when
the speaker appeals to the prejudices or passions of his audience
(_argumentum ad populum_). Persons of some intellect resent this as
almost an insult if they are in the audience, yet it is often resorted
to by speakers who would rather produce the effect they desire by the
use of any methods, right or wrong. Its use in court by unscrupulous
lawyers to win decisions is checked by attempts on the part of judges
to counteract it in their charges to the jury, but its influence may
still persist. Mark Antony in Shakespere's play, _Julius Caesar_, used
it in his oration over the dead body of Caesar to further his own
ends.
Taking Advantage of Ignorance. Just as a speaker may take advantage of
the prejudices and passions of an audience, so he may take advantage
of their ignorance. Against the blankness of their brains he may hurl
unfamiliar names to dazzle them, cite facts of all kinds to impress
them, show a wide knowledge of all sorts of things, "play up to them"
in every way, until they become so impressed that they are ready to
accept as truth anything he chooses to tell them. Any daily paper will
provide examples of the sad results of the power of this kind of
fallacious reasoning. The get-rich-quick schemes, the worthless stock
deals, the patent medicine quacks, the extravagantly worded claims of
new religions and faddist movements, all testify to the power this
form of seemingly convincing argument has over the great mass of the
ignorant.
The Fallacy of Tradition. In discussing the burden of proof it was
said that such burden rests upon the advocate of change, or novel
introductions, etc. This tendency of the people at large to be rather
conservative in practice links with the fallacy of tradition, the
belief that whatever is, is right. In many cases such a faith is worse
than wrong, it is pernicious. Many of the questions concerning
relations of modern society--as capital and labor--are based upon this
fallacy. Henry Clay was guilty of it when he announced, "Two hundred
years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as
property." The successful way to dispose of such a fallacy is
illustrated by William Ellery Channing's treatment of this statement.
But this property, we are told, is not to be questioned on
account of its long duration. "Two hundred years of
legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as
property." Nothing but respect for the speaker could repress
criticism on this unhappy phraseology. We will trust it
escaped him without thought. But to confine ourselves to the
argument from duration; how obvious the reply! Is injustice
changed into justice by the practice of the ages? Is my
victim made a righteous prey because I have bowed him to the
earth till he cannot rise? For more than two hundred years
heretics were burned, and not by mobs, not by lynch law, but
by the decrees of the councils, at the instigation of
theologians, and with the sanction of the laws and religions
of nations; and was this a reason for keeping up the fires,
that they had burned two hundred years? In the Eastern world
successive despots, not for two hundred years, but for twice
two thousand have claimed the right of life and death over
millions, and, with no law but their own will, have
beheaded, bowstrung, starved, tortured unhappy men without
number who have incurred their wrath; and does the lapse of
so many centuries sanctify murder and ferocious power?
Attacking a Speaker's Character or Principles. Sometimes a speaker who
finds himself unable to attack the truth of a proposition, or the
arguments cited to support it, changes his tactics from the
subject-matter to the opponent himself and delivers an attack upon his
character, principles, or former beliefs and statements. This is
called the _argumentum ad hominem_. In no sense is it really argument;
it is irrelevant attack, and should be answered in a clear accurate
demonstration of its unsuitability to the topic under consideration.
It is unworthy, of course, but it is a tempting device for the speaker
who can combine with it an appeal to the prejudices or passions of his
audience.
The author has seen the entire population of Rome agitated because in
a Senatorial debate one speaker attacked the family reputation of one
of his opponents--a matter which, even if true, certainly had nothing
to do with the bill under discussion. Political campaigns used to be
disgraced by a prevalence of such appeals for votes. We may pride
ourselves upon an advance in such matters, but there is still too much
of it to let us congratulate ourselves upon our political good
manners. You cannot ascribe bad faith to a man who argues now from a
different attitude from the one he formerly supported. Changes of
conviction are frequent in all matters. A man must be judged by the
reasons he gives for his position at any one time. Many a person, who
ten years ago would have argued against it, now believes a League of
Nations possible and necessary. Many a person who a few years back
could see no advantage in labor organizations is anxious now to join
an affiliated union.
If you find the suggestion of such an attack in any of your own
speeches, cast it out. If it is ever used against you, refute it by
the strength of arguments you deliver in support of your position.
Remove all assertions which do not relate to the debated topic. Make
your audience sympathize with your repudiation of the remarks of your
opponent, even though he has succeeded in delivering them.
Fallacies of Causal Relationship. The various fallacies that may be
committed under the relation of cause and effect are many. Just
because something happened prior to something else (the effect), the
first may be mistakenly quoted as the cause. Or the reverse may be the
error--the second may be assumed to be the effect of the first. The
way to avoid this fallacy was suggested in the discussion of
explanation by means of cause and effect where the statement was made
that two events must not be merely _sequential_, they must be
_consequential_. In argument the slightest gap in the apparent
relationship is likely to result in poor reasoning, and the consequent
fallacy may be embodied in the speech. When people argue to prove that
superstitions have come true, do they present clear reasoning to show
conclusively that the alleged cause--such as sitting thirteen at
table--actually produced the effect of a death? Do they _establish_ a
close causal relationship, or do they merely _assert_ that after a
group of thirteen had sat at table some one did die? Mathematically,
would the law of chance or probability not indicate that such a thing
would happen a little less surely if the number had been twelve, a
little more surely if fourteen?
Common sense, clear headedness, logical reasoning, and a wide
knowledge of all kinds of things will enable a speaker to recognize
these fallacies, anticipate them, and successfully refute them.
Methods of Refuting. Having found the fallacies in an argument you
should proceed to refute them. Just how you can best accomplish your
purpose of weakening your opponent's position, of disposing of his
arguments, of answering his contentions, must depend always upon the
particular circumstances of the occasion, of the material presented,
of the attitude of the judges or audience, of your opponent himself,
and of the purpose you are striving to accomplish. Practice,
knowledge, skill, will in such cases all serve your end. You should be
able to choose, and effectively use the best. It is impossible to
anticipate and provide for all the possibilities, but a few of the
most common probabilities and the methods of dealing with them can be
here set down.
Courteous Correction. In case of apparent error or over-sight you will
do well to be courteous rather than over-bearing and dictatorial in
your correction. Never risk losing an advantage by driving your
audience into sympathy for your opponent by any manner of your own. A
newspaper discussing the objections made to the covenant of the League
of Nations points out an over-sight in this way: "How did Senator Knox
happen to overlook the fact that his plan for compulsory arbitration
is embodied in Article XII of the proposed covenant?"
Refuting Incorrect Analogy. The caution was given that reasoning from
analogy must show the complete correspondence in all points possible
of the known from which the reasoning proceeds to the conclusion about
the unknown, which then is to be accepted as true. Unless that
complete correspondence is established firmly the speaker is likely to
have his carefully worked out analogy demolished before his eyes.
Notice how such refutation is clearly demonstrated in the following.
So it does; but the sophistry here is plain enough, although
it is not always detected. Great genius and force of
character undoubtedly make their own career. But because
Walter Scott was dull at school, is a parent to see with joy
that his son is a dunce? Because Lord Chatham was of a
towering conceit, must we infer that pompous vanity portends
a comprehensive statesmanship that will fill the world with
the splendor of its triumphs? Because Sir Robert Walpole
gambled and swore and boozed at Houghton, are we to suppose
that gross sensuality and coarse contempt of human nature
are the essential secrets of a power that defended liberty
against tory intrigue and priestly politics? Was it because
Benjamin Franklin was not college-bred that he drew the
lightning from heaven and tore the scepter from the tyrant?
Was it because Abraham Lincoln had little schooling that his
great heart beat true to God and man, lifting him to free a
race and die for his country? Because men naturally great
have done great service in the world without advantages,
does it follow that lack of advantage is the secret of
success?
GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS: _The Public Duty of Educated
Men_, 1877
Reducing Proof to Absurdity. A very good way of showing the
unreliability of an opposing argument is to pretend to accept it as
valid, then carrying it on to a logical conclusion, to show that its
end proves entirely too much, or that it reduces the entire chain of
reasoning to absurdity. This is, in fact, called _reductio ad
absurdum_. At times the conclusion is so plainly going to be absurd
that the refuter need not carry its successive steps into actual
delivery. In speaking to large groups of people nothing is better than
this for use as an effective weapon. It gives the hearers the feeling
that they have assisted in the damaging demonstration. It almost
seems as though the speaker who uses it were merely using--as he
really is--material kindly presented to him by his opponent. So the
two actually contribute in refuting the first speaker's position.
Congress only can declare war; therefore, when one State is
at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war. The
President and the Senate only can make peace; when peace is
made for one State, therefore, it must be made for all.
Can anything be conceived more preposterous, than that any
State should have power to nullify the proceedings of the
general government respecting peace and war? When war is
declared by a law of Congress, can a single State nullify
that law, and remain at peace? And yet she may nullify that
law as well as any other. If the President and Senate make
peace, may one State, nevertheless, continue the war? And
yet, if she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify
a treaty.
DANIEL WEBSTER: _The Constitution Not a Compact
between Sovereign States_, 1833
Lincoln could always use this method of _reductio ad absurdum_ most
effectively because he seldom failed to accentuate the absurdity by
some instance which made clear to the least learned the force of his
argument. Many of his best remembered quaint and picturesque phrases
were embodied in his serious demolition of some high-handed
presumption of a political leader.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves
justified to break up this government unless such a court
decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a
conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will
not abide the election of a Republican President! In that
supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and
then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will
be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my
ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I
shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"
ABRAHAM LINCOLN: _Cooper Union Speech_, 1860
Amplifying and Diminishing. Finally a good method of refuting the
claim of importance made for an opposing proposition is by amplifying
and diminishing. In plain terms this depends upon contrast in which
you reduce the value of the opposing idea and emphasize the value of
your own. An excellent use for this is as a rapid summary at the end
of your speech, where it will leave in the hearer's mind an impression
of the comparative value of the two views he has heard discussed, with
an inevitable sense of the unquestioned worth of one above the other.
Burke sums up his extended refutations of Lord North's plan for
dealing with America in these telling contrasts.
Compare the two. This I offer to give you is plain and
simple; the other full of perplexed and intricate mazes.
This is mild; that harsh. This found by experience effectual
for its purposes; the other is a new project. This is
universal; the other calculated for certain colonies only.
This is immediate in its conciliatory operation; the other
remote, contingent, full of hazard. Mine is what becomes the
dignity of a ruling people--gratuitous, unconditional--and
not held out as a matter of bargain and sale.
EDMUND BURKE: _Conciliation with America_, 1775
Position of Refutation in the Speech. The position of refutation in
the finished speech will depend always upon the nature of the
proposition, the exact method of the refutation, and the audience. If
you are making the only speech upon the proposition and you feel that
the audience may have a slight prejudice against what you are about to
urge, you may gain adherents at once by refuting at the beginning the
possible arguments in their minds. By this procedure you will clear
the field for your own operations. To change the figure of speech, you
erase from the slate what is already written there, so that you may
place upon it your own speech and its convictions.
If you are debating and the speaker just before you has evidently made
the judges accept his arguments, again you might remove that
conviction by refutation before you proceed to build up your own side.
If your regular arguments meet his squarely, proceed as you had
planned, but be sure when any reasoning you offer nullifies any he has
delivered, that you call the attention of the audience to the fact
that you have wiped out his score. In this way your constructive
argument and refutation will proceed together. You will save valuable
time.
Constructive Argument Is More Valuable than Refutation. Often the
rebuttal speeches of debate, coming at the close of the regular debate
speeches, seem reserved for all the refutation. This is certainly the
place for much refutation, certainly not all. The last speakers of the
rebuttal speeches should never rest content with leaving only
refutation in the hearers' minds. If they do, the debate may leave the
condition entirely where it was at the beginning, for theoretically
every argument advanced by either side has been demolished by the
other. After the rebuttal the last points left with the judges should
be constructive arguments.
In a single speech the refutation may be delivered in sections as the
demands of coherence and the opportunities for emphasis may suggest.
Here again, always make the last section a constructive one with
arguments in support of your proposition.
CHAPTER XII : DEBATING
PUBLIC SPEAKING By CLARENCE STRATTON
|