Practical Argumentation - George K. Pattee (first ebook reader .TXT) 📗

To discover just what the proposition means, the arguer must weigh each word, carefully noting its meaning and its significance in the proposition. To neglect a single word is disastrous. An intercollegiate debate was once lost because the affirmative side did not take into consideration the words “present tendency” in the proposition, “Resolved, That the present tendency of labor unions is detrimental to the prosperity of the United States.” The negative side admitted everything that the affirmative established, namely, that unions are detrimental; and won by showing that their tendency is beneficial. In another college debate on the subject, “Resolved, That the United States should immediately dispose of the Philippines,” one side failed to meet the real point at issue because it ignored the word “immediately.” A thorough explanation of the proposition would have shown the limitations that this word imposed upon the discussion.

In the next place, the arguer should usually present to the audience a brief history of the matter in dispute. Many debatable subjects are of such a nature that the arguer himself cannot, until he Has studied the history of the proposition, fully understand what constitutes the clash in opinion between the affirmative and the negative sides. To understand the debate, the audience must possess this same information. A history of the idea contained in the proposition would be absolutely necessary to render intelligible such subjects as: “The aggressions of England in the Transvaal are justifiable”; “The United States should re-establish reciprocity with Canada”; “Football reform is advisable.”

In the last place, the arguer must give his audience all essential information concerning the matter in dispute. For example, if the proposition is, “Naturalization laws in the United States should be more stringent,” a mere definition of “naturalization laws” is not enough; the disputant must tell just what naturalization laws exist at the present time, and just how stringent they are to-day. Again, if the subject is, “The United States army should be enlarged,” the arguer must tell exactly how large the army is now. If the proposition is, “The right of suffrage should be further limited by an educational test,” the arguer must state what limits now exist, and he must also tell what is meant by “an educational test.” In a debate the work of the affirmative and of the negative differ slightly at this point. Since the proposition reads an educational test, the advocate for the affirmative has the privilege of upholding any sort of educational test that he wishes to defend, provided only that it comes within the limits of “an educational test.” He may say that the test should consist of a knowledge of the alphabet, or he may advocate an examination in higher mathematics; but he is under obligation to outline carefully and thoroughly some specific system. The negative, on the other hand, must be prepared to overthrow whatever system is brought forward. If the affirmative fails to outline any system, the negative has only to call attention to this fact to put the affirmative in a very embarrassing position.

The following quotations are good illustrations of how a proposition may be explained:—

The supremely significant and instructive fact, in the dealings of society with crime in our day, and one which has not been fully grasped as yet by the legal profession, not even by those who practice in criminal courts, and who should be familiar with it, is this: We have now two classes of institutions fundamentally distinct in character and purpose, both of which are designed by society, erected and conducted at public expense, for the purpose of dealing with criminals. The most numerous class of these institutions consists of prisons, in which to confine men for terms specified by the trial courts as penalties for their offenses. The laws, under which offenders are sentenced to these prisons, aim at classifying crimes according to the degree of guilt they imply, and assigning to each of them the penalty which it deserves. Thus, to these prisons are sent men sentenced to confinement for two, five, ten, fourteen, or thirty years, or for life, according to the name which the law attaches to the crime proved upon them; and each man, when he has served the prescribed term, is turned loose upon society. The other class of institutions includes what are known as “reformatories.” The fundamental principle here is that an offender is sent to them not for a term, but for a specified work. It is assumed that his character and habits unfit him for social life. For reasons to be found in his own nature, he cannot yet be trusted with freedom and the responsibilities of citizenship. But he may possess the capacity to become an honest, industrious, and useful citizen. To the reformatory, then, he is sent to be educated; to be trained to habits of industry; above all, to be disciplined in the habit of looking forward to the future with the consciousness that his welfare and happiness to-morrow depend on his conduct to-day, and that he is constantly shaping his own destiny. He is expected to remain until it satisfactorily appears that this training is effective, and he may then go forth with a prospect of leading an honest and respectable life. This, in brief, is the distinction between these two classes of institutions.

For a generation past, these two kinds of prisons have been standing side by side in New York, Massachusetts, and other States. Each of them has received many thousands of criminals under sentence for grave offenses. Each of them has sent out thousands of inmates into the world of human society, with whatever impress the life, teachings, and associations of the institutions could make upon their natures, as a preparation for their after career. What is the result? [Footnote: Charlton T. Lewis, in North American Review, August, 1904.]

Congress has at last decided that the long-talked-of canal shall be built, and shall be built at Panama. Those issues no longer confront us. The question now to be decided concerns the kind of canal that shall be constructed. Two plans have been suggested: the lock-canal plan and the sea-level plan. The advocates of the lock-canal plan aim to build a gigantic dam in the valley of the Chagres River; the enormous artificial lake thus formed being used as part of the passageway for the vessels. They say that this lake will be at an elevation of about eighty-five feet above mean sea-level; the passage to and from it will be made by means of canals at both ends, each canal containing three locks. Thus there will be, if this plan is adopted, six locks in the entire system. The canal will be of sufficient width and depth to accommodate vessels of such size as may be expected to be built when the canal is completed.

If the canal is built at sea-level, it will be of the same depth and width as the lock-canal, but it will be at the level of the sea throughout its entire length. Owing to the fact that the Atlantic and the Pacific have a difference in extreme level of twenty feet, an automatic tide-lock will have to be installed. A small lake will also be built, merely to divert the Chagres and to furnish light and power.

The question that now confronts us is, “Which plan should be adopted?”

ISSUES.

Following the discovery of the real meaning of the proposition, comes the finding of the issues. Whenever a man in business, professional, or political life, or in any circumstances whatsoever, must determine upon some policy or come to some decision regarding theoretical or practical matters, he formulates his belief and chooses his line of action in accordance with the answers that he makes to certain questions either consciously or unconsciously present in his mind. For instance, if he considers the purchase of a certain piece of real estate, he says to himself: “Is the price fair?” “Have I the money to invest?” “Can I sell or use the property to good advantage?” “How much pleasure shall I derive from it?” If he answers these questions in one way, the purchase is likely to be made; if in another, it is not. Again, a board of college trustees may be considering the abolishment of football. In arriving at a decision, they are confronted with these questions: “Is the game beneficial or detrimental to the player?” “How does it affect the college as a whole?” Those who favor the game will, of course, say that it is a benefit to the player and the whole college; while those who oppose it will maintain that it is a detriment to all concerned. But evidently the same questions must be met and answered by both sides. These questions are called issues.

Issues are subdivisions of the subject under discussion, and are always essentially the same for any given idea. The first requirement for the issues of any proposition is that they be comprehensive; that is, the sum of their ideas must equal the main idea expressed in the proposition. To those who are carrying on the discussion and to the audience, if there be one, it must be perfectly evident that these questions cover the entire field of controversy; that if these questions are satisfactorily answered in one way or the other, the discussion is settled and nothing remains to be said. The second requirement is that the issues consider only disputed matter. A question that gives rise to no disagreement, that admittedly has but one answer, is never an issue. Issues, therefore, may be defined as the questions that must be answered by both the affirmative and the negative sides of the proposition under discussion and that, if answered in one way, establish the proposition, and if answered in another way, overthrow it.

The issues of a proposition exist independently of the side that is being upheld. The affirmative will find the same issues as the negative, but it rarely happens that two men will divide a proposition in exactly the same manner and thus state the issues in precisely the same language. If, however, the work of both has been fair and complete, their issues will not vary in any important particular. For example, under the subject, “The Federal government should own and operate the railroads of the United States,” one person might give as issues:—

1. Has the government the right to take the roads without the consent of the present owners?

2. Is the government financially able to buy the roads?

3. Does the present system contain serious defects?

4. Will the proposed system remove these defects without bringing in new evils equally serious?

Another might state as issues:—

1. Is the proposed plan practicable?

2. Will it benefit the people?

The issues in both instances, however, are essentially the same, as questions one and two of the first list are equivalent to one of the second; and three and four of the first, to two of the second.

At this point it may be well to mention a common error that must be guarded against. It often happens that a question is stated as an issue which is not a subdivision of the proposition at all, but is the entire proposition itself, framed in slightly different language. Such would be the error if the question, “Would the change be desirable?” were used as an issue for the proposition, “All state colleges should abolish military drill”

It sometimes happens that one is forced to defend or attack what has been called a “combined proposition,” a proposition that contains two distinct subjects for argument. Such subjects are to be avoided as much as possible, but when they must be met, it is usually necessary to have two separate sets of issues. An example of such a proposition would be, “All American colleges and universities should adopt the honor