graduation exercises such as, Was Hamlet Mad? and Is the Belief in Immortality Rational?— are not adapted to first practice. Almost as objectionable are the new favorites concerning federal regulation of railway rates and municipal ownership of public utilities. Until a student is acquainted with the principles of argumentation, he will do well to confine his practice to familiar subjects. The following are good examples: Should first-year students be allowed to play on our college athletic teams? Should high school fraternities be prohibited? Should public libraries be open on Sundays? Any beginner in this study may find, among the propositions in the Appendix arranged for first practice, a few which are not too complicated or unfamiliar for his purpose.

VIII. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD BE PHRASED

BRIEFLY AND SIMPLY

The question should be phrased as briefly and simply as is consistent with the other requirements. One condition which often leads to complicated, clumsy, and otherwise objectionable propositions for intercollegiate contests is the custom of having each institution alternately choose the proposition, leaving the choice of sides to the other. This promotes a tendency to try to phrase propositions so that they shall not be evenly balanced, but shall seem so to the opponents until the choice of sides has been announced. Such trickery makes no appeal to the spirit of fair play, since it attempts to win the debate before the other side has a chance. And such trickery brings debating into ill repute, because the aim is victory rather than the pursuit of truth, and the resulting contest is often a mere quibble over the meaning of an intricate proposition.

Here many will raise the objection that formal debates are and must be unreal, that they seldom enlighten an audience as to the issues of the day, that their avowed aim is victory at any cost rather than the pursuit of truth, and that they are accordingly no preparation for the honest and serious purposes of life. These charges against intercollegiate debates as they have long been conducted are not without foundation. Concerning the remedies, we shall have something to say when we consider the subject of debating.

As soon as we have an interesting, debatable proposition, embodying one central idea which is not too broad, phrased briefly and definitely, free from ambiguous and general terms, and placing upon the affirmative the burden of proof, we are ready for the work of getting at the heart of the question.

SUMMARY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PHRASING THE PROPOSITION

1. It should be debatable.

2. It should not employ ambiguous words.

3. It should not be too broad.

4. It should embody one central idea.

5. It should give to the affirmative the burden of proof.

6. It should be interesting.

7. It should cover familiar ground for first practice. 8. It should be phrased briefly and simply.

SECOND CHAPTER

ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION

"As in any art, in argumentation use makes perfect, and he who is told he has promise as a debater will be wise to submit to severe training in the principles which underlie argumentation; nor should he allow himself to be led astray by that ignis fatuus of the weary or lazy student, the idea that because in his first careful study of the rules of the art he finds his work hampered by them, he is losing his individuality and may even work less well after his study than before. There is undoubtedly a stage in learning and applying laws of any art when, for a time, the student feels hampered by warnings for and against this or that, and longs for his old freedom of movement which certainly brought him large results. Gradually, however, the laws that were at first so hampering become a matter of course. When this stage in his work is reached, if he compares his result with the results of his labor before he studied at all, he will see his great gain. Certainly, only when a man has so thoroughly learned his art that instinctively he works rightly, can he be said to be master of it." G. P. BAKER.

SUCCESSFUL argumentation accomplishes three objects: (1) it sets forth in a way which is both clear and convincing just what must be done to establish or to overthrow the proposition, (2) does this by convincing arguments, and (3) arouses in connection with these arguments emotions of sufficient strength to move the will. First of all, then, an argument should show definitely and clearly the work that must be done. It should find all the central ideas and exclude all else. In other words, it should first expound the main issues, which are the points upon which the truth of the proposition depends. This, then finding the main issues — is the most important work of what is called, in argument, the Introduction.

To prove these main issues is to establish the proposition; to disprove them is to overthrow the proposition. If the Introduction appears to be unprejudiced, and to set forth the issues clearly, the audience will agree that a speaker who succeeds in presenting a preponderance of proof on these issues establishes his case. They cannot rationally withhold from him their verdict. He virtually says to them at the outset, “If I can prove these points, I can prove the proposition." The audience nods approval. He then proceeds with his argument, making it clear along the way that he is doing just what they agreed he ought to do, to win. In the end he sums up what he has done, and demands the verdict.

If, on the other hand, a speaker arbitrarily selects certain phases of a proposition without satisfying his audience that he has chosen those phases on which the whole proposition hinges, he may accomplish all that he attempts, he may do it well, and yet lose the verdict of his audience. For, if he thus launches at once into the body of the argument, neglecting the preliminary analysis of the question, he may leave the audience objecting in the end, "How do we know that you have done all that is necessary to prove the proposition? Have you really taken up the important arguments on the other side? Why have you not dealt with this particular point?" The objections may be easily answered, or they may have no effective bearing on the question, but if a speaker has failed to anticipate them and clear them away, they are fatal.

These main issues exist within the question itself; they are independent of the will or skill of any individual; they are to be discovered by thorough study of the question, not selected to suit either side. It is true that in the work of convincing a particular group of persons,

the relative importance of the issues to this group determines the selection and the emphasis to be placed upon them. But in the preliminary investigation, the issues are to be found within the question itself, regardless of any special audience.

It is absurd to suppose that the number of main issues can be arbitrarily determined by the number of speakers on a team. Yet, in preparing intercollegiate debates, men have said: "There are three speakers on the team; therefore we shall divide the question into three parts: one speaker will take the legal aspect, one the economic aspect, and one the moral aspect." The discovery of the main issues is no such easy matter. Neither is it possible to find a fixed number of issues of equal importance. Frequently one issue outweighs all the others. As an example, take the question whether the Hay-Bond Treaty regarding the Grand Banks fisheries should be ratified by the United States. Here the economic aspect overshadows all others. Again, in the question whether religion should be taught in public schools, sectarian narrowness renders the practicability of the plan the paramount issue. This arbitrary method of selecting issues for a formal team debate, therefore, may involve the following errors: (a) inventing topics for discussion which are not real issues; (b) ignoring one or more real issues; (c) confusing issues which should be kept distinctly separate, and (d) placing on the issues disproportionate emphasis.

As issues are points of controversy, they can be found only by placing the arguments held by one side against those held by the other side. Clearly, then, all the issues can be found only by thus contrasting all the arguments of both sides. In this study no relevant matter is too insignificant to deserve attention. A point that is over