Elements of Debating Part 11

_Teams_.--The opposing teams in a debate usually consist of three persons each. A larger or smaller number is permissible.

_Time of Speaking_.--Each speaker is ordinarily allowed one constructive speech and one reb.u.t.tal speech. The constructive speech is usually about twice the length of the refutation. Twelve and six, ten and five, and eight and four minutes are all frequent time-limits for debates. Many debaters make shorter speeches.

_Order of speaking_.--The debate is opened by the affirmative. The first speaker is followed by a negative debater, who, in turn, is followed by a member of the affirmative team, and so on until the entire constructive argument is presented. A member of the negative team opens the refutation. Speakers then alternate until the debate is closed by the affirmative. The order of speakers on each team is often different in refutation than in constructive argument.

_Presiding chairman_.--Every debate should be presided over by a chairman. His duties are to state the question to the audience, introduce each speaker, and announce the decision of the judges. He sometimes also acts as timekeeper.

_Timekeepers_.--A timekeeper representing each of the competing organizations should note the moment when each speaker begins and notify the chair when the allotted time has been consumed. It is customary to give each speaker as many minutes of warning before his time expires as he may desire.

_Salutation_.--Good form in debating requires that each speaker shall begin with a salutation to the various personages whom he addresses.

The most common salutation is: "Mr. Chairman, worthy opponents, honorable judges, ladies and gentlemen."

_Reference to other speakers_.--In referring to members of the opposing team never say, "he said," "she said," or "they said." Always speak of your opponents in the third person in some such way as, "my honorable opponents," "the first speaker of the negative," "the gentlemen of the affirmative," or "the gentlemen from X."

In referring to other members of your own team say, "my colleagues,"

or "my colleague, the first speaker," etc.

_The judges_.--There are generally three judges. Where it is practicable, a larger number is desirable because their opinion is more nearly the opinion of the audience as a whole. Needless to say they should be competent and wholly without prejudice as to teams or question.

_The decision_.--The decision of each judge should be written on a slip and sealed in an envelope provided for that purpose (see Appendix IX, "Forms for Judges' Decision"). These should be opened by the chairman in view of the audience, and the decision announced.

LESSON X

A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM

We have now completed our study of debating. We saw first that all talking and writing is discourse, and that one great division of discourse--that which aims to gain belief--is argumentation.

Argumentation we divided into spoken and written argumentation. We found that it varies in formality but that, when carried on orally under prescribed conditions and with the expectation of having a decision rendered, it is called debating.

Successful debating we found to require three steps: showing the hearers what belief is desired; showing them upon what issues belief depends; and supporting these issues with evidence until we have established proof.

We learned that the first of these steps could be taken by stating the question in the form of a definite, single proposition; defining the terms of this proposition; and then restating the whole matter. We found that the second step required that the material that both sides admit, together with all other material that is really not pertinent to the question, should be first removed, and that the fundamentals of the question should be stated as the issues. The last step, proving the issues, we found to involve two processes. It was necessary, first, to find and select evidence, and, second, to arrange that evidence in logical order--the brief-form.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

The accompanying diagram is one that has helped many students to visualize more clearly what is attempted in a debate and to see how the debate may be made successful.

The doubt that the audience very reasonably has of the new idea proposed is bridged over by the proposition. But this proposition will not be strong enough to cause the minds of the listeners to pa.s.s from unbelief to belief unless it is well supported. The whole proposition is therefore placed upon one or two or three great capitals--the issues, under each of which is a pillar of proof. These pillars are composed of evidence of every sort. The intelligent debater has, however, before placing a single piece of this evidence in the proof, tested it carefully. He has tested it with the question: "Will it help bring conviction to the audience; how will it affect my hearers?"

Moreover, not satisfied with this scrupulous choice of evidence, he has been careful not to pile it in regardless of position, but to place each piece in the position where it will lend the strongest support to the entire structure.

When this has been done, the bridge of proof is built solidly upon the experience of the hearers, and, almost without their knowledge, their minds have gone from unbelief to belief.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Baker, _Principles of Argumentation_.]

[Footnote 2: Jevons, _Primer of Logic._]

[Footnote 3: For a thorough discussion of the principle of reference to experience, see Arthur E. Phillips, _Effective Speaking_, chap.

iii.]

[Footnote 4: Edmund Burke, _On Conciliation with the Colonies_.]

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE

INFORMATION

Practically every subject that is interesting enough to be a good subject for debate has been written about by other people. Every good library contains the books on the following list, and with a little experience the student can handle them easily. A general treatment of every important subject can be found in any of the following encyclopedias: _Americana, New International, Twentieth Century, Britannica_.

Everything that has been written upon every subject in all general, technical, and school magazines, can be found by looking up the desired topic in: _The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature_, or _Poole's Index_.

If the matter being studied deals with civics, economics, or sociology, look in: Bliss, _Encyclopaedia of Social Reform,_ etc.; Lalor, _Cyclopaedia of Political Science_, etc.; Larned, _History of Ready Reference and Topical Reading_; Bowker and lies, _Reader's Guide in Economics_, etc.

What Congress is doing and has done is often important. This can be found in full in: _The Congressional Record_.

Jones's _Finding List_ tells where to look for any topic in various government publications.

In studying many subjects the need of definite and reliable statistics will be felt. These may be found on almost any question in the following publications: _Statesman's Yearbook, Whitaker's Almanac, World Almanac, Chicago Daily News Almanac, Hazell's Almanac, U.S.

Census Reports_.

Never consider your reading completed until you have looked for any special book that may be written upon your subject in the Card Catalogue of your Library.

Make out a Bibliography or Reading List (as ill.u.s.trated briefly in Appendix V) before you proceed to actual reading.

APPENDIX II

ILl.u.s.tRATIONS OF a.n.a.lYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION

The two specimens that immediately follow are a.n.a.lyses of the same question by students of the same university. The first is a selection from the speech made by Mr. Raymond S. Pruitt in the Towle Debate of Northwestern University Law School in 1911. The second is the introduction to the speech made by Mr. Charles Watson of the Northwestern University Law School in the 1911 debate with the Law School of the University of Southern California. Students should observe how the two speakers determine somewhat different issues.

_Resolved_, That in actions against an employer for death or injury of an employee sustained in the course of an industrial employment the fellow-servant rule and the rule of the a.s.sumption of risk as defined and interpreted by the common law, should be abolished.