CHAPTER X : PROVING AND PERSUADING
What Argumentation Is. It is an old saying that there are two sides to
every question. Any speaker who supports some opinion before an
audience, who advances some theory, who urges people to do a certain
thing, to vote a certain way, to give money for charitable purposes,
recognizes the opposite side. In trying to make people believe as he
believes, to induce them to act as he advises, he must argue with
them. Argumentation, as used in this book, differs widely from the
informal exchange of opinions and views indulged in across the dinner
table or on the trolley car. It does not correspond with the usual
meaning of argue and argument which both so frequently suggest
wrangling and bickering ending in ill-tempered personal attacks.
Argumentation is the well-considered, deliberate means employed to
convince others of the truth or expediency of the views advocated by
the speaker. Its purpose is to carry conviction to the consciousness
of others. This is its purpose. Its method is proof. Proof is the body
of facts, opinions, reasons, illustrations, conclusions, etc.,
properly arranged and effectively presented which makes others accept
as true or right the proposition advanced by the speaker. Of course,
argumentation may exist in writing but as this volume is concerned
with oral delivery, the word speaker is used in the definition. So
much for the purpose and nature of argumentation.
Use of Argumentation. Where is it used? Everywhere, in every form of
human activity. Argumentation is used by a youngster trying to induce
a companion to go swimming and by a committee of world statesmen
discussing the allotment of territory. In business a man uses it from
the time he successfully convinces a firm it should employ him as an
office boy until he secures the acceptance of his plans for a
combination of interests which will control the world market. Lawyers,
politicians, statesmen, clergymen, live by argumentation. In the life
of today, which emphasizes so markedly the two ideas of individuality
and efficiency, argumentation is of paramount importance.
Any person can argue, in the ordinary sense of stating opinions and
views, in so far as any one can converse. But to produce good,
convincing argumentation is not so easy as that. The expression of
personal preferences, opinions, ideas, is not argumentation, although
some people who advance so far as to become speakers before audiences
seem never to realize that truth, and display themselves as pretending
to offer argumentation when they are in reality doing no more than
reciting personal beliefs and suggestions.
Cite instances of speakers who have indulged in such personal opinions
when they might or should have offered arguments.
While argumentation is not so easily assembled as running conversation
is, it may be made quite as fascinating as the latter, and just as
surely as a person can have his conversational ability developed so
can a person have his argumentative power strengthened.
Conviction. What should be the first requisite of a speaker of
argumentation? Should it be conviction in the truth or right of the
position he takes and the proposition he supports? At first thought
one would answer emphatically "yes." A great deal of discredit has
been brought upon the study of argumentation by the practice of
speakers to pretend to have opinions which in reality they do not
sincerely believe. The practical instance is the willingness of paid
lawyers to defend men of whose guilt they must be sure. Such criticism
does not apply to cases in which there are reasonable chances for
opposing interpretations, nor to those cases in which our law decrees
that every person accused of crime shall be provided with counsel, but
to those practices to which Lincoln referred when he recommended the
lawyer not to court litigation. Nor should this criticism deter a
student of public speaking from trying his skill in defense of the
other side, when he feels that such practice will help him in weighing
his own arguments. In every instance of this highly commendable double
method of preparation which the author has seen in classrooms, the
speaker, after his speech has been commented upon, has always declared
his real position and explained why he advocated the opposite. Even
school and college debating has been criticized in the same way for
becoming not an attempt to discover or establish the truth or right of
a proposition, but a mere game with formal rules, a set of scoring
regulations, and a victory or defeat with consequent good or bad
effects upon the whole practice of undergraduate debating. If such
contests are understood in their true significance, as practice in
training, and the assumption of conviction by a student is not
continued after graduation so that he will in real life defend and
support opinions he really does not believe, the danger is not so
great. The man who has no fixed principles, who can argue equally
glibly on any side of a matter, whose talents are at any man's command
of service, is untrustworthy. Convictions are worthy elements in life.
A man must change his stand when his convictions are argued away, but
the man whose opinions shift with every new scrap of information or
influence is neither a safe leader nor a dependable subordinate.
For the sake of the training, then, a student _may_ present arguments
from attitudes other than his own sincere conviction, but the practice
should be nothing more than a recognized exercise.
Because of its telling influence upon the opinion of others let us,
without further reservation, set down that the first essential of a
good argument is the ability to convince others. Aside from the
language and the manner of delivery--two elements which must never be
disregarded in any speech--this ability to convince others depends
upon the proof presented to them in support of a proposition. The
various kinds and methods of proof, with matters closely related to
them, make up the material of this chapter.
The Proposition. In order to induce argument, there must be a
proposition. A proposition in argument is a statement--a declarative
sentence--concerning the truth or expediency of which there may be
two opinions. Notice that not every declarative statement is a
proposition for argument. "The sun rises" is not a statement about
which there can be any varying opinions. It is not a proposition for
argument. But "Missionaries should not be sent to China," and "John
Doe killed Simon Lee," are statements admitting of different opinions
and beliefs. They are propositions for argument. No sane person would
argue about such a statement as "Missionaries are sent to China," nor
would any one waste time on such a statement as "Some day a man named
John Doe will kill a man named Simon Lee."
Although in common language we speak of arguing a question the student
must remember that such a thing is impossible. You cannot argue about
a question. Nor can you argue about a subject or a topic. The only
expression about which there can be any argument is a proposition. The
question must be answered. The resulting statement is then proved or
disproved. The topic must be given some definite expression in a
declarative sentence before any real argument is possible. Even when
the matter of argument is incorrectly phrased as a topic or question
you will find almost immediately in the remarks the proposition as a
sentence. "Should women vote?" may be on the posters announcing an
address, but the speaker will soon declare, "Women should vote in all
elections in the United States upon the same conditions that men do."
That is the proposition being argued; the question has been answered.
Kinds of Propositions. Certain kinds of propositions should never be
chosen for argumentation. Many are incapable of proof, so any speech
upon them would result in the mere repetition of personal opinions.
Such are: The pen is mightier than the sword; Business men should not
read poetry; Every person should play golf; Ancient authors were
greater than modern authors. Others are of no interest to contemporary
audiences and for that reason should not be presented. In the Middle
Ages scholars discussed such matters as how many angels could stand on
the point of a needle, but today no one cares about such things.
Propositions of Fact. Propositions fall into the two classes already
illustrated by the statements about missionaries in China and the
killing of Simon Lee. The second--John Doe killed Simon Lee--is a
proposition of fact. All argument about it would tend to prove either
the affirmative or the negative. One argument would strive to prove
the statement a fact. The other argument would try to prove its
opposite the actual fact. Facts are accomplished results or finished
events. Therefore propositions of fact refer to the past. They are the
material of argument in all cases at law, before investigation
committees, and in similar proceedings. Lincoln argued a proposition
of fact when he took Douglas's statement, "Our fathers, when they
framed the government under which we live, understood this question
just as well, and even better, than we do now," and then proved by
telling exactly how they voted upon every measure dealing with slavery
exactly what the thirty-nine signers of the Constitution did believe
about national control of the practice. Courts of law demand that
pleadings "shall set forth with certainty and with truth the matters
of fact or of law, the truth or falsity of which must be decided to
decide the case."
Propositions of Policy. Notice that the other proposition--Missionaries
should not be sent to China--is not concerned with a fact at all. It
deals with something which should or should not be done. It deals with
future conduct. It depends upon the value of the results to be secured.
It looks to the future. It deals with some principle of action. It is a
question of expediency or policy. It induces argument to show that one
method is the best or not the best. Propositions of expediency or policy
are those which confront all of us at every step in life. Which college
shall a boy attend? What kind of work shall a woman enter? How large
shall taxes be next year? Which candidate shall we elect? How shall we
better the city government? How shall I invest my money? What kind of
automobile shall I buy? What kind of will shall I make?
The answers to all such questions make propositions of expediency or
policy upon which arguments are being composed and delivered every
day.
In choosing propositions for argument avoid, 1, those which are
obviously truth; 2, those in which some ambiguous word or term covers
the truth; 3, those in which the truth or error is practically
impossible of proof; 4, those involving more than one main issue; 5,
those which do not interest the audience.
Wording the Proposition. The proposition should be accurately worded.
In law if the word _burglary_ is used in the indictment, the defense,
in order to quash the charge, need show merely that a door was
unlocked. The phrasing should be as simple and concise as possible.
The proposition should not cover too wide a field. Although these
directions seem self-evident they should be kept in mind continually.
When the proposition is satisfactory to the maker of the argument he
is ready to begin to build his proof. In actual speech-making few
arguments can be made as convincing as a geometrical demonstration but
a speaker can try to make his reasoning so sound, his development so
cogent, his delivery so convincing, that at the end of his speech, he
can exclaim triumphantly, "Quod erat demonstrandum."
Burden of Proof. Every argument presupposes the opposite side. Even
when only one speaker appears his remarks always indicate the
possibility of opposite views in the minds of some of the hearers. The
affirmative and negative are always present. It is frequently asserted
that the burden of proof is on the negative. This is no more correct
than the opposite statement would be. The place of the burden of proof
depends entirely upon the wording of the proposition and the statement
it makes. In general the burden of proof is upon the side which
proposes any change of existing conditions, the side which supports
innovations, which would introduce new methods. With the passage of
time the burden of proof may shift from one side to the other. There
was a time when the burden of proof was upon the advocates of woman
suffrage; today it is undoubtedly upon the opponents. At one period
the opponents of the study of Latin and Greek had the burden of proof,
now the supporters of such study have it. Other topics upon which the
burden of proof has shifted are popular election of Senators,
prohibition, League of Nations, self-determination of small nations,
the study of vocations, civics, and current topics in schools, an
all-year school term, higher salaries for teachers, the benefits of
labor unions, Americanization of the foreign born.
Evidence. One of the best ways of proving a statement is by giving
evidence of its truth. Evidence is made up of facts which support any
proposition. In court a witness when giving testimony (evidence) is
not allowed to give opinions or beliefs--he is continually warned to
offer only what he knows of the fact. It is upon the facts marshaled
before it that the jury is charged to render its verdict.
Direct Evidence. Evidence may be of two kinds--direct and indirect.
This second, especially in legal matters, is termed circumstantial
evidence. Direct evidence consists of facts that apply directly to the
proposition under consideration. If a man sees a street car passenger
take a wallet from another man's pocket and has him arrested at once
and the wallet is found in his pocket, that constitutes direct
evidence. Outside criminal cases the same kind of assured testimony
can be cited as direct evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence. In most cases in court such direct evidence
is the exception rather than the rule, for a man attempting crime
would shun circumstances in which his crime would be witnessed.
Indirect evidence--circumstantial evidence--is much more usual. It
lacks the certainty of direct evidence, yet from the known facts
presented it is often possible to secure almost the same certainty as
from direct evidence. In serious crimes, such as murder, juries are
extremely cautious about convicting upon circumstantial evidence.
There are many chances of error in making chains of evidence. In
indirect evidence a group of facts is presented from which a
conclusion is attempted. Suppose a boy had trouble with a farmer and
had been heard to threaten to get even. One day the man struck him
with a whip as he passed on the road. That night the farmer's barn was
set on fire. Neighbors declared they saw some one running from the
scene. Next day the boy told his companions he was glad of the loss.
Circumstantial evidence points to the boy as the culprit. Yet what
might the facts be?
In presenting arguments get as much direct evidence as possible to
prove your statements. When direct evidence cannot be secured, link
your indirect evidence so closely that it presents not a single weak
link. Let the conclusion you draw from it be the only possible one.
Make certain no one else can interpret it in any other way.
When you present evidence be sure it completely covers your
contention. Be sure it is clear. Be sure it fits in with all the other
facts and details presented. Do not let it conflict with usual human
experience. Consider the sources of your evidence. If you do not, you
can be certain your audience will. Are your sources reliable? Is the
information authoritative? Is it first-hand material, or merely
hearsay? Is it unprejudiced? Many of the other facts for evidence have
already been suggested in the chapter on getting material.
Two General Methods of Reasoning. Frequently the evidence to be used
in argumentation must be interpreted before it can be of any value,
especially when dealing with propositions of expediency or policy.
There are two general methods of reasoning. One is the inductive
method, the other the deductive.
Inductive Reasoning. When we discover that a certain operation
repeated many times always produces the same result we feel justified
in concluding that we can announce it as a universal law. After
thousands of falling bodies have been measured and always give the
same figures, scientists feel that they may state the law that all
falling bodies acquire an acceleration of 32.2 feet per second. This
illustrates the inductive method of reasoning. In this system we
reason from the specific instance to the general law, from the
particular experiment to the universal theory, from the concrete
instance to the wide principle.
All modern science is based upon this method--the experimental one.
All general theories of any kind today must--to be accepted--be
supported by long and careful consideration of all possible and
probable circumstances. The theory of evolution as applied to the
living things upon the earth is the result of countless observations
and experiments.
Hasty Generalization. The speaker cannot himself examine all the
specific instances, he cannot consider all the illustrations which
might support his position, but he must be careful of a too hasty
generalization. Having talked with a dozen returned soldiers he may
not declare that all American army men are glad to be out of France,
for had he investigated a little further he might have found an equal
number who regret the return to this land. He must base his general
statement on so many instances that his conclusion will convince not
only him, but people disposed to oppose his view. He must be better
prepared to show the truth of his declaration than merely to dismiss
an example which does not fit into his scheme by glibly asserting that
"exceptions prove the rule." He must show that what seems to
contradict him is in nature an exception and therefore has nothing at
all to do with his rule. Beginning speakers are quite prone to this
fault of too hasty generalization.
EXERCISES
1. Write down five general theories or statements which have been
established by inductive reasoning.
2. Is there any certainty that they will stand unchanged forever?
3. Under what circumstances are such changes made?
4. Can you cite any accepted laws or theories of past periods which
have been overturned?
Deductive Reasoning. After general laws have been established, either
by human experience or accepted inductive reasoning, they may be cited
as applying to any particular case under consideration. This passing
from the general law to the particular instance is deductive
reasoning. Deductive reasoning has a regular form called the
syllogism.
Major premise. All men are mortal.
Minor premise. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
If the three parts of a syllogism are correct it has absolute
convincing power. Most attempts to disprove its statement attack the
first two statements. Although it carries such an air of certainty it
is likely to many errors in use. An error like this is common:
All horses are animals.
All cows are animals.
Therefore, all cows are horses.
Explain the fallacy in this syllogism.
Quite as frequently the incorrect syllogism is of this kind.
The edge of a stream is a bank.
A bank is a financial institution.
Therefore, the edge of a stream is a financial institution.
You will comment upon this that its evident silliness would prevent
any speaker from using such a form in serious argument. But recall
that in the discussion of any idea a term may get its meaning slightly
changed. In that slight change of meaning lurks the error illustrated
here, ready to lead to false reasoning and weakening of the argument.
Certain words of common use are likely to such shifting
meanings--_republic, equality, representative, monarchy, socialistic_.
Any doubtful passage in which such an error is suspected should be
reduced to its syllogistic form to be tested for accuracy.
A representative of the people must vote always as they would vote.
A Congressman is a representative of the people.
Therefore, Congressmen must vote always as the people who elect them
would vote.
Is not the expression, _representative of the people_, here used in
two different senses?
When an argument is delivered, one of the premises--being a statement
which the speaker assumes everyone will admit as true--is sometimes
omitted. This shortened form is called an enthymeme.
Smith will be a successful civil engineer for he is a
superior mathematician.
Supply the missing premise. Which is it?
In the bald, simple forms here set down, the syllogism and enthymeme
are hardly suited to delivery in speeches. They must be amplified,
explained, emphasized, in order to serve a real purpose. The following
represent better the way a speaker uses deductive reasoning.
The appointing power is vested in the President and Senate;
this is the general rule of the Constitution. The removing
power is part of the appointing power; it cannot be
separated from the rest.
DANIEL WEBSTER: _The Appointing and Removing
Power_, 1835
Then Daniel Webster stated in rather extended form the conclusion that
the Senate should share in the removing proceedings.
Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification
reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all
republican liberty; that is, that the majority _must_
govern. In matters of common concern, the judgment of a
majority _must_ stand as the judgment of the whole.
DANIEL WEBSTER: _Reply to Calhoun_, 1853
Then, he argues, as these revenue laws were passed by a majority, they
must be obeyed in South Carolina.
Methods of Proof. In extended arguments, just as in detailed
exposition, many different methods of proof may be employed.
Explanation. Often a mere clear explanation will induce a listener to
accept your view of the truth of a proposition. You have heard men
say, "Oh, if that is what you mean, I agree with you entirely. I
simply didn't understand you." When you are about to engage in
argument consider this method of exposition to see if it will suffice.
In all argument there is a great deal of formal or incidental
explanation.
Authority. When authority is cited to prove a statement it must be
subjected to the same tests in argument as in explanation. Is the
authority reliable? Is he unprejudiced? Does his testimony fit in with
the circumstances under consideration? Will his statements convince a
person likely to be on the opposing side? Why has so much so-called
authoritative information concerning conditions in Europe been so
discounted? Is it not because the reporters are likely to be
prejudiced and because while what they say may be true of certain
places and conditions it does not apply to all the points under
discussion? The speaker who wants the support of authority will test
it as carefully as though its influence is to be used against him--as
indeed, it frequently is.
Examples. Where examples are used in argumentation they must serve as
more than mere illustrations. In exposition an illustration frequently
explains, but that same example would have no value in argument
because while it illustrates it does not prove. A suppositious example
may serve in explanation; only a fact will serve as proof. The more
inevitable its application, the more clinching its effect, the better
its argumentative value. Notice how the two examples given below prove
that the heirs of a literary man might be the very worst persons to
own the copyrights of his writings since as owners they might suppress
books which the world of readers should be able to secure easily.
While these examples illustrate, do they not also prove?
I remember Richardson's grandson well; he was a clergyman in
the city of London; he was a most upright and excellent man;
but he had conceived a strong prejudice against works of
fiction. He thought all novel-reading not only frivolous but
sinful. He said--this I state on the authority of one of his
clerical brethren who is now a bishop--he said that he had
never thought it right to read one of his grandfather's
books.
I will give another instance. One of the most instructive,
interesting, and delightful books in our language is
Boswell's _Life of Johnson_. Now it is well known that
Boswell's eldest son considered this book, considered the
whole relation of Boswell to Johnson, as a blot in the
escutcheon of the family.
THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY: _Copyright_, 1841
Analogy. In argument by analogy the speaker attempts to prove that
because certain things are known to be true in something that can be
observed they are likely to be true in something else which in so far
as it can be observed is quite like the first. We continually argue by
analogy in daily life. Lincoln was really using analogy when he
replied to the urging to change his army leaders during the Civil War,
that he didn't think it wise to "swap horses while crossing a
stream." Scientists use this method to draw conclusions when it is
impossible to secure from actual observation or experiment a certain
last step in the reasoning. The planet Mars and the earth are similar
in practically all observable matters; they are about the same
distance from the sun, they have the same surface conditions. The
earth has living creatures upon it. Hence--so goes the reasoning of
analogy--Mars is probably inhabited. Reasoning by analogy is used to
prove that universal suffrage is good for the United States because it
has been good for one particular state. A student may argue by analogy
that the elective system should be introduced into all high schools,
because it has been followed in colleges. It may be asserted that a
leading bank president will make a good university president, because
he has managed one complex institution. The essence of all good
reasoning by analogy is that the two things considered must be so
nearly alike in all that is known that the presumption of belief is
that they must also be alike in the one point the arguer is trying to
establish. This is the test he must apply to his own analogy
arguments.
Our community frowns with indignation upon the profaneness
of the duel, having its rise in this irrational point of
honor. Are you aware that you indulge the same sentiment on
a gigantic scale, when you recognize this very point of
honor as a proper apology for war? We have already seen that
justice is in no respect promoted by war. Is true honor
promoted where justice is not?
CHARLES SUMNER: _The True Grandeur of Nations_,
1845
Residues. The method of residues is frequently employed when the
speaker is supporting a policy to be carried out, a measure to be
adopted, a change to be instituted, or a law to be passed. Granting
the assumption that something must be done he considers all the
various methods which may be employed, disposes of them one by one as
illegal, or unsuited, or clumsy, or inexpedient, leaving only one, the
one he wants adopted, as the one which must be followed.
This is a good practical method of proof, provided the speaker really
considers _all_ the possible ways of proceeding and does show the
undesirability of all except the one remaining.
A speaker pleading for the installation of a commission form of city
control might list all the possible ways of city government, a
business manager, a mayor, a commission. By disposing completely of
the first two, he would have proven the need for the last. A good
speaker will aways go farther than merely to reach this kind of
conclusion. He will, in addition to disproving the unworthy choices,
strongly support his residue, the measure he wants adopted. In
supporting amounts of taxes, assessments, etc., this method may be
used. One amount can be proven so large as to cause unrest, another so
small as to be insufficient, a third to produce a total just large
enough to meet all anticipated expenses with no surplus for
emergencies; therefore the correct amount must be just larger than
this but not reaching an amount likely to produce the result caused by
the first considered. Used in trials of criminal cases it eliminates
motives until a single inevitable remainder cannot be argued away.
This may be the clue to follow, or it may be the last one of all
suspected persons. Burke considered several possible ways of dealing
with the American colonies; one he dismissed as no more than a "sally
of anger," a second could not be operated because of the distance, a
scheme of Lord North's he proved would complicate rather than settle
matters, to change the spirit of America was impossible, to prosecute
it as criminal was inexpedient, therefore but one way remained, to
conciliate the spirit of discontent by letting the colonies vote their
own taxes. It is interesting that what Burke described as the sally of
anger was the way the matter was actually settled--Great Britain had
to give up the American colonies.
This method is also called elimination.
Cause to Effect. Just as the explainer may pass from cause to effect
so may the arguer. Other names for this method are antecedent
probability and _a priori_ argument. In argument from a known cause an
effect is proven as having occurred or as likely to occur. In solving
crime this is the method which uses the value of the motives for crime
as known to exist in the feelings or sentiments of a certain accused
person. A person trying to secure the passage of a certain law will
prove that it as the cause will produce certain effects which make it
desirable. Changed conditions in the United States will be brought
forward as the cause to prove that the Federal government must do
things never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. Great
military organization as the cause of the recent war is used now in
argument to carry on the plea for the securing of peace by
disarmament.
The main difficulty in reasoning from cause to effect is to make the
relationship so clear and so close that one thing will be accepted by
everybody as the undisputed cause of the alleged effect.
Effect to Cause. In reasoning from effect to cause the reverse method
is employed. This is also termed argument from sign or the _a
posteriori_ method. In it, from some known effect the reasoning proves
that it is the result of a certain specified cause. Statistics
indicating business prosperity might be used as the effect from which
the arguer proves that they are caused by a high protective tariff. A
speaker shows the good effects upon people to prove that certain
laws--claimed as the causes--should be extended in application.
Arguments from effect to cause may be extremely far reaching; as every
effect leads to some cause, which is itself the effect of some other
cause, and so on almost to infinity. The good speaker will use just
those basic causes which prove his proposition--no more.
In actual practice the two forms of reasoning from cause to effect and
from effect to cause are frequently combined to make the arguments all
the more convincing. Grouped together they are termed causal
relations.
Persuasion. When a speaker has conclusively proven what he has stated
in his proposition, is his speech ended? In some cases, yes; in many
cases, no. Mere proof appeals to the intellect only; it settles
matters perhaps, but leaves the hearer cold and humanly inactive. He
may feel like saying, "Well, even if what you say is true, what are
you going to do about it?" Mathematical and scientific proofs exist
for mere information, but most arguments delivered before audiences
have a purpose. They try to make people do something. A group of
people should be aroused to some determination of purposeful thought
if not to a registered act at the time. In days of great stress the
appeal to action brought the immediate response in military
enlistments; in enrollment for war work; in pledges of service; in
signing membership blanks and subscription blanks; in spontaneous
giving.
Persuasion Produces a Response. The end of most argumentative speaking
is to produce a response. It may be the casting of a vote, the joining
of a society, the repudiation of an unworthy candidate, the
demonstrating of the solidarity of labor, the affiliating with a
religious sect, the changing of a mode of procedure, the purchasing of
a new church organ, the wearing of simpler fashions, or any of the
thousand and one things a patient listener is urged to do in the
course of his usual life.
When the speaker passes on from mere convincing to appealing for some
response he has passed from argumentation to persuasion. Nearly every
argumentative speech dealing with a proposition of policy shows first
what ought to be done, then tries to induce people to do it, by
appealing as strongly as possible to their practical, esthetic, or moral
interests. All such interests depend upon what we call sentiments or
feelings to which worthy--note the word _worthy_--appeals may
legitimately be addressed. Attempts to arouse unworthy motives by
stirring up ignorance and prejudice are always to be most harshly
condemned. Such practices have brought certain kinds of so-called
persuasion into well-deserved contempt. The high sounding spell-binder
with his disgusting spread-eagleism cannot be muzzled by law, but he may
be rendered harmless by vacant chairs and empty halls. Real eloquence is
not a thing of noise and exaggeration. Beginning speakers should avoid
the tawdry imitation as they would a plague.
Elements of Persuasion. What elements may aid the persuasive power of
a speech? First of all, the occasion may be just the right one. The
surroundings may have prepared the audience for the effect the speaker
should make if he knows how to seize upon the opportunity for his own
purpose. The speaker must know how to adapt himself to the
circumstances present. In other cases, he must be able to do the much
more difficult thing--adapt the circumstances to his purpose.
Secondly, the subject matter itself may prepare for the persuasive
treatment in parts. Everyone realizes this. When emotional impulses
are present in the material the introduction of persuasion is
inevitable and fitting, if not overdone.
Thirdly, the essence of persuasion depends upon the speaker. All the
good characteristics of good speaking will contribute to the effect of
his attempts at persuasion. A good speaker is sincere to the point of
winning respect even when he does not carry conviction. He is in
earnest. He is simple and unaffected. He has tact. He is fair to every
antagonistic attitude. He has perfect self-control. He does not lose
his temper. He can show a proper sense of humor. He has genuine
sympathy. And finally--perhaps it includes all the preceding--he has
personal magnetism.
With such qualities a speaker can make an effective appeal by means of
persuasion. If upon self-criticism and self-examination, or from
outside kindly comment, he concludes he is lacking in any one of these
qualities he should try to develop it.
EXERCISES
Prepare and deliver speeches upon some of the following or upon
propositions suggested by them. If the speech is short, try to employ
only one method of proof, but make it convincing. Where suitable, add
persuasive elements.
1. Make a proposition from one of the following topics. Deliver an
argumentative speech upon it. The next election. Entrance to college.
Child labor. The study of the classics. The study of science.
2. Recommend changes which will benefit your school, your club or
society, your church, your town, your state.
3. The Japanese should be admitted to the United States upon the same
conditions as other foreigners.
4. Men and women should receive the same pay for the same work done.
5. All church property should be taxed.
6. All laws prohibiting secular employment on Sunday should be
repealed.
7. The purely protective tariff should be withdrawn from goods the
manufacture of which has been firmly established in this country.
8. Large incomes should be subject to a graduated income tax.
9. Employers should not be forced to recognize labor unions.
10. Immigration into the United States of persons who cannot read or
write some language should be prohibited, except dependents upon such
qualified entrants.
11. An amendment should be added to the Constitution providing for
uniform marriage and divorce laws throughout the entire country.
12. A city is the best place for a college.
13. Military training should be obligatory in all public schools.
14. Colleges and universities should reduce the attention paid to
athletics.
15. The negro in the South should be disfranchised.
16. The number of Representatives in Congress should be reduced.
17. Moving pictures should be used in schools.
18. Street car systems should be owned and operated by municipalities.
19. Education should be compulsory until the completion of high
school.
20. Athletes whose grade is below 75% should be debarred from all
participation until the marks are raised.
21. The Federal government should own and operate the telegraph and
telephone systems.
22. The state should provide pensions for indigent mothers of children
below the working age.
23. The study of algebra (or some other subject) in the high school
should be elective.
24 The initiative should be adopted in all states.
25. The referendum should be adopted in all states.
26. All governmental officials should be subject to recall.
27. The public should support in all ways the movement of labor to
secure the closed shop system.
28. Railroad crossings should be abolished.
29. The Federal government should pass laws controlling all prices of
foodstuffs.
30. A trial before a group of competent judges should be substituted
for trial by jury.
CHAPTER XI : REFUTING
PUBLIC SPEAKING By CLARENCE STRATTON
|