i DEBATE

Glenn [Link]/Thelma Robnck Capp

A practical, step-by-step introduction to the lively art of
argumentation, its principles, practices, and philosophy
The debater learns to debate by debating:
but first he must know what principles to
apply and how others have applied them.
Insight into one of man’s most fascinat¬
ing exercises in reason and persuasion is
given in this step-by-step introduction
to debating.

This is a practical book, to the point, and

immediately useful. It omits ancillary
information which is not directly applic¬
able to the philosophy, preparation, com¬
position, and presentation of the educa¬
tional debate.

The authors, first of all, stress that the

student of argumentation must become
a scholar, an investigator, a seeker for
facts and basic understanding. Then he
learns how to evaluate his findings;
finally, he acquires facility in advocating
the results of his findings and evaluation.
But he must know all sides of the subject
before he can advocate one side intel¬
ligently.

Although the procedural principles for

educational debate come from the many
life situations of advocacy, the authors
emphasize the legal background, a factor
frequently slighted in other volumes on
argumentation.

Stressing the importance of proper prep¬

aration, the book shows the reader
how to find, analyze, and evaluate his
material; how to use evidence, reasoning,
(continued on back flap)
 41318
808.55
C173P

C173P

THE JOHN J. WRIGHT LIBRARY

LA ROCHE COLLEGE
9000 Babcock Boulevard
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15237
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2020 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

[Link]
Principles
of Argumentation
and Debate
PRENTICE-HALL INTERNATIONAL, INC., London
PRENTICE-HALL OF AUSTRALIA, PTY., LTD., Sydney
PRENTICE-HALL OF CANADA, LTD., TorOntO
PRENTICE-HALL OF INDIA (PRIVATE) LTD., New Delh
PRENTICE-HALL OF JAPAN, INC., TokyO
Principles
of Argumentation
and Debate

Glenn R. Capp
Director of Forensics
Professor and Chairman
Department of Oral Communication
Baylor University

Thelma Robuck Capp

Associate Professor of Speech
Baylor University

dOS.b^

Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, Nexv Jersey

Current printing (last digit):
11 10 9 8 7 6 5

©Copyright 1965 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

All rights reserved. No part of this book

may be reproduced in any form,
by mimeograph or any other means,
without permission in writing from the publishers.

4-(3/8
Printed in the United States of America [70558-C]

Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 65-16583

The John J. Wright Library

LA ROCHE COLLEGE
9000 Babcock Bn ulpwarrt
To the memory of Dr. L. W. Courtney
colleague, co-author,
and friend of debaters everywhere
 4
%

\
5^

( 4i

-jm~ ^ -1 ^

5 -.

t:
 Preface

Facility in argumentation requires a knowledge of principles,

study of model arguments, and guided practice. This text stresses
principles but also outlines a program for cooperative group study
and practice.
Part I shows wdiy the debater must first become a scholar—an
investigator, a searcher for factual information, an evaluator. He
must know all sides of the subject before he can advocate one side
intelligently. A program of study that employs discussion enables
a large number of students to cooperate in becoming informed on
the subject prior to debate.
Part II presents in two concise chapters the procedural principles
of advocacy and the proposition. The simulated procedural prin¬
ciples of educational debate have few direct parallels in life situa¬
tions of advocacy. They come partly from the procedures employed
in courts of law and partly from those used by deliberative bodies.
Knowledge about these principles must precede participation in
debate because it gives purpose and direction to the study.
Part III, “Preparing for Argumentation and Debate,” receives
major emphasis because we believe that proper preparation con¬
stitutes the most important requirement for intelligent advocacy.
The seven chapters take the student step by step through the
process of preparation in the approximate order in which he en¬
counters the problems. He begins by finding and evaluating his
material; then he moves through successive steps to analyze the
proposition, find and evaluate his evidence, formulate his argu¬
ments, build and brief his case, and prepare for rebuttal and
refutation.
Some subjects which might be treated indejjendently are inte¬
grated into other chapters so that the material can be better
understood. For example, fallacies form a part of the chapters on

vii
Vlll PREFACE

evidence, reasoning, and refutation. The study of strategy, with

emphasis upon thorough preparation, is diffused throughout the
text. Ethical and emotional proofs, although not developed in
separate chapters, permeate the discussions of both preparation and
presentation.
Part IV develops those principles of presentation applicable to
oral argument: delivery skills, principles of oral argument, atti¬
tudes of debaters and listeners, ethical factors in advocacy, rhetorical
principles applicable to argument,>.stage conduct, and delivery
mannerisms. The persuasive factors of advocacy are applied to the
principal audiences: public, tournament, and television.
The oral assignments employ progressive stages designed to utilize
discussion for preparation for debate. They conclude with a class¬
room tournament in which each student participates in at least
four debates. The collateral readings provide a wide range of
supplementary materials, including the latest texts as well as some
of the better older volumes. The appendix, a printed version of
a television debate, should be assigned for analysis following a
study of the text.
This text is based in part upon Practical Debating by Luther W.
Courtney and Glenn R. Capp, published by J. B. Lippincott Com¬
pany in 1949. It includes several new chapters, a revision of other
chapters, and a rewriting and updating of all the material. Grateful
acknowledgment is made to the J. B. Lippincott Company and to
the late Mrs. L. W. Courtney for permission to use the older
volume as desired. Our debt is great to the late Dr. Courtney,
to whom we affectionately dedicate this volume.
We are indebted to our many students, past and present, and to
our colleagues on the faculty for their encouragement and helpful
suggestions. Lastly, we expiess appreciation to the many publishers
and individuals for permission to quote brief excerpts from copy¬
righted materials. These sources are listed in footnotes throughout
the text.

G. R. C.
T. R. C.
 Contents

I Discussion as Preliminary to Debate 1

1 The Relation of Discussion and Debate to
Problem Solving, 3

2 The Use of Discussion in Preparing for Debate, 19

II The Processes of Argument and Debate 39

3 Applying Debate Procedures, 41

4 Selecting and Phrasing the Debate Proposition, 54

III Preparing for Argument and Debate 65

5 Finding and Evaluating Material, 67

6 Analyzing the Proposition, 82

7 Applying and Evaluating Evidence, 102

8 Reasoning Logically, 122

9 Applying Deductive Forms, 138

10 Briefing the Debate Case, 152

11 Preparing for Rebuttal and Refutation, 167

IV Presenting the Debate 187

12 Presenting the Debate Case, 189

13 Adapting Debates to Public Audiences,

Tournaments, and Television, 211

Appendix 223
A National Television Debate, 225

Index, 239

IX
 t• I

■<•■ •* %
^ Jrti*, *J

■ 4 « [Link] “

•( ’ Vi>l*

fW*r »\^¥i
MM
H ■
I * %lnMD

it.,
Principles
of Argumentation
and Debate
I
Discussion as
Preliminary to Debate
: ■»

1'
V.

J
I

i,*
 The Relation
of Discussion and Debate
to Problem Solving

Among famous Americans, former President Franklin D. Roose¬

velt stands out for his effective use of discussion and debate.
Whether or not one agrees with his political philosophy, almost
all will agree that he used discussion and debate extensively and
effectively to foster his program. From his early life experiences,
four events indicate how discussion and debate relate to problem
solving and how they combine to serve a free society.
The first event concerns his school debates as a student in Groton,
Harvard, and Columbia. A letter to his mother dated February
28, 1899, shows his enthusiasm for securing material: “I am to
debate next Monday evening. . . . The subject is: Resolved that
the United States and England should guarantee the integrity of
China. We are Con, against it, and if you happen to see any articles
about it one way or the other we would be pleased to have them.” ^
How did Roosevelt prepare for his educational debates? First,
he and his fellow debaters exchanged ideas and evidence through
informal discussion, which served as a cooperative means for prepa¬
ration and a supplement to individual research and study. After
careful preparation, discussions were held to determine such ques¬
tions as: ‘‘What issues should comprise our case?” ‘‘What argu¬
ments should be included under each issue?” ‘‘What evidence
should be used for each argument?”
Differences of opinion arose at these discussion sessions, but
compromises were reached through cooperative deliberation and

1 Elliott Roosevelt, F.D.R.: His Personal Letters (New York: Duell, Sloan &
Pearce, Inc., 1947), I, 272.

3
4 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

informal argument. In upholding their side of the proposition in

the debate, Roosevelt and his colleagues were no longer tentative
and in doubt. They knew exactly what arguments they planned
to use and how they intended to develop them; now they advanced
the arguments to prove their predetermined cases. This first inci¬
dent reflects three steps in the use of discussion and argument for
educational debates: (1) Through cooperative deliberation, the
debaters used discussion to help prepare for their debates. (2) Again
through discussion and informal ar^ment, they decided on their
case. (3) Finally, through debate, they became all-out advocates of
one side of the proposition.
In 1907, Roosevelt joined the law firm of Carter, Ledyard, and
Milburn of New York City. When assigned a case for trial, he ar¬
ranged conferences with his client to determine the facts. Next
followed conferences with members of his law firm to decide how
he should plead the case. Differences arose in these discussions,
but through compromise, a plan of action was determined. Finally,
defending his client in court, Roosevelt no longer considered how
to plead or establish his case; rather, he presented the strongest
case possible for his client in keeping with the decisions arrived at
in the prior conferences. This second incident shows three distinct
acts of discussion and argument in preparing for legal debates:
(1) Through discussion with his client, Roosevelt ascertained the
facts. (2) Through discussion with his fellow lawyers, he decided
on his case. (3) Through debate, he argued his case before the jury
and judge.
In 1910, Roosevelt announced his candidacy for the New York
Senate. He first decided on his staff and campaign managers and
then called them together for a series of conferences in which
discussion was used for exchanging ideas and planning the cam¬
paign. The resultant plans were developed through the sharing of
information and group problem solving. Finally, during the cam¬
paign, he presented his case and answered his opponent’s argu¬
ments. This third incident in Roosevelt’s life emphasizes how
discussion and argument apply to political debates: (1) He used dis¬
cussion with his staff to discover the facts and decide on the cam¬
paign issues. (2) He used discussion and informal argument with
his managers to decide how to advance his position. (3) Finally, he
used debate when he presented his stand on the issues and refuted
his opponent’s charges.
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 5

Roosevelt won his race for the New York Senate and soon be¬
came the leader of a group of eighteen senators called “the mu¬
tineers,” so termed because of their opposition to Tammany Hall’s
political machine. An opportunity to display their forensic skills
came early in 1911 when Tammany Hall’s “Boss” Murphy sup¬
ported “Blue-Eyed Billy” Sheehan to succeed Republican Chauncey
M. Depew as United States senator. At this time United States
senators were chosen by the state legislatures. The insurgent
Democrats strongly opposed the selection of Sheehan and began
their campaign to defeat his appointment with regular meetings
at Roosevelt’s home, where they first discussed the issues and facts
of their case. Next, they discussed the arguments that they planned
to use in opposition to Sheehan’s election. Finally came the debates
on the Senate floor in which Roosevelt and his colleagues argued
the cases that they had formulated. So intense was the fight that
the debates dragged on at intervals for three months and through
sixty-four ballots before a compromise candidate was elected. This
fourth incident shows how problem solving goes through three
stages in legislative debates: (1) Discussion was used to exchange
views on the issues of the controversy. (2) Discussion and informal
argument were used to decide the arguments and strategy for the
forthcoming debates. (3) Debate was used to defeat the proposal
on the Senate floor.
These four events indicate factors important to students of argu¬
mentation: (1) the stages of problem solving and resolution of
conflict, (2) the areas for applying discussion and debate to life
situations, (3) the values derived from a study of debate, and (4)
the requirements for developing facility in oral argument.

Stages of Problem Solving

Some controversy prevails as to whether debate is primarily an

investigative-evaluative procedure or a propagative method. One
school of thought states that the debater should be primarily an
objective analyzer, a searcher for factual information, a seeker for
the best solution. Others believe that the debater should be
primarily a subjective analyzer, a searcher for favorable evidence,
an advocate of one solution. The controversy cannot be resolved
into an “either-or” proposition. Rather, problem solving should
be looked upon as involving progressive stages. First, the debater
6 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

seeks objective analysis and understanding; second, he evaluates

the best arguments on all sides; and finally, he becomes an advocate
of one particular side.

Discussion as a preparation process

As a debater, first approach your subject objectively and dispas¬

sionately. Become an investigator, a seeker, an analyzer. You can¬
not become a truly effective advocat^- unless you know all sides of
your subject thoroughly, opposing arguments as well as your own.
At this stage, you ask, “What does the proposition mean?” “What
fundamental issues apply?” “What is the factual evidence?” You
must be objective before you can be effectively subjective.
Discussion as a cooperative endeavor can be invaluable in
preparing for all areas of debate. It is not a substitute for inde¬
pendent investigation and research, but instead an additive factor
in preparation whereby the participants can pool their facts and
reflective thoughts.

Discussion as a problem-solving method

The second stage of the foregoing incidents shows why you must
make preliminary decisions before formulating a case of advocacy:
for educational debates, decide upon the best arguments and
evidence for the cases; for courtroom debates, agree on how to
plead the case; for campaign debates, determine the issues of the
platform; for legislative debates, decide upon the strongest argu¬
ments and evidence. All these decisions can be reached through
concessions and compromise, often without formal debate and vote.
This stage concerns such questions as “What should be done?”
“What constitutes the valid arguments for our side?” “What is the
best evidence to prove the case?”
The methods employed in this stage are a combination of dis¬
cussion and debate; through discussion, the debaters exchange
ideas and information; through informal debate, they decide on
arguments and evidence for their cases. The attitude of the par¬
ticipants at this stage distinguishes their methods from those of
formal advocacy. They have a questioning attitude; “What is the
best case?” In formal debate, they have a positive attitude: “Ours
is the best case.”
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 7

Debate as a conflict-resolving process

There comes a time when the debater must cease his investiga¬
tion; he must become an all-out advocate, a propagator of ideas.
He must marshal his best arguments and evidence to prove a case
for his side.
Almost everyone will agree that discussion constitutes the best
approach to problem solving, but realistic people will also agree
that not all problems can be solved that way. Our feelings may be
too strong to permit concessions; our personal interests may prevent
compromise. Some problems must be submitted to a third party for
solution—the jury, the legislative body, the electorate, the judges.
These situations call for advocacy; opposing debaters present the
case for their side to a third group for decision. The advocate asks
not “What are all the facts?’’ but “What are the facts favorable to
my cause?” and not “What are all the arguments?” but “What
arguments favor my position?” Thus, the debater on the platform
becomes an advocate, not an investigator.

Strife as a conflict-resolving method

If the foregoing methods for solving problems and resolving

conflicts fail or are not available for use, belligerent methods will
be employed—labor will strike against management, industry will
boycott labor, individuals will resort to mob violence, and nations
will go to war. The resort to violence will become less frequent as
the peaceful methods—discussion and debate—are perfected. A
healthy attitude toward problem solving consists of a high regard
for the methods of discussion and debate and active vigilance in
seeking ways to improve them.

Areas of Application ^

Studies in discussion and debate are not ends in themselves, but

they offer training for life situations of cooperative deliberation
and advocacy. To insure the equitable solution of problems, skilled

2 Based on Glenn R. Capp, “Discussion and Debate in Life Activities,” The

Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 38, No. 199
(January, 1954), 67-70.
8 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

arbitrators and advocates become essential. Certain situations, es¬

pecially, demand people skilled in these processes.

Courts of law

Courts of law provide the nearest approach to justice that we

have been able to devise. They make possible a means for free
people to settle their own disputes. Such people believe the courts,
with all their shortcomings, to be superior to dictatorial decrees.
Courts of law make liberal use of both discussion and debate.
A citizen recently summoned to serve on the jury panel for the
week was listening to the judge’s instructions concerning the jury
panel’s rights and obligations when some lawyers entered the court¬
room and called the judge aside. Upon returning to the jury panel,
the judge announced that the case on docket had been settled and
that the jury was dismissed.''* The litigants had settled their dif¬
ferences outside of court by use of discussion; without discussion
the trial would have been inevitable. The compromise was effected
by lawyers skilled in cooperative deliberation. Numerous cases are
settled outside the court through the methods taught in college
classes in discussion and debate. One prominent attorney reported
that he settled more than ninety per cent of his legal cases outside
the courtroom.
Some legal disputes cannot be settled without debate. As long
as people govern themselves, conflict arises. A person involved in
conflict has the right to have his side of the controversy presented
to a jury that he has helped select. To withhold this right is to
deny the democratic process, and unless skilled advocates repre¬
sent both sides, injustice may result. Discussion and debate classes
afford invaluable training for this life situation. Walter Lippmann
sums up the matter in these words: “We may picture the true spirit
of freedom as existing in a place like a court of law, where witnesses
testify and are cross-examined, where the lawyer argues against the
opposing lawyer before the same judge and in the presence of one
jury.’’ 4

3 See Glenn R. Capp, Hoiv to Communicate Orally (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 307.
4 Walter Lippmann, “The Indispensable Opposition,” Atlantic (August, 1939),
p. 188.
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 9

Legislative assemblies

Policy-making groups constitute a second important field where

discussion and debate perform essential functions. Legislative bodies
provide the nearest approach that we have found for securing
equitable public policies. The other possible approaches are
anarchy on one end of the continuum and dictatorship on the
other, both untenable in a free society. Anarchy is characterized
by skepticism, doubt, confusion, and disorder—the absence of
organized authority; dictatorship is characterized by force, orders,
commands, and blind obedience—complete authority. In both ex¬
tremes discussion and debate are not needed to solve problems.
Democracy, the common-sense middle ground, makes use of both
discussion and debate as the principal methods by which people
govern themselves. Many public policies can be settled in confer¬
ences, through agreement, by utilizing discussion principles. If
disagreement becomes too intense to permit agreement through dis¬
cussion, the problem must be submitted to a third body for deci¬
sion through debate. College classes in argumentation and debate
provide the training for organizing thoughts, weighing evidence,
and analyzing problems so essential for decision in policy-determin¬
ing groups.

Political campaigns
Since 1832, when the national party conventions were established
in the United States, political campaigning has been an important
type of debate. Platform committees spend long hours in discus¬
sion and informal debate to determine the party issues. Debate
continues at the conventions in the adoption of the party platform
and the selection of candidates. Then the standard bearers wage
vigorous campaigns for votes. The majority of campaign speeches
take the form of indirect debates; rather than meeting on a com¬
mon platform, the candidates answer campaign claims and promises
made by opposing candidates in previous speeches.
There have been notable cases of face-to-face debates in which
the candidates met on a common platform. The famous Lincoln-
Douglas debates, with slavery as the primary issue, during the
senatorial campaign of 1858 were the first between major national
candidates. William Jennings Bryan won the Democratic nomina-
10 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

tion at the 1896 national convention partly because of his effective

debating on the issue of bimetallism. More recently, John F. Ken¬
nedy and Richard Nixon engaged in a series of four face-to-face
debates over national television networks in the presidential cam¬
paign of 1960. Political experts predict that such debates will play
an increasingly important part in future campaigns. Although
President Lyndon B. Johnson and Senator Barry Goldwater did
not meet in face-to-face debates in the 1964 presidential campaign,
they used television extensively for indirect debates in waging their
campaigns. Television debates serve well in acquainting the elec¬
torate with the personalities of the candidates and the issues of
the campaign.

Everyday activities

The necessity for discussion and debate may be found in the

everyday activities of the citizens in a democracy—the student
presents his case for a stronger student government, the minister
advocates the adoption of the church budget, the school super¬
intendent presents his proposal for expansion, and the housewife
presents her arguments for new draperies. The citizen in a democ¬
racy gets much of what he wants through conferences, utilizing
discussion principles. If he fails with discussion methods, he has
the alternative of presenting his case before the body that has the
power of decision. Training in debate for such situations is in¬
valuable.

Educational institutions

Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century, inter¬

collegiate debating has become a part of the programs of almost
all colleges and universities. Thousands of students now receive
training for cooperative deliberation and advocacy in college classes
and through intercollegiate forensic programs.
McBurney and Hance emphasize the importance of this train¬
ing as follows: “Legislative, political, and judicial debates occupy
the time and attention of some of our greatest minds and affect
the lives and well-being of millions of people. . . . We believe
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 11

that any realistic conception of democracy must admit a place for

the trained advocate.” ®

Values of Debate Training

The values of training in argumentation and debate do not end

with the college class or with the close of the intercollegiate debate
program. On the campus, on the streets, in church, in society, in
business, and in politics, a person is constantly confronted with
the necessity of influencing human behavior. The extent of that
influence will be determined in part by his ability to investigate a
question thoroughly, to think clearly, to reason logically, and to
present views clearly and convincingly. Seven rewarding benefits
bear special emphasis.

Background knoivledge of current problems

The first value of a study in argumentation and debate comes

from the knowledge acquired on current problems. Almost any
former college debater will say that of all his college studies, he
remembers most clearly the information he worked out for him¬
self in preparing for debates. To argue intelligently, one must ob¬
tain a fundamental understanding of current economic, social, and
political problems. The procedures of debating a national topic
many times each year stress the necessity of thorough knowledge;
those who attempt to get by with only a surface understanding are
soon exposed. This creation of interest in and understanding of
current problems leads to intelligent citizenship.

Critical decision making

Almost all citizens in a free society must make countless decisions

each day. Some decisions relate to inconsequential personal matters;
others decide our destiny. Some people decide matters quickly,
without a careful weighing of the issues and evidence available to
them. Emotional impulses, habitual patterns of thinking, customs,
and traditions play a large part in their decisions. Others delay
making decisions, attempting to justify their habits of indecision

5 James H. McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance, The Principles and Methods of

Discussion (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1939), p. 277.
12 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

by an exaggerated thoroughness in weighing all the evidence.

Critical decision making lies between these extremes. The critical
thinker carefully analyzes and weighs the available evidence and
decides resolutely on the basis of fact and reason. He varies his
standard of evaluation to meet specific problems rather than de¬
ciding all matters by set patterns. The preparation for advocacy,
both individually and through discussion with others, gives valu¬
able training in critical decision making.

Investigation of a subject

A third value of a study of argumentation and debate comes

from the training it provides in research. One cannot prepare ade¬
quately for debate without learning how to use the library and
how to find material from other sources. Finding material con¬
stitutes only part of the problem; a debater must also analyze the
material—decide what it means and how it applies to the proposi¬
tion. Since everything he reads cannot be accepted at face value,
the debater must learn to make discriminating choices, to evaluate
what he finds. The ability to separate the important from the
trivial, to distinguish the objective from the subjective, and to
differentiate between the reliable and the unreliable marks the
successful debater. Such training becomes valuable in later life
regardless of one’s vocation.

Logical reasoning

The proper discovery, analysis, and evaluation of the material

provides the evidence for logical support. After finding the evidence,
one must decide what conclusions can be drawn from it. The
process of drawing inferences from evidence constitutes reasoning.
In inductive reasoning, the reasoner examines specific cases and
from them draws a general conclusion about the entire class. In
deductive reasoning, the reasoner starts with a general statement
and draws a conclusion about a specific case. (Reasoning may also
take the form of analogy, sign, and causal relation, processes that
are explained in Chapters 8 and 9.) Failure to reason logically causes
the reasoner to commit a fallacy or make an error in the reasoning
process.
Evidence and reasoning are the components of logical proof, the
basic appeal in argumentation and debate. Thus facility in logical
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 13

reasoning is essential to successful debating and an asset to anyone

in a free society.

Formulation of a case

As already noted, almost all citizens must at times present a case

for or against a proposal. The professor must convince his depart¬
ment head; the department head must convince the dean; the dean
must convince the president; the president must convince the board
of regents; the board of regents must convince the legislators; the
legislators must convince their constituents. How well each builds
and presents his case helps determine his success in any stage of
advocacy.
A case of advocacy consists of the best arguments and evidence
for the side of a proposition that one champions. Time limitations
prevent the debater from presenting all the valid arguments and
evidence on his side, so he must learn to be selective, to evaluate
his reasons and facts for the most reliable and convincing materials.
The arguments must be logically organized to be readily under¬
stood since haphazard arrangement may prevent an otherwise
acceptable case from accomplishing its purpose. The ability to for¬
mulate a logically arranged case of valid and convincing arguments
serves any citizen well, and it becomes an essential factor in the
training of the advocate.

Oral presentation of ideas

Arguments may be presented in either written or oral form. This

text stresses oral presentation, the form used in almost all college
debates as well as in the preponderance of life situations. Although
many factors of communication are common to both written and
oral forms, oral discourse requires special methods that can be
developed in part through college debating.
Acceptable oral communication includes reasonable poise and
confidence, an adequate and colorful vocabulary, a forceful and
pleasant voice, and a coordinated body—in short, the coordinated
use of mind, body, and language for the purpose of communicating
ideas, information, and emotions. Through participation in class¬
room and intercollegiate debates, one learns how to present argu¬
ments effectively through oral communication.
14 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

Establishment of ethical standards

A final benefit derived from a properly conducted study of argu¬

mentation and debate accrues from the ethical standards it teaches.
A debater establishes proper attitudes toward research early in his
study because he soon learns that inadequate knowledge and faulty
analysis are intellectually dishonest. He learns to be sure of his
facts before he speaks and to present the most fundamental argu¬
ments for his side. '''•
A thorough study of subjects for debate discourages dogmatism.
We often express our most extreme opinions about subjects of
which we know the least, whereas a fundamental knowledge about
all sides of questions of public policy usually reveals a more equal
balance of evidence and arguments than we originally expected.
Extensive research teaches the debater to become cautious of ex¬
treme statements and unsupported assertions. He soon learns that
the most fundamental case is the case most likely to win; he learns
to avoid shallow thinking and to concentrate on logical argument
and valid evidence.
Sophistic devices are poor substitutes for valid arguments. Ques¬
tionable practices consist of unusual interpretations of the prop¬
osition, surprise cases outside the scope of the proposition,
inadequately stated issues, prejudiced and incomplete evidence, and
evasion of basic arguments. A debater learns to look upon debate
as an educational activity in which fundamental knowledge, mature
thinking, and fair play count more heavily than questionable
strategic devices.

Requirements for Successful Debating

Debating is an exacting activity that requires hard work and a

dedication to purpose. It presupposes a desire to improve back¬
ground knowledge, to learn about the principles of argument, and
to develop communicative skills. Given the proper desire and
motivation, what are the requirements for debating effectively?

Study of principles of argumentation

The rhetorical principles of argumentation and debate constitute

a body of information that can be learned and practiced. The
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 15

potential debater must acquaint himself with these principles as a

basis for the acquisition of skills. Those principles, in the approxi¬
mate order in which they will be encountered, are listed here for an
over-all view and are developed in detail in subsequent chapters.

Principles of Argumentation

Processes 1. The procedures in educational debate.

2. The proposition for argumentation.
Preparation 3. The materials of argument.
4. The analysis of the subject.
5. The evidence of argument.
6. The reasoning process.
7. The ethical and psychological proofs.
8. The argumentative case—constructing and briefing.
9. The refutation of opposing arguments.
Presentation 10. The principles of delivery.
11. The application to life situations.

Application of principles to current topics

Principles of argument should not be studied in a vacuum;

rather, direct application of the principles to current topics should
be made as each principle is considered. The current national
debate topic serves well for this purpose, or the class may select its
own proposition. For example, as you study principles of analysis,
analyze the chosen proposition; as you study evidence, find and
evaluate evidence on the subject; as you consider principles of case
construction, build cases for and against the selected proposition.
This practical approach makes the principles meaningful and
prepares for the practice debates to follow.

Analysis of current and historical debates

You can learn a great deal by observing debaters in action and

by analyzing published debates. Listen to debates held on college
campuses, on television, in legislative assemblies, and in public
forums. Listen critically; analyze how the speakers applied the
principles of argument and oral presentation.
An analysis of published debates permits a detailed study of all
the principles of argument except presentation skills. Start by read¬
ing such masterpieces as the Webster-Hayne debates in 1830, the
16 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, and the Kennedy-Nixon televi¬

sion debates in 1960. Next, study published intercollegiate debates
of recent years. Representative volumes include Egbert Ray Nichols,
ed.. Intercollegiate Debates (New York: Noble and Noble, Pub¬
lishers, Inc., 1919-); University Debater’s Annual (New York: H.
W. Wilson Co., 1914-); James H. McBath, ed., T. V. Championship
Debates (Portland, Me.: J. Weston Walch, Publishers, 1964); and
Russel R. Windes and Arthur N. Kruger, eds.. Championship
Debating (Portland, Me.: J. Weston»,Walch, Publishers, 1961). The
last volume contains nine of the final rounds of the National
Debate Tournament held annually at the United States Military
Academy, together with critiques by experienced directors of
forensics in American colleges. By listening to and reading sig¬
nificant debates, you can observe how successful debaters utilize
principles of argumentation and thereby improve your own knowl¬
edge and skills.

Engagement in practice debates

Debate is a doing as well as a knowing activity—no amount of

knowledge about argumentation will make you an effective debater
until you put your acquired knowledge to use by directed practice.
Practice sessions may take at least three forms: (1) After completing
the necessary research for your case, practice presenting your argu¬
ments and anticipated refutation before an imaginary audience.
Practice aloud, preferably in a classroom or auditorium, and speak
extemporaneously, without stopping to correct errors, as if you
were speaking to a real audience. If possible, record your practice
sessions and study the recordings for errors. (2) Engage in practice
debates with members of your class or debate club under simulated
conditions of public debates. Ask your forensic director or an
advanced student to serve as a critic, and follow each practice ses¬
sion with a critique in which you and the critic discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of your arguments. If possible, have some
of your practice debates before your class or debate club. (3) Engage
in debate tournaments, both intrasquad and intercollegiate. The
stimulus of competition that the tournament engenders provides
a strong incentive for self-improvement. Ask the judge for criticisms,
or, if written criticisms are provided, study them carefully. Measure
 RELATION OF DISCUSSION TO PROBLEM SOLVING 17

your progress by the improvement that you make, not necessarily

by how many debates you win or lose.
In short, you can improve your skills in debate by learning the
principles of argumentation, applying them to the proposition for
debate, analyzing oral and written debates, and engaging in directed
practice. Your progress may seem slow at first, but leading citizens
in almost all life activities can testify that persistency in applying
these suggestions is rewarded.

Summary

Problem solving can be effected through various stages by the

use of discussion and debate: (1) Use discussion as a preparation
process. (2) Use discussion principles to attain compromises. (3) Use
debate to submit a problem to a third party for decision. (4) Avoid
strife as a conflict-resolving method.
Training in discussion and debate serves well in preparing for
several life activities: (1) in courts of law, (2) in legislative as¬
semblies, (3) in political campaigns, (4) in everyday activities, and
(5) in educational institutions.
Training in argumentation and debate gives the student (1) a
background knowledge of current problems, (2) training in critical
decision making, (3) knowledge of how to investigate a subject,
(4) experience in logical reasoning, (5) training in how to formulate
a case, (6) skills in presenting ideas orally, and (7) concepts of
ethical standards.
To learn to debate effectively (1) study the principles of argu¬
mentation, (2) apply the principles to current topics, (3) analyze
current and historical debates, and (4) engage in directed practice.

Oral Assignment

Review a magazine article on the subject selected for class debates for
oral presentation in class. Each class member should take notes on the
articles reviewed. This exercise serves as a cooperative means of prepara¬
tion by the class members. Observe the following procedures:
1. State the author’s name, the magazine, the title of the article, and the
date of publication.
2. Review the article. Give the arguments and the most pertinent evi¬
dence for each point.
3. Evaluate the article and advise the class members if they should read it.
18 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

4. Limit your review to five minutes.

5. Remain on the platform no longer than two minutes for questions
from the class members.

Collateral Readings

Braden, Waldo W., and Earnest Brandenburg, Oral Decision Making, Ch.
1. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1955.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 1. New York: American
Institute of Banking, 1962.
Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockritede, Decision by Debate, Chs. 1, 2,
3. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1963.
Ereeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 1. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1961.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 1. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 1. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
 The Use of Discussion
in Preparing
for Debate

We learned in Chapter 1 that discussion serves as a problem¬

solving procedure and works together with debate for the peaceful
settlement of disputes. Discussion also performs a useful purpose in
learning groups, especially in preparing college debaters on the
proposition for debate. This chapter will show how discussion
may be used as a cooperative method for group participation in
analyzing a subject. First let us consider the pattern that discussion
takes.

Pattern for Discussion

Discussion is a collective approach to problem solving and learn¬

ing situations by a group under shared or directed leadership. It
defines and analyzes problems and tests suggested solutions.
By its nature, discussion is a slow and tedious procedure operat¬
ing largely through trial and error. It must allow the participants
time to pool their ideas and facts, consider their differences, and
evaluate possible solutions. The participants may digress, discuss
one phase of the subject too long, or spend time on inconsequential
matters. The logical pattern for discussion attempts to overcome
these inherent weaknesses. Although no panacea for the weaknesses
of discussion, it serves to give order and arrangement to the process.
If all participants keep the logical pattern in mind, the chances
for a productive discussion will be enhanced.
McBurney and Hance list five steps in the pattern of discussion:
1. Defining and delimiting the problem.
2. Analyzing the problem.

19
20 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

3. The suggestion of solutions;

4. Reasoned development of the proposed solutions.
5. Further verification.!

The steps in discussion center around analysis and investigation,

both of which logically precede debate. Discussion sometimes ends
before there is an attempt to gain acceptance or rejection of a
particular solution. A decision may not be reached through discus¬
sion because of differences of opinion. In debate, the weighing of
advantages against disadvantages ^of a proposed solution takes
place. One possible solution to a 'problem takes the form of a
proposition, the issues of which opposing teams attempt to sustain
or to overthrow. Debate, then, may be said to take up where dis¬
cussion leaves off.
The steps in the pattern for discussion may be restated for learn¬
ing groups as follows;
1. Define, explain, and narrow the subject.
2. Diagnose the problem by analyzing its cause-effect relationships.
a. Consider the effects of the problem, the conditions that exist.
b. Discover the causes that gave rise to the problem.
c. Consider criteria for judging solutions.
3. Analyze and evaluate proposed solutions.
a. Explain each proposed solution.
b. Consider the advantages of each solution.
c. Consider the disadvantages of each solution.
4. Seek agreement on a proposed solution.
a. Explain the selected solution.
b. Consider its advantages.
c. Consider its disadvantages.
5. Examine procedures for initiating the proposed solution.
a. Discuss practical problems in instituting it.
b. Determine how prolilems created by the new policy may be over¬
come.

Let us consider the steps of the pattern to see how they apply
to learning groups.^

Define, explain, and narroiv the subject

Attempt first to locate and understand the problem. Define and

explain terms that may prevent a common understanding, since

1 James H. McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance, Discussiori in Human Affairs (New

York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1950), pp. 11-13.
2 Based on Glenn R. Capp, Hoiv to Communicate Orally (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.;
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 310-17.
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 21

some terms may have different meanings to different people.

Discussions sometime fail to realize their maximum usefulness
because the group attempts too much for a single session. On topics
broad in scope, several meetings, on different phases of the sub¬
ject, may be necessary. At the beginning of the discussion, decide
what terms in the subject mean, how the scope of the subject may
be limited, how irrelevant and extraneous matter may be disposed
of, and how the purpose of the discussion may be achieved.

Diagnose the problem

After securing a meeting of minds on the meaning and scope of

the problem, analyse its cause-effect relationships to determine its
nature and extent. Do existing conditions constitute a problem?
How serious are the conditions? What facts reveal their significance?
An objective analysis will reveal the factual conditions of the
problem. This analysis should precede a consideration of solutions
so that the participants will understand what conditions need
correcting.
Next consider what factors brought these conditions about. A
temporary solution only extends the problem; to effect a lasting
solution, the conditions that gave rise to the problem must be
attacked. Discussions must consider causes as well as effects.
As a third step, decide on criteria to evaluate and measure the
adequacy of possible solutions. Each proposed solution can then
be considered in light of the criteria agreed upon; agreement on
these criteria may pave the way for a mutually satisfactory solu¬
tion.

Analyze and evaluate proposed solutions

This step considers the many possible solutions, not simply those
solutions favored by various members. What are the possibilities?
Among the possible solutions, which one is best? Consider and ex¬
plain each possible solution in detail. How would it operate? What
are the principles that underlie it? Follow explanations by a con¬
sideration of the possible advantages and disadvantages of each
suggested solution, and then seek agreement on the best solution.
Although these procedures do not ensure agreement, they do im¬
prove the chances for it.
22 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

The attitude o£ the participants determines the success of this

stage of the discussion. Do not assume that you must champion a
solution because you suggested it. Rather, your attitude should be:
“Here is a possible solution. What do you think of it? How does
this proposed solution compare to the others that have been sug¬
gested? What are its advantages and disadvantages?” An objective,
weighing attitude at this stage paves the way for the next step.

Seek agreement on a proposed solution

After considering possible solutions, the participants try to agree
on one of the solutions evaluated or to compromise on two or more
of them. Discussions sometime break down at this point because
the participants cannot compromise their differences. Their con¬
victions on the problem may be too strong to permit compromise;
personal bias or prejudice may also impede agreement. The chances
of agreement will have been improved, however, by a prior con¬
sideration of the meaning and scope of the problem, an analysis of
the cause-effect relationships, and an objective consideration of the
workings, advantages, and disadvantages of each possible solution.
Discussion participants may reach the solution phase too soon;
they may seek agreement on solutions before the problem has been
properly diagnosed or before other possible solutions have been
examined, and such action decreases the chances of agreement.

Examine procedures for initiating the proposed

solution
When the participants agree on a solution, they next consider
how to put the solution into operation. The practicability of insti¬
tuting the solution should be considered first. What steps should be
taken to initiate it? How effective would it be in solving the prob¬
lems discussed in the analysis stage? This phase of the discussion
attempts to spell out a step-by-step procedure of execution.
Next, consider what new problems may arise as a result of the
adoption of the proposed solution. How can these problems be
avoided? The total effect of the change must improve conditions—
otherwise, there can be little justification for change.
In short, the pattern for discussion gives direction to the process.
If followed unobtrusively, it should make possible an orderly dis¬
cussion. Each of the steps is illustrated later in this chapter.
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 23

Types of Discussion

The technical aspects of the different types of discussion must be

understood for effective use in preparing for debate. The follow¬
ing four types are most frequently used in preparing debaters as a
group: (1) the informal discussion, (2) the panel, (3) the symposium,
and (4) the lecture forum.

Informal

Of the four types listed, debate classes probably use informal

discussion most frequently because it permits participation by all
members of the class or squad, pooling the information of the
entire group.
Although this type does not require strict rules, there are certain
procedures that constitute an orderly meeting. The leader usually
announces the topic and gives a brief background of the general
nature of the subject, stresses the importance of the topic, and
creates a pleasant atmosphere. He may then ask questions or present
a hypothetical problem to start the discussion. His opening remarks
should clarify the subject and motivate the group to constructive
participation.
After starting the discussion, the leader directs it, makes brief
summaries at the conclusion of each step, prevents useless argu¬
ments, keeps down strife, and makes a full summary at the end. The
good leader makes no attempt to monopolize the activities; rather
he attempts to keep it moving constructively through the steps in
the pattern for discussion.
The success of a discussion depends largely upon the preparation
of the participants. Unless careful preparation precedes the discus¬
sion, the result will be a “pooling of ignorance.” To insure adequate
preparation, each participant should make an outline before he
comes to the meeting.
The form for the outline need not be formal or technical; it
should follow the pattern outlined in the preceding section of this
chapter. Under the heading “define, explain, and narrow the sub¬
ject,” list how you think the topic should be interpreted and
restricted. Under the division “diagnose the problem,” include the
results of your analysis of the problem: the evidence of existing con¬
ditions, the causes of those conditions, and the criteria that you
24 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

deem advisable in judging a solution. In the third division of the

outline, list, explain, and give both the advantages and disadvan¬
tages of various possible solutions to the problem. Then, for your
fourth point, designate what solution you personally think should
be adopted, explaining your solution and stating why you con¬
sider it a workable plan. Finally, explain how you think the
solution can be instituted.
Do not feel that you must defend the conclusions set forth in
your outline. If, during the discussion, former conclusions seem
wrong, accept what most nearly complies with the findings of the
group. Make discussion a process of thinking together, a coopera¬
tive rather than a competitive endeavor.

The panel

In the panel, a small group of participants and a chairman

conduct a discussion for the benefit of an audience. The panel and
the audience form co-acting groups. For the best effect, the group
should be seated in a semicircle or around three sides of a table
so that each member of the panel can see both the audience and
his fellow members. The participants do not make speeches; they
engage in the discussion much as if there were no audience present.
Each speaks informally when he feels that he has something to
contribute or when he wishes to ask a question. The panel defines
and limits the scope of the problem, discusses its effects and causes,
sets up standards for judging solutions, proposes solutions, discusses
the advantages and disadvantages of each one, attempts to agree
on a tentative solution, and makes suggestions for putting the solu¬
tion into effect.
After a pattern of thought has been established and the chairman
has summarized the discussion, the audience takes part. Any mem¬
ber of the audience now has the right to ask questions or to make
brief comments, addressing the panel as a whole or any individual
member. The open-forum period permits expression of views that
may aid in the clarification of the topic.

The symposium

The symposium differs from the informal and panel discussions

in that it makes use of prepared speeches. The symposium may be
divided into two classes—the unrestricted and the restricted.
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 25

In the unrestricted symposium, a number of persons, limited by

the time allotted, give speeches expressing their own views on the
topic. The speeches usually contain analyses of the problem and
suggested solutions. After the speeches, members of the audience
participate in an open forum conducted by the group leader. If
the symposium is used in the classroom or debate meeting, the
student speeches should be limited to five or six minutes to give
an opportunity for several students to speak and to permit time
for an open forum.
The unrestricted symposium for classroom use is valuable because
it permits the debater to propose his own solutions to problems,
although this may result in duplication of ideas and materials,
with several students presenting similar analyses and solutions. An
unrestricted symposium on the topic “What should be done about
the veto provision of the United Nations?” could take the follow¬
ing form: The first speaker would discuss how the United Nations
came into being. The second speaker would explain the veto provi¬
sions of the United Nations. Then four speakers would discuss
what they individually think should be done about the veto. The
seventh and final speaker would summarize the discussion and
discuss what he considers to be the future of the veto power.
In the restricted symposium, speakers talk on assigned topics.
After the question is divided into its logical parts, different topics
are assigned to the participants, who prepare their assignments in
advance of the discussion. The subject should be divided so as
to allow presentation of all its phases. For example, suppose the
question selected is stated as follows: “Should the veto power of
the United Nations be abolished?” The subject may be divided
into seven topics:

Speaker I: Events leading to the formation of the United Nations.

Speaker II: The framework, of the United Nations.
Speaker III: An analysis of the problems presented by the veto pro¬
vision of the United Nations charter.
Speaker IV: Arguments for abolishing the veto power.
Speaker V: Arguments against abolishing the veto power.
Speaker VI: Methods of revising the veto power.
Speaker VII: The future of the veto power.

At the conclusion of each speech, the speaker may be questioned

by other members of the symposium. When all speeches have been
26 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

concluded, members of the audience question the participants and

make comments.

The lecture forum

The lecture-forum method consists of a formal lecture followed

by an open forum. Following the lecture, the chairman takes
charge, comments on important phases of the speech, and opens the
meeting for general discussion. (Questions from the audience
usually come readily after the first question, for one question and
the comment upon it by the speaker naturally stimulate others to
take an active part. The chairman should therefore be prepared
to ask the initial question. He directs the questions along the lines
most likely to help the majority of the group; he discourages
embarrassing or irrelevant questions and encourages all listeners
to participate.
If the lecture is given before a class in debate, each student
should come prepared to ask questions that will clarify his par¬
ticular problem; thus the greatest good will be derived from hear¬
ing the authority. The properly conducted lecture forum proves
a timesaver in preparing a group to debate. For most questions
chosen by national debate committees, several competent lecturers
can be found in the community; often the director of the forensic
program gives the first lecture.

Suggested Discussion Series

The types of discussion described in the foregoing section may

be employed for a series of meetings designed to acquaint all mem¬
bers of a class or forensic program with the proposition for debate.
Each member should conduct his independent investigation of the
topic during the series of discussions. The discussions supplement
independent study; they do not supplant it. Start by working out
a practical series for the program. The number of discussions em¬
ployed will depend upon such factors as the time available, the
number of participants, and the organization of the class or the
extracurricular activity. For best results, arrange a minimum of
twelve discussions, employing the four types already explained. If
the series can extend over a period of at least three months, the
debaters will have time to conduct their independent investigations
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 27

between sessions. As a result of the series of meetings and individ¬

ual research, each member of the group should become well in¬
formed on the question. Although the order for employing the
four types may vary, the following step-by-step plan offers a
practical approach.

Informal discussions

An early problem facing the debater is where to find material.

A modified version of the informal discussion offers an excellent
method for cooperation by members of the class or debate squad
in locating the best materials. In preparation for this first meeting,
each member plans to review and evaluate a magazine article or a
book pertinent to the topic. Each participant gives the source of
his article, presents its outline, relates factual materials of general
use, and evaluates his article. All members of the class or squad will
thus acquire information and will exchange leads to the more im¬
portant articles and books on the subject. The reports may be
followed by a general discussion to clarify these background mate¬
rials.
Informal discussion, explained in the preceding section, may be
used at the next group meeting. Since all members participate,
the general outline for the program should be explained well in
advance of the meeting. Suppose, for example, that the topic
concerns whether the federal government should provide an op¬
portunity for all qualified high school graduates to attend college.
The following skeleton outline with pertinent questions applies:

Topic: What is the responsibility of the federal government for providing

higher education for qualified high school graduates?
I. Define terms and limit the scope of the problem.
A. What does “providing higher education” mean?
1. Does it mean scholarships, loans, or federal schools?
2. Does it mean tuition expenses, living expenses, or all expenses?
B. What is a “qualified high school graduate”?
1. What standards oi scholarship qualify a student and how can
these standards be applied?
2. What criteria for determining economic need can be applied?
C. What does “higher education” mean?
1. Is it limited to liberal arts colleges or does it include profes¬
sional schools or trade schools?
2. Is the education limited to undergraduate study?
28 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

II. What is the problem and what conditions give rise to it?
A. How many students fail to go to college because of financial rea¬
sons?
B. What effect does the failure to educate qualified students have
upon the individual and upon the nation?
C. Are finances the real cause for the failure of cjualified students to
attend college?
1. Is lack of motivation a contributing cause?
2. Is lack of counseling a contributing cause?
D. What criteria should govern a solution to the problem?
III. What are the possible solutions tO' tlie problem?
A. Would a program of federal scholarships suffice?
1. How would this plan work?
2. What would be its advantages and disadvantages?
B. Would an expanded program of federal loans solve the problem?
(Explain, give advantages and disadvantages.)
C. Would au expanded junior college program meet the need? (Ex¬
plain, give advantages and disadvantages.)
D. Should the federal government establish federal colleges and uni¬
versities? (Explain, give advantages and disadvantages.)
IV. What solution would prove best?
A. How would the solution work?
B. Would it solve the problem?
C. What would be its advantages and disadvantages?
V. How could the proposed program be instituted?

Such a discussion will acquaint each student with the back¬

ground of the problem and enable him to define the terms of the
topic. He will likewise develop standards for determining the
worth of the proposed solutions, receive information concerning
the major issues, and gain sufficient knowledge to attack other
plans that might be advanced.

Lecture forums

Some groups prefer the lecture forum to the informal discussion

for the first meeting in the series. As a general rule, however,
greater good will result from having the informal discussions first,
for thereby the student will acquire background knowledge and
will encounter problems about which to question the lecturer. Since
unprejudiced men are not always available, it may be wise to have
several lecture forums that cover all attitudes toward the subject.
For example, on the topic of federal scholarships, invite a school
administrator, a businessman, and a lawyer. A lecture on the gen-
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 29

eral subject by an expert without special interests makes a good

start; later lectures on the different phases of the subject and by
special-interest representatives will permit detailed development of
varying points of view.
The following questions may prove helpful as topics for several
lecture forums on the problem of federal support of education:
Can the states solve the problem? Would federal aid mean federal
control? How would the program be financed? Can private financial
enterprises solve the problem? Can the colleges and universities
provide adequate scholarships and loans?
At the conclusion of a lecture, the chairman takes charge, sum¬
marizes briefly what has been said, and then calls for questions
from the debaters. The open-forum period following the lecture
should be informal enough to allow free discussion.

Panels

The panel proves especially valuable when experts participate.

If experts are available for the initial panel, students will gain
useful information about the debate subject and at the same time
observe procedures for use at subsequent meetings in which they
will participate. For the same reasons, the earlier student panels
should be composed of the more experienced debaters.
The panel also offers opportunity for student participation
where groups are too large for informal discussion. The subject
for debate can be divided into several questions suitable for a
series of panel discussions. For example, the proposition that the
federal government should provide the opportunity for higher
education to all qualified high school graduates offers the following
discussion topics:

1. What problems are created by failure of qualified high school gradu¬

ates to attend college?
2. What conditions give rise to our failure to extend higher education to
all qualified students?
3. How can private industry help solve the problem of non-college at¬
tendance?
4. How can our colleges help solve the problem of non-college attend¬
ance?
5. How can the problem of non-college attendance best be solved?

A good panel chairman directs the discussion so that it follows

30 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

the logical pattern in an orderly procedure, as explained in the

beginning of this chapter.

Symposiums

Both the restricted and the unrestricted symposium may be used

in the discussion series. The following plan can be used for a
restricted symposium:
Topic: Should the federal government guarantee a higher education
to all cjualified high school graduA-es?
Speaker I: A survey of the history of federal participation in educa¬
tion.
Speaker II: The problems created by failure to educate qualified high
school graduates.
Speaker III: A survey of arguments for federal aid to qualified high
school graduates.
Speaker IV: A survey of arguments against federal aid to qualified
high school graduates.
Speaker V: Can the problem be solved without federal aid?
Speaker VI: The outlook for solving the problem.

The two speakers who survey the arguments pro and con do not
debate. The purpose of the discussion is to explore the problem,
to obtain information, and to review the arguments on the
proposed solution.
The unrestricted symposium should be conducted by at least
four speakers, each giving his own views on the topic and how it
can be solved. After each speech and at the conclusion of the dis¬
cussion, the speakers may exchange views and ask questions, as do
the speakers of the restricted symposium.
When the purpose of the meetings is to train debaters, all dis¬
cussions should be on the national topic chosen for the year’s
debates. Let the topics be stated in question form rather than as
propositions. Following the series of discussions and individual
research, each member of the debate class or squad should be ready
to engage in practice debates.

Effective Participation

The success of the series of discussions depends in part on effec¬

tive participation, which in turn depends on (1) the attitude of
the participant, (2) the number of his contributions, and (3) the
value of his contributions.
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 31

Attitude of participants

The attitude of the conference participants should be character¬

ized in four ways.
Cooperative Attitude. Each participant should put
the common good of the group above his own selfish interests; he
should be willing to sublimate personal desires for group interests;
he should desire to share his ideas and information with fellow
members of the debate program. In policy-making groups, the goal
of discussion is to compromise differences and arrive at solutions
that represent the consensus of the group. In learning groups, the
goal is to pool the information and ideas of the participants for
the benefit of all. A self-centered, individualistic, and competitive
attitude defeats cooperation.
Sharing of Responsibility. Each participant assumes
his part of the responsibility by (1) adequate preparation and (2)
active participation. Discussion permits a pooling of information
and ideas; but to have information to share, each participant must
make proper preparation. The discussion will be no more produc¬
tive than the ideas expressed by the participants.
When engaging in discussions, participate actively; do not with¬
hold ideas because you have not had time to think them through
thoroughly. Contributing ideas may sometimes come from an im¬
pulse. Such ideas may not reflect the maturity of judgment of those
that are thought through in advance, but they may prove to be just
what the group needs to settle a problem or to move forward with
it. Express tentative opinions for the group’s consideration and
raise questions to get others to clarify their ideas.
Objective Attitude. Do not feel that you must con¬
tinue to uphold a point of view because you advanced it originally.
New facts or opinions may cause you to change your original posi¬
tion. Your purpose is to help the group solve its problem, not to
make your own ideas prevail. You should defend any position that
you consider valid, hut remain willing to modify your position.
Keep to the issue and avoid subjective statements designed to
belittle persons associated with the issue or other members of the
discussion group. The objective attitude minimizes digression and
dissension and furthers an orderly procedure.
Active Listening. This attitude constitutes an essen¬
tial part of the give-and-take processes in discussion. You cannot
32 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

contribute effectively to the point at issue unless you understand

what others have said about it. A good listener responds overtly to
what others say, asks questions for clarification, and thinks before
expressing agreement or opposition. If you spend your time think¬
ing of what you plan to say next while others speak, your contribu¬
tion may not be applicable. Adapt your contributions specifically
to what has gone before; listen to understand.

Number of contributions
There appears to be a correlation'•between the number of times
a person speaks in discussion and his general worth to the group. To
help determine this matter, some experiments were conducted dur¬
ing practice discussions among forensic groups. The number of
times that each participant talked was tabulated. A panel of speech
teachers scored each participant on a qualitative rating scale
marked (1) superior, (2) good, (3) average, (4) fair, and (5) poor.
The experiments showed in general that those who talked the
most received the highest qualitative scores. There were, however,
several individual exceptions. Some persons participated actively
but had little to contribute, and others felt a compulsion to pass
judgment on what everyone else said. Some were free in expressing
opinions but had little factual information to substantiate their
assertions. A few had competitive attitudes and attempted to argue
each point. In spite of these exceptions, a majority of those who
took the most active part made the highest scores on the qualitative
rating scales. A participant can hardly speak too often in a discus¬
sion as long as he makes worthwhile contributions. Beware, how¬
ever, of monopolizing the discussion; all members of the group
should be given a chance to participate. Contribute actively, but
also respect the rights of others.

Value of contributions

Effectiveness of participation in discussion can be measured

not only by the number of contributions but also by their value.
Value depends upon a factual basis for statements and the logic of
conclusions.
Sometimes discussions fail to produce constructive results be¬
cause no one has gone to the trouble to learn the facts. Little can
be accomplished, for example, by arguing about how many stu-
 T^iE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 33

dents fail to go to college because of financial reasons. Such ques¬

tions should be investigated, not argued, because no amount of
argument will change the facts or appraise the participants of
them. If someone knows the facts, the discussion can proceed with¬
out argument.
Statements of judgment and conclusions from the facts also count
heavily in discussion participation. What do the facts mean? What
conclusions can be drawn from them? Suppose the evidence shows
that a significant number of high school graduates do not go to
college. How do these facts constitute a problem? What harm
results to the nation and to the individual? An accurate interpreta¬
tion of the evidence forms the basis for logical reasoning, an es¬
sential part of effective discussion participation.

Leading Discussion

The discussion leader not only prepares the subject for the dis¬
cussion but also plans means for keeping the discussion moving
constructively. To be successful, he must know his duties and un¬
derstand the methods of procedure.

The leader’s duty

A good discussion chairman is a democratic leader who works

with the group in attempting to analyze and solve problems and
who is neither too dictatorial nor too willing to let the discussion
drift along without proper guidance. He works out an outline but
permits deviation from it if circumstances indicate the need. He
E JOHN J. WRIGHT LIBRARY

plans the possible course that the discussion will take and attempts
to keep the discussion moving constructively, discouraging personal
encounter by keeping the discussion on the issues. He asks discern¬
ing, thought-provoking questions that tend to draw out facts and
opinions from members of the group, but at the same time he
attempts to distinguish the essential from the nonessential and
discourage uninformed opinions.
The creation of a cooperative atmosphere conducive to the ex¬
change of ideas and information is the leader’s responsibility. If
he has ideas and facts he does not hesitate to contribute them,
but he does not take sides on controversies that arise. Nor does he
dominate the discussion or permit others to do so. In short, he at-
34 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

tempts to be objective, patient, stimulating, and impartial, measur¬

ing his success by how well the discussion goes, not by what type
of an impression he makes.

The leader’s methods of procedure

The procedural methods for discussion should not be formal or

stilted. The parliamentary rules of legislative groups do not apply
to discussion groups; informal procedures serve best. The leader
cannot let the meeting drift along without any direction, how¬
ever, because he is largely responsible for the progress of the
discussion. His methods of procedure may be summarized as
follows:
Starting the Discussion. The leader begins the discus¬
sion by introducing the p^nel members to the audience and stressing
the purpose and importance of the topic. The introduction need
not be long, but it should include any background about the origin
and history of the problem necessary to a better understanding of
it. If the discussion is one of a series on the same problem, the
leader summarizes briefly the accomplishments of previous sessions
and states the purpose and scope of the present meeting. At the end
of his introductory remarks, he raises the question of the definition
and limitation of the problem. Other panel members then express
their views about the meaning of the topic. These procedures apply
specifically to the panel and informal discussions; in the symposium
and lecture-forum types, the leader acts as chairman, but the same
principles of friendliness and cooperation apply.
Keeping the Discussion Moving. Once underway, the
discussion must be kept moving toward its goal. Two devices serve
the leader well for this purpose: (1) summaries and (2) questions.
Summaries within the discussion have four primary uses. (1) The
summary may be used to keep the discussion moving in an orderly
manner. If the discussion has gone so far that no one seems to know
where it is, or has gotten off on side issues with a resultant loss of
direction, a summary will bring it into focus and back to the main
issues. (2) The summary may be used when the group has been
discussing a single topic too long and should move on to another
phase of the subject. During the summary the leader should indicate
what has been accomplished and at the end, direct the discussion
to a new topic. The summary then serves as a transition from one
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 35

phase of the subject to another. (3) The summary may be used to

delay proceedings if the discussion gets too heated and tends to
get out of hand or if the group seems to lose perspective. The
leader may channel the discussion in other directions and not
permit it to return to the topic that gave rise to the dispute. (4)
The leader may use the summary when he is uncertain of what to
do next or uncertain about the best procedure to follow. Usually,
during the process of summarizing, a new direction will occur to
him.
\\hth skillful use of the question, the leader can draw out mem¬
bers of the group, secure needed information, and keep the discus¬
sion moving. At times talk may lag and the discussion may seem to
bog down. When this condition arises, the leader should ask in¬
ferential questions, not those that can be answered briefly. The
following questions illustrate this method as applied to the ques¬
tion of federal aid to qualified high school students.

1. What experience have other countries had with this problem? How did
they solve them?
2. When did this condition come about? What caused it to happen?
3. What do you think is the best solution to the problem? Why?
4. Can you give an example of scholarships with unusual stipulations?
How widespread is this practice?
5. What other solution can you suggest? What would be the advantages
and disadvantages of it?

These types of questions serve to keep the panel talking. During

his preparation, the leader should formulate such questions for
each stage of the discussion.
Keeping Down Conflict. Personal conflict and bicker¬
ing may prevent the harmonious atmosphere desirable for discus¬
sion. The leader should not stifle honest differences of opinion, but
he should not allow unpleasantness and should never permit con¬
flicts to get out of hand. If the leader can keep the discussion on
the issues of the problem, the occasion for personal conflicts will
be lessened. If he knows that personal differences exist on certain
matters, he should delay their discussion until after the participants
have discussed other matters upon which prejudices do not exist,
so that the participants may learn to work together before the
disputatious questions arise.
Encouraging Participation. All panel members should
be encouraged to participate. The leader should remember, how-
36 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

ever, that a person talks best when he wants to talk, not when the
leader calls on him. Avoid the what-do-you-think-Mr. Smith type
of question; raise problems and ask questions that will move the
participants to want to talk.
The leader may encounter and have to deal with (1) individuals
who talk too much, and (2) individuals who do not talk enough.
What can the leader do if a person tries to monopolize the discus¬
sion but has little to contribute? As a leader, you should not
embarrass such an individual because his embarrassment may affect
the atmosphere of the meeting and cause others to decline to
participate. Unobtrusively suggest that the function of good discus¬
sion is to have all participate. If Mr. Smith continues, interrupt
him, turn to the group, and state that you would like others to
discuss Mr. Smith’s idea. After one member concludes, direct the
discussion to another without letting it return to Mr. Smith. Or,
you may listen to Mr. Smith and then, without commenting on
what he said, introduce a new idea. Ask others to give their opin¬
ions of the new idea. In short, lessen Mr. Smith’s opportunities to
speak without embarrassing him.
Occasionally the leader encounters a panel member who declines
to speak. This person may have much to offer but because of his re¬
tiring nature, remains silent. The leader should unobtrusively try
to bring such a person into the discussion. For example, he might
turn to him and say, “John, I recall that you wrote a term paper on
the subject of federal aid to education. What did you find about the
adequacy of present scholarship programs?” This method points
up John’s qualifications to speak and brings him into the discus¬
sion on a point about which he has special information. The leader
should then keep John talking by asking several follow-up ques¬
tions. Once he has made an original contribution, the reticent per¬
son will usually continue to participate actively.
Concluding the Discussion. The leader should con¬
clude the discussion at the scheduled time or when the panel ceases
to make progress. He should give a brief summary, clarify questions
that remain unsolved, and thank the discussion members and
audience for their participation. He then opens the meeting to
questions and comments from the audience and continues to
preside during the open forum. If there are to be future discussions
on the subject, the leader announces plans for the next discussion
before concluding the meeting.
 THE USE OF DISCUSSION IN PREPARING FOR DEBATE 37

Summary

Discussion serves a useful purpose in preparing a class or debate

squad on the proposition for debate. It offers a cooperative means
for pooling information and ideas. The pattern for discussion,
giving order and arrangement to the process, includes five steps:
(1) define, explain, and narrow the subject; (2) diagnose the prob¬
lem by analyzing its cause-effect relationships; (3) analyze and
evaluate proposed solutions; (4) seek agreement on a proposed solu¬
tion; and (5) examine procedures for instituting the proposed
solution.
Types of discussions applicable to group preparation fall under
four headings: informal, panel, symposium, and lecture forum.
These types may be employed for a series of meetings designed to
give members of the debate group a background on the debate
subject. Each member will conduct his independent investigation
of the subject during the period of the series of discussions.
Effective participation may be measured by (1) the attitude of
the participant, (2) the number of his contributions, and (3) the
value of his contributions. He should have a cooperative attitude,
participate actively, and give reasons and facts for his statements.
The leader should be democratic as he guides the discussion
through the steps in the logical pattern. His duties are to (1) start
the discussion, (2) keep it moving constructively, (3) keep down
conflict, (4) encourage all to participate, and (5) conclude the dis¬
cussion. He performs an indispensable part of the discussion
process.

Oral Assignment

Come to the class prepared to participate in an informal discussion on

the subject selected for classroom debates. In preparing for the discussion,
observe the following procedures:
1. Make an outline for the discussion in which you follow the logical
pattern.
2. Include in the outline factual data that may be helpful in the discus¬
sion.
3. Keep the outline during the discussion as a guide, but do not attempt
to force the discussion to conform to your outline.
4. Hand in your outline at the end of the discussion.
38 DISCUSSION AS PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE

Collateral Readings

Braden, Waldo W., and Earnest Brandenburg, Oral Decision Making, Ch.
8. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1955.
Capp, Glenn R., How to Communicate Orally, Ch. 15. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.
Ewbank, Henry Lee, and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate, Ch. 2.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951.
Keltner, John W., Group Discussion Processes. New York: David McKay
Co., Inc., 1957.
s
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 6. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
■-, and Kenneth G. Hance, Discussion in Human Affairs. New
York: Harper 8c Row, Publishers, 1950.
The Processes of Argument
and Debate
H ffV » ^ V-

I « ‘

a- a;;'
 Applying Debate Procedures

Although educational debate provides excellent training for life

situations of advocacy, the procedures have but few parallels in
present-day forums. Except for face-to-face debates between political
candidates, public debates before interested organizations, and
television debates, few life situations follow the simulated proce¬
dures of college debates. Concepts for procedural methods in educa¬
tional debating come partly from the rules of procedure in courts
of law and partly from parliamentary rules of legislative groups—
the two principal forums for advocacy in a free society. With a
minimum of adaptation, the student trained in educational debate
can apply his training to life settings of advocacy.
Based upon legal and deliberative advocacy, procedures in col¬
lege debate require that both the affirmative and the negative
teams present cases for their respective sides. Each side must defend
its case against attack by the opposing team and also attack the
contentions of the opposition. Since debaters must accept these
obligations, they should understand general procedural methods.

Burden of Proof

Burden of proof constitutes an integral part of all forms of

advocacy. Almost all the procedural methods of life debates arise
from this principle.

Explanation

Burden of proof means the obligation to prove a case. In a

properly worded proposition, the affirmative has the burden of
proof because it advocates a change. It must present the proposed
change as preferable to the existing order, and must show that
the proposed change will not usher in new evils. The affirmative

41
42 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

cannot satisfy its obligation of burden of proof by showing the

proposed change to be only as good as the existing order; it must
prove its superiority. An improved condition is the only justifica¬
tion for going to the expense and trouble of making the change.
A recognized principle in criminal law regards a man as innocent
until proved guilty. This principle holds with any existing order
—social, economic, or political; the order should not be condemned
without cause.

Requirements

Any burden involves an obligation, that is, a requirement must

be met. What obligation arises from the affirmative’s burden of
proof? There is one predominant requirement—a case that will
overcome this burden. A prima-facie case, one that will convince
the average reasonable and prudent person that the proposed
course should be taken, must be advanced. The constructive case
must overcome the natural advantage in favor of the existing con¬
ditions. The presumption of the argument favors the negative at
the beginning of the debate just as the presumption favors the
defendant in a court case or the opponent of a proposal in a
legislative group; the affirmative must overcome this presumption.
That the presumption favors the negative may be illustrated as
follows: When the affirmative and negative meet for a debate, the
negative initially prevails because the existing order is considered
best until proved otherwise. Suppose, however, that the chairman
permits only the affirmative to present its constructive case and
then calls for a decision. Assuming that the affirmative succeeds in
presenting a prima-facie case, which side should win? The af¬
firmative, because it has overcome its original burden of proof.
The affirmative thereby shifts the presumption from the negative
to the affirmative.
Suppose further that the debate runs its full course and the
arguments of each side exactly balance—neither side gained over
its position at the beginning. Which side should receive the deci¬
sion? The negative wins because the affirmative failed to establish
a case preferable to the existing order, failed to override the
presumption in favor of the negative, and thereby failed to over¬
come its burden of proof.
 APPLYING DEBATE PROCEDURES 43

Application

The principle that burden of proof rests on the affirmative may

be illustrated by using a proposition: Resolved, That the non-
Comrnunist nations of the world should establish an economic
community. The issues of this resolution may be stated as follows:
(1) There is a need for a change in international trade alignments.
(2) A non-Communist economic community would meet the need.
(3) A non-Communist economic community would be desirable.
These issues, essential to a prima-facie case, must be upheld in the
constructive speeches, and they must be resubstantiated in the
rebuttal speeches if the negative side successfully contests them.
In the first place, the affirmative must show a need for change
because of the inadequacies of our present system of trade rela¬
tionships. Unless this fact can be established, there is no need to
proceed to the remaining issues. Probably the negative will admit
the weakness of the present system and suggest some modification
to correct such admitted weakness. In this event the affirmative
would gain the first issue without contest and should centralize its
efforts on the remaining issues. If the negative contests the issue
of need, however, it becomes a point of controversy throughout the
debate and a factor in determining the winner.
Whether the affirmative gains the first contention by argument
or by admission, it still faces the necessity of showing that its
proposal of an economic community by non-Communist nations
will remedy the defects of the present system. The negative must
meet this issue either by argument or admission. If the negative
admits that a non-Communist economic community can remedy
the shortcomings of the present system but fails to show a more
desirable remedy for removing the acknowledged defects, it makes
no progress. If the negative proposes some modification, the debate
still centers on the second issue. Which plan would be superior as
a means of fulfilling the need that both teams admit exist—the af¬
firmative proposal of an economic community or the negative
proposal of modification of the present system? Should the negative
succeed in showing its proposed modifications superior, the nega¬
tive would win despite its admission of the first affirmative issue.
Also, it would be possible for the negative to admit or lose the first
44 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

two issues and still win by proving that the affirmative proposal
would cause new evils, more serious evils than those it would cor¬
rect. Thus, the third issue of desirability could become the deciding
factor.
This example illustrates the importance of understanding the
principles of burden of proof. If the negative can successfully over¬
throw any one real issue, it prevails. The affirmative must establish
each fundamental issue in its case.

Burden of Rebuttal s
s*

Closely related to burden of proof is burden of rebuttal—the

obligation of a team to respond to an argument. This burden may
shift from one side to the other throughout the debate; it rests
originally with the negative because the affirmative has the first
constructive arguments. Once the affirmative presents its prima-
facie case, the negative must answer it. If the negative succeeds in
making a successful rejoinder, the burden of rebuttal then shifts
to the affirmative. The failure to answer a prima-facie argument
automatically concedes the point to the team advancing it. This
obligation to respond extends throughout the debate and presents
an important factor in determining the relative effectiveness of the
opposing teams.
The principle of burden of rebuttal does not indicate the
manner in which an argument should be answered; it does infer
the necessity for a prima-facie answer. The admission of an argu¬
ment constitutes as much a reply as presenting counterevidence,
pointing out fallacious reasoning, or exposing insufficient evidence.
Consider the example of the proposition that a non-Communist
economic community should be established. In answer to the af¬
firmative contention of the need for a change, the negative may
make at least one of three replies: (1) It may deny that any need
exists and present evidence and reasoning to show the adequacy of
existing conditions. (2) It may argue that although a need exists
for improving international trade relationships, conditions do not
constitute a need for changing the principle of the present system.
(3) It may admit the need for a change and present some other
method for meeting the need. Any of the three responses, if properly
constructed and effectively presented, shifts the burden of rebuttal
to the affirmative.
 APPLYING DEBATE PROCEDURES 45

Burden of rebuttal relates closely to prima-facie case, presump¬

tion of the argument, and burden of proof. Consider this relation¬
ship in a typical debate. Two teams meet to discuss a proposition:
Resolved, That the power of labor unions should be substantially
decreased. Possible issues may be stated as follows: (1) The evils of
labor unions demand a change. (2) Limiting the power of labor
unions will remedy these defects. (3) Decreasing the power of labor
unions constitutes the best plan for improving capital-labor rela¬
tionships.
The proposition calls for a change in the power of labor unions.
Since the presumption of the argument rests with the negative at
the beginning of the debate, the affirmative must present a prima-
facie case for the proposal that the power of labor unions be
decreased. This case must show sufficient reason on each of the
three issues to justify the proposed change. The affirmative has
the burden to overcome the presumption.
If the first affirmative speaker advances effectively the first two
issues, for example, he shifts the burden of rebuttal to the negative
on these issues. The burden of proof on the entire case still rests
with the affirmative, as it does throughout the debate; the negative
assumes the burden of rebuttal only. If the first negative speaker
responds effectively to the issues advanced by the affirmative, the
presumption of the argument will again be with the negative, and
the affirmative will assume the burden of rebuttal.
The second affirmative speaker faces two duties: (1) the obliga¬
tion to answer the negative’s refutation on the first two issues and
(2) the need to complete the affirmative’s prima-facie case. If he
performs these two duties effectively, the burden of rebuttal again
shifts to the negative on all three issues. This process extends
throughout rebuttal speeches; burden of rebuttal shifts to the
opposing team as each speaker succeeds in transferring the presump¬
tion of the argument on any given issue in favor of his team. Effec¬
tiveness in overcoming the burden of rebuttal helps determine the
winning team.
The third issue on the labor union proposition involves another
important point closely related to burden of rebuttal. The nega¬
tive assumes a burden of proof when it presents a counterplan or
alternate solution. This principle does not contradict a previous
statement that the burden of proof never shifts from the affirmative.
When the negative presents a counterplan, both sides have a
46 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

burden of proof: the affirmative on the entire case, the negative on

its counterproposal.
For example, the negative might advocate that the power of
labor unions be increased. Inasmuch as this proposal calls for a
change from the status quo, the negative assumes a burden of
proof. The issue of need for a change is automatically admitted
and the debate narrows to a contest between different solutions.
The affirmative continues with its original burden of proof and
the negative assumes the burden of proof on its counterplan. To
win, either team must show its proposed solution to be superior
both to the status quo and to the solution proposed by the opposing
team.

Rights That Accrue from Burden of Proof

For every burden, equity gives corresponding rights or advantages.

The affirmative has a twofold privilege that offsets the responsibility
of burden of proof: the right to interpret the proposition and the
right to declare the main issues.

Interpreting the proposition

The affirmative side has the right to define terms and interpret
the proposition, but it also has the responsibility of making a
reasonable interpretation. Debates sometime result in a quibble
because the affirmative gives a misleading interpretation, one that
could not reasonably be expected from the statement of the propo¬
sition. The affirmative should not attempt “to catch the negative
off guard’’ by suggesting a meaning contrary to logic. To insist
that some word has a meaning contrary to that usually given by
informed people leads to a quibble over the meaning of terms
rather than to a debate on the issues. For example, suppose that
in the proposition. Resolved, That the non-Communist nations of
the world should establish an economic community, the affirmative
defines “economic community” as a loose treaty among existing
regional economic communities. Has the affirmative really proposed
a significant change? No, because an economic community requires
more than a treaty agreement. It presupposes an organization with
sufficient powers to bring about a significant change from the
status quo. Abuse of the affirmative’s right of interpretation results
in poor debates.
 APPLYING DEBATE PROCEDURES 47

In reaching a correct interpretation, it must be considered that

every proposition involves a principle. For example, the proposi¬
tion that the federal government should aid state schools by an¬
nual grants for building construction has the underlying principle
of fedeial versus state support of education. Although the affirma¬
tive may favor partial support by the states and school districts, it
must contend for the principle of federal aid. On the other hand,
the negative may advocate any number of reforms, such as im¬
proved tax programs, economy in administration, and greater co¬
operation between states; but it should not include an extension
of the principle of federal aid. To insure a good debate, the propo¬
sition must be interpreted to bring out the basic principles inherent
in the resolution.

Declaring the main issues

The main issues inhere in the question; they are not a matter of
arbitrary choice. They must be discovered through study and
analysis, and there can be no productive debate until they are
found and set forth. The affirmative must assume this responsibility.
If the affirmative fails to set forth one or more of the inherent
issues, the negative should introduce them. Any essential issue in¬
troduced by the negative must be met by the affirmative. To win
the debate, the affirmative must have the advantage on all real
issues. The right to set them forth, regardless of arrangement, is
an affirmative privilege not to be denied by the negative.

Corresponding Negative Rights

If the affirmative should give an unfair interpretation of the

proposition, the negative may assume any one of several positions,
depending upon the circumstances of the debate and the nature
of the interpretation. If possible, the negative should accept the
affirmative’s interpretation even though the definitions may appear
improper. Such acceptance prevents quibbling and insures a debate
on the resolution rather than about its meaning. If, however, the
affirmative’s definitions seem unreasonable, the negative should
state its objections immediately and request the affirmative to
change its interpretation in accordance with the negative objections
and the statement of the proposition. Such objections should be
based upon reason and not upon mere preference. If the affirmative
48 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

refuses to change, the negative may debate the proposition as

defined, but should continue to point out the unwarranted inter¬
pretation. Such procedure permits a debate on issues, and at the
same time gives the negative psychological advantage because of
its willingness to continue the debate in spite of the affirmative’s
objectionable interpretation.
As a last resort the negative may refuse the affirmative’s inter¬
pretation. It should then define the meaning of the proposition and
continue the debate according to its own definition. Under this
circumstance, the debate must be decided on the reasonableness
of the opposing interpretations, noV upon the issues of the ques¬
tion. Such a procedure, if widely followed, would surely bring
educational debate into disrepute.

Processes of Debate Procedure

The procedures for educational debate call for a threefold

process, the parts of which must be clearly distinguished.

A threefold process

Debate consists of building-up, tearing-down, and rebuilding

processes. The building-up process comes in the constructive
speeches. Each team must present positive cases capable of proving
its side of the proposition. The cases depend upon the develop¬
ment of the main issues. In policy propositions, these issues in¬
volve the need for a change, the practicability of the proposal, and
the desirability of the proposed change.
Each side must also refute the opposing team’s case. Refutation
is the process of destroying opposing arguments. It has limited
use in the constructive speeches for answering opposing arguments
necessary for a continuation of one’s own case. However, it is used
extensively in the rebuttal speeches.
Finally, each team must rebuild its own case against the attacks
of the opposing team. This rebuilding process comes primarily in
the rebuttal speeches. The dual purpose of any rebuttal is first to
tear down the opponent’s case and second to rebuild one’s own
case. At the conclusion of a debate, the winning team must have
its own case established and the opposing case destroyed or defi¬
nitely weakened. Effective debating includes all three processes.
 APPLYING DEBATE PROCEDURES 49

Neiv issues in rebuttal speeches

The entire constructive case must be presented in the construc¬

tive speeches; no new issues may be introduced in the rebuttal
speeches. The principle of no new issues in rebuttal speeches must
not be confused with that of no new material. New material or
evidence may be presented in the rebuttal speeches on main issues
already introduced in the constructive speeches. If new material
could not be presented in rebuttal speeches, there would be only
a rehashing of evidence already given. New supporting material
and new alignment of argument in rebuttal speeches are essential
because they aid in the tearing-down and building-up processes.
The only limitation is that no new issue, necessary to the estab¬
lishment of the original case, be introduced in the rebuttals.

Affirmative and Negative Positions

The affirmative and negative positions on the proposition must

be clearly distinguishable as upholding the opposing principles
inherent in the proposition.

A fjirmative

The stand of the affirmative depends largely on the statement

of the proposition. Although the affirmative has the right to inter¬
pret the proposition, it has no right to make any changes in it.
The affirmative must set forth the essential significance of the
question at issue.
The following resolution may be used to illustrate this principle:
Resolved, That the federal government should adopt a uniform
retail sales tax. The statement obligates the affirmative to uphold
the federal retail sales tax as the best means of raising additional
revenue. The affirmative has considerable latitude in determining
how much additional revenue may be needed and how much can
reasonably be expected from a sales tax. It may favor measures
such as rigorous economy in government and increased penalties
for delinquent taxes in addition to an increased sales tax. The
statement of the proposition, however, requires the affirmative to
advocate the retail sales tax as the primary source of gaining ad-
50 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

ditional revenue, and this obligation holds despite the affirmative’s

right to interpret the proposition. The affirmative must show (1)
a need for more revenue, (2) that a federal sales tax would prove
practical in providing the needed revenue, and (3) that the sales
tax would not be accompanied by more evils than it would remedy.

Negative

The negative may assume any one of four possible positions: (1)
The negative’s case may consist entirely of refutation. (2) It may
uphold the status quo. (3) It ma)^- uphold the status quo with
modifications. (4) It may present a counterplan. Which procedure
should be followed? There can be no stock answer to this question
because the procedure will vary with each debate proposition.
The negative should analyze the proposition carefully before decid¬
ing. A few suggestions about each attitude follow; these suggestions
apply regardless of the proposition.
Pure Refutation. This procedure consists of an en¬
tirely destructive case. The negative may refuse to take a stand
either for the present system or for any substitute; its case consists
entirely of countering the affirmative’s main contentions. For ex¬
ample, on the federal retail sales tax proposition, the negative’s
main contentions could be: (1) There is no need for additional
revenue. (2) A federal retail sales tax would prove impractical.
(3) The proposal would be undesirable. Although this attitude is
within the realm of debate ethics, psychologically it may prove
unwise. Few audiences react favorably to pure refutation, an en¬
tirely destructive attitude. An audience would not, however, resent
refutation prefaced to show that the proposed destruction will
ultimately prove to be constructive.
Status Qiio. The extreme position in upholding the
status quo contends that all is satisfactory. This stand denies the af¬
firmative’s indictment of the present system; for example, the
existing tax program is satisfactory. In most instances such a con¬
tention is unnecessary and may actually prove to be dangerous. A
more logical position contends that although minor evils exist, the
status quo is sound in principle and can remedy its own short¬
comings. Furthermore, the negative may show the impossibility of
devising a perfect plan and argue the superiority of the present
 APPLYING DEBATE PROCEDURES 51

system over the changes suggested by the affirmative. When taking

this position, the negative usually contends that the affirmative has
exaggerated the evils and accompanies such reasoning with a
strong defense of the status quo.
Status Quo with Modifications. The negative may
concede inadequacies in the status quo and show that certain modi¬
fications will remedy present evils; for example, the present tax
structure is adequate if we will practice economy in governmental
administration. The negative that takes this stand usually presents
some definite modification and shows that its proposal does not
change the fundamental principles of the present system. Such a
contention should be prefaced with a clear exposition of the prin¬
ciples of the status quo. Any admitted weakness should be at¬
tributed to the way the system operates, not to its fundamental
principle. Whether or not this negative attitude should be used
extensively depends upon the strength of the affirmative’s indict¬
ment. If the weakness is not inherent, the negative may use this
position to advantage.
A negative team shows poor judgment when it contests any issue
upon which the affirmative has a strong advantage from the very
nature of the issue. Rather, the negative should concentrate on
those issues in which it has an inherent advantage. If it appears
difficult to uphold the present system, the negative can well afford
to argue for the status quo with modifications.
The Counterplan. If the negative finds it inadvisable
to undertake pure refutation, to uphold the status quo, or to
argue for modification of the present system, it may present a
counterplan, for example, a proposal that the federal government
levy a tax on real property. The counterplan offers a solution that
differs in principle from both the status quo and the affirmative
proposal; the federal government does not now levy taxes on real
property. This somewhat extreme type of negative case often
proves to be the least satisfactory. It automatically admits the need
for a change and thus resolves the debate into a comparison of two
proposed solutions. The negative in offering a counterplan loses
the presumption of the argument and assumes the burden of proof
on the alternate solution. Furthermore, the negative must prove
that its counterplan is superior to the affirmative’s proposal. The
counterplan is usually the most difficult type of case to uphold.
52 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Summary

The general theories and principles of educational debate enable

the college debater to engage in formal argument intelligently.
The affirmative has the burden of proof in debate with its off¬
setting advantages—the right to interpret the question and to
declare the main issues. The interpretation should be reasonable;
the issues presented must be fundamental.
The burden of rebuttal means the obligation to answer a prima-
facie argument. This burden is on {^he negative after the affirmative
presents a prima-facie case, but it may be shifted to the affirmative
upon effective refutation. The entire constructive case should be
presented in the constructive speeches; no essential issue should be
withheld until the rebuttal speeches.
The affirmative position in a debate must uphold the essential
features called for by the proposition. Negative teams have a choice
of four different positions: (1) to argue pure refutation, (2) to up¬
hold the status quo, (3) to uphold the status quo with modihcations,
(4) to present a counterplan. The proposition to be debated deter¬
mines the choice; the choice should always be based upon reason,
not mere preference.

Oral Assignment

Divide the class into several panels with no more than seven people on
a panel. Each panel should elect its chairman. Assign each panel the topic
“What is the problem relative to the question chosen for classroom de¬
bate?” At the next class period the panels should conduct their discussions
simultaneously. The panels may be assigned to various parts of the class¬
room or to separate small rooms if they are available. Each participant
should prepare an outline for the discussion. The chairman should be as¬
signed to make a five-minute report on the conclusions reached by his
panel at the next class session.

Collateral Readings

Courtney, Luther W., and Glenn R. Capp, Practical Debating, Ch. 2. Phil¬
adelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1949.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 4. New York: American
Book Co., 1944.
Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate, Ch. 7.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1963.
 APPLYING DEBATE PROCEDURES 53

McBath, James H., ed., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 7. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8e Winston, Inc., 1963.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 2. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.

Windes, Russel R., and Arthur N. Kruger, Championship Debating, pp.

23-33. Portland, Me.: J. Weston Walch, Publishers, 1961.
 4 Selecting and Phrasing
the Debate Proposition

Subjects for argumentation and debate take the form of proposi¬

tions that specify a particular course of action. Topics for discus¬
sion may be stated in question form; for example, “What should
be the foreign trade policy of the United States?” Subjects for nar¬
ration or description may be expressed in phrases, for example,
“The foreign trade policy of the United States.” Propositions for
debate call for a resolution, for example, “Resolved, That the
United States should join the European Common Market.”
A national proposition for intercollegiate debate is selected each
year by a five-man committee consisting of one representative each
from Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha, Pi Kappa Delta, Phi
Rho Pi, the American Forensic Association, and the Speech Associa¬
tion of America. The member appointed by the Speech Association
of America represents those colleges not affiliated with national
forensic organizations. A national topic facilitates the scheduling
of debate tournaments and public debates, but debating need not
be restricted to this topic. Variety in the use of topics adds inter¬
est and educational values to forensic programs and classes in
argumentation. For an understanding of the proposition for argu¬
mentation, consider the (1) types, (2) characteristics, and (3) require¬
ments for phrasing.

Types of Propositions

Three types of propositions predominate—policy, value, and

fact. Since the method of arguing each type varies, consider the
following explanations of the types.

54
 SELECTING AND PHRASING THE DEBATE PROPOSITION 55

Policy

A proposition of policy proposes a change in an existing political,

social, or economic order. It exemplifies the type of questions
debated in Congress or in any deliberative assembly. Policy proposi¬
tions raise the question “Should this action be taken?” “The federal
government should decrease the income tax” is an example. A
sound case of fundamental arguments may be assembled to show
that either the income tax should or should not be decreased.
Public opinion differs concerning the merits of lowering the in¬
come tax rate. Some tax authorities commend this form of taxation,
others oppose it. The aims of debate on propositions of public
policy should be to determine which side offers greater advantages
to the general public. There is no such thing as “the truth” con¬
cerning questions of policy because truthful arguments exist on
both sides. The following are additional propositions of policy:

Resolved, That the United States should extend diplomatic recogni¬

tion to the Communist government of China.
Resolved, That the federal government should establish a national
program of public work for the unemployed.
Resolved, That the non-Communist nations of the world should es¬
tablish an economic community.

Value

A proposition of value relates to the worth of a proposal, asking

whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, sound or unsound; for
example. Resolved, That socialism is superior to communism. This
proposition questions the worth or value of existing orders; it does
not suggest a change. Propositions of value, like propositions of
policy, demand no such thing as ultimate truth. Our sense of values
change; what we consider truth today m’ght not be considered
truth tomorrow. For a profitable debate, standards for evaluation
must be agreed upon early in the debate; otherwise, the opposing
teams may not debate the same principles. Nonetheless, sound argu¬
ments may be marshaled on either side of propositions that ques¬
tion the worth of things. The following are examples:

Resolved, That capital punishment is justifiable.

Resolved, That segregation in public schools is an unchristian prac¬
tice.
Resolved, That the use of nuclear weapons in warfare is justifiable.
56 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Fact

A proposition of fact argues the truth or the falsity of a state¬

ment. It asks the question “Is this true?” The purpose in debating
resolutions of fact is to secure acceptance or rejection of a statement
of alleged fact. Truth exists in propositions of fact although its
determination may be highly improbable if not impossible. An
example is the proposition Resolved, That the European Common
Market has promoted economic recovery in Europe. It cannot be
denied that either the European G|ommon Market is or is not
responsible for improved economic conditions among its member
nations. The fact of improved economic stability exists; the cause
for the condition may be strongly disputed. Whether we can prove
or disprove the assertion does not alter the possibility of presenting
the cases for and against such a fact in formal debate. Obviously,
only questions of fact that remain unsettled may be debated
profitably. The following are propositions of fact:

Resolved, That a compulsory automobile insurance program im¬

proves traffic safety.
Resolved, That the foreign aid program of the United States pre¬
vented the spread of communism.
Resolved, That war causes an increase in the crime rate of a nation.

Questions about which people could never agree even in part

should not be debated, nor should questions of fact capable of
proof by concrete evidence or by direct testimony. For example,
whether our national budget for defense has increased in recent
years offers no grounds for debate because factual proof may be
found by examining the national budget and other available docu¬
mentary evidence.
Propositions of policy usually make better questions for educa¬
tional debate than either those of value or of fact. They are more
realistic because they relate to present-day problems, those debated
in life situations of advocacy by policy-determining groups.

Characteristics of a Good Proposition

As a college student in a course in argumentation and debate,

you may be asked to select your own topics for practice speeches.
As an intercollegiate debater, you may be asked to vote on the
 SELECTING AND PHRASING THE DEBATE PROPOSITION 57

national proposition to determine your school’s vote. Knowledge

of what constitutes an acceptable proposition may serve you well.
Consider the following characteristics.

Current interest

The old questions that involve discussion of obscure philosophical

or theological opinions no longer interest people. Whether or not
ten thousand angels can stand on the point of a cambric needle
matters little to the average man. The justice of some proposed
welfare measure or the practicability of some plan to control
nuclear testing commands more attention than does the discussion
of the physical characteristics of angels.
The problem of world trade has been selected five times since
1930 as the national debate topic. Each time current changes in
world trade relationships called forth the proposition. For ex¬
ample, emphasis on the European Common Market motivated the
selection of a world trade proposition again in 1962-63. The move¬
ment toward economic communities gave an old problem current
interest and afforded the opportunity to have debates on a current
problem that interested audiences. Usually, propositions related
to the life of today should be chosen for public debate and for
classroom assignments in argumentation and debate courses.

Continuous interest

Propositions for intercollegiate debate call for a reasonable as¬

surance of continuous interest, since those questions settled before
the end of the debate season cannot retain interest. For example,
during a presidential campaign two problems that may command
attention are plans for electing a president and the question of the
national debt. Which of these will continue to be important? The
national debt constitutes an ever-present problem; the November
elections settle the choice of president for the next four years. On
the other hand, if a choice must be made between a question of an
international trade policy and a temporary debt-retirement pro¬
gram, the trade policy topic would appeal to more people because
of the far-reaching consequences involved.
Several years ago an intrastate debate league chose a proposition
calling for a reduction in the state sales tax. Before the end of the
debate season, the state legislature passed such a proposal, thus
58 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

decreasing the interest in and timeliness of the subject. It may

sometimes prove wise to sacrifice timeliness in order to secure
stability.

Provision for a broad background study

A good proposition has sufficient scope to command thorough
analysis and research over the debate season. Those who debate
whether or not the United States should decrease the federal
income tax would hardly restrict their study to the income tax
alone. The proposition affords opportunity for study of the larger
problems of taxation and fiscal policy. In addition to elementary
texts on economic principles, study could be made of the better
treatises on taxation, fiscal policy, national debt, inflation, and
related subjects.
The question of a federal scholarship program for superior stu¬
dents would prove interesting for a classroom assignment in a
course in argumentation, but it may be too narrow in scope to
challenge college debaters over an entire debate season. Conversely,
the problem of international trade would probably be too broad
in scope for a class assignment, but it affords a good basis for
profitable study throughout the forensic year. Good propositions
demand inquiry into related fields; they thus contribute to the
general culture of the student.

Adaptability to the participants’ ability

A good proposition is not above or below the intellectual ability
of the student. For example, a question involving a fundamental
knowledge of law should not be chosen for college undergraduate
students since they are not likely to understand it fully. To debate
intelligently that Congress should have the power to override deci¬
sions of the Supreme Court requires a thorough knowledge of our
political and legal systems. The proposition would serve as a
challenging subject for law students. Beginning college students
are not likely to have the necessary background to understand the
full implications of the question, however, and to require them to
debate questions beyond their capacity encourages sophistry.
Such subjects as world trade relationships, the United Nations,
the welfare state, and labor-management problems offer broad
fields for study within the ability of undergraduate students.
 SELECTING AND PHRASING THE DEBATE PROPOSITION 59

Propositions such as compulsory health insurance, federal aid to

education, and the sales tax are good topics for classroom debates,
but they may not prove sufficiently challenging as national ques¬
tions. In short, good propositions enlist the interests and best
efforts of debaters without requiring them to debate subjects be¬
yond their ability.

Phrasing the Proposition

A proposition may meet all the requirements for a good subject

and still not make a suitable proposition because of improper
phrasing. The following suggestions should be considered when
a proposition is phrased.

Use a complete sentence

We argue for or against, not about, a proposition. The proposi¬

tion should be stated in a declarative sentence with two terms and
a copula. The subject is one term; the verb is the copula or con¬
necting link; and the word or words after the verb make up the
other term. For example, one does not debate about world trade.
The following resolution, however, is debatable: Resolved, That
the non-Communist nations of the world should establish an
economic community. “The non-Communist nations” is the sub¬
ject or first term, “should establish” the verb or copula, and “an
economic community” the object or second term.
As stated in the introduction, for purposes of formal debate the
proposition should be stated in the form of a resolution, such as
Resolved, That the United Nations should be given control of
nuclear power. For discussion, an informal question serves best;
for example, “How can nuclear power be controlled?” The dif¬
ferences are attributable to the inherent natures of discussion and
debate. Discussion should consider the various solutions to a prob¬
lem; debate should weigh the arguments on the two sides of one
proposed solution. The resolution indicates clearly the affirmative
and negative positions in the argument.

Provide a debatable resolution

A good proposition should have a balance of arguments to

prevent giving either side an initial advantage. For example, “the
60 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

federal government should adopt a uniform retail sales tax” would

be more equally balanced than ‘‘the federal government should
retire its national debt by a uniform retail sales tax.” Both pertain
to the same question and would involve the same principles, but
the latter statement puts too great a burden upon the affirmative
because methods other than a sales tax would be necessary to
retire the debt.
Resolutions that do not have acceptable standards for compari¬
son make poor propositions, for example. Resolved, That medicine
has done more than law to advance civilization. The statement
gives no criteria for decision. Both thV medical and the legal profes¬
sions have accomplished much in their respective fields, but the
two areas are hardly comparable. A similar proposition is Resolved,
That Lincoln was a greater president than Franklin Roosevelt.
Since the two men lived in different periods and faced different
issues, no common standard for measurement prevails. Propositions
that have no criteria for judging the truth or falsity of the basic
principle involved prove unsuitable.

Phrase the proposition affirmatively

Debate propositions are phrased so that the affirmative advocates

the change and the negative opposes it. Consider Resolved, That
the United States should retain its present reciprocal trade agree¬
ments with foreign nations. The affirmative must argue against a
change before the existing program is indicted. The negative must
assume the burden of proving the inadequacy of the status quo,
and the affirmative has the presumption in its favor from the
beginning. This arrangement is comparable to asking the defense
counsel in a criminal lawsuit to present the defense before the
state presents the prosecution. The following affirmative state¬
ment avoids this confusion: Resolved, That the United States
should discontinue its present reciprocal trade agreements with
foreign nations.
Propositions do not necessarily have to contain a negative term
to violate this principle. For example, the proposition Resolved,
That the United States should not join the European Common
Market is clearly a negative statement. The proposition Resolved,
That the United States should continue its present trade policy
with the European Common Market is also negative because it
 SELECTING AND PHRASING THE DEBATE PROPOSITION 61

does not require the affirmative to indict the present system nor to
assume the burden of proof.

Include only one central idea

Improperly phrased propositions may contain two or more

proposals, for example, Resolved, That the United States should
decrease the tax on income and adopt a sales tax. This resolution
places upon the affinnative the double duty of showing (1) that
the income tax should be decreased and (2) that a sales tax should
be adopted. The negative side might reasonably concede the
proposal to decrease income taxes and contest the adoption of a
sales tax. There would be little need to counter both parts of the
proposition. A similar condition would result with the proposition
Resolved, That the United States should extend diplomatic recog¬
nition to Communist China and vote lor her acceptance into the
Uriited Nations. It might be possible to establish a case for recogni¬
tion and fail to prove a case for membership in the United Nations.
Certain propositions that approach a dual nature may be ac¬
ceptable for formal debate, such as Resolved, That the President
of the United States should be elected for a single term of six years.
The two ideas “single term” and “six years” have long been as¬
sociated as a single idea as opposed to a four-year term with no
provisions against re-election. A good proposition is Resolved, That
the federal government should otvn and operate the railroads.
Since ownership presupposes operation, the proposal need not be
classified as dual. The same could not be said for Resolved, That
the federal government should own and operate the railroads and
coal mines. An acceptable case might be advanced for nationalizing
one industry but not the other.

Avoid ambiguous terms

Terms capable of more than one interpretation will lead to

confusion and result in quibbling. Consider the following: Re¬
solved, That the income tax is superior to the sales tax. The term
“superior” is ambiguous. Does it mean that one tax is more equita¬
ble, more productive, easier to administer, or that it fits better
into our present tax program? The proposition could arouse more
discussion over the meaning of “superior” than on the issues of the
62 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

question because no acceptable standard of measurement of the

term exists.
Another proposition ambiguously stated is Resolved, That the
federal government should aid private colleges and universities.
What is meant by “aid”? Does it mean that the federal government
should provide funds for buildings, promote scholarships for supe¬
rior students, grant additional tax concessions, or make other
provisions to encourage private schools? Valuable time would be
consumed in reaching an understanding of the term.
The term “economic community” in the 1962-63 national propo¬
sition, Resolved, That the non-Conimunist nations of the world
should establish an economic community, caused confusion when
affirmative teams neglected to define the term clearly in the open¬
ing speech. Definitions of this term varied all the way from a “loose
treaty agreement” to a “world government with police powers.”
The first negative speaker often wasted valuable time refuting a
principle different from that presented in the second affirmative
speech. Then the negative often charged the affirmative with failure
to propose a significant change. The result was a loss of time in an
effort by the affirmative to justify its interpretation. Some teams
debated the meaning of the term rather than the issues of the
proposition.

Avoid prejudiced terms

A proposition contains a prejudiced term when it assumes a point

that should be in dispute, for example. Resolved, That the brutal
sport of boxing should be declared illegal. If the statement of the
proposition assumes boxing to be brutal, the negative has the in¬
congruous position of upholding a brutal sport; the term “brutal”
assumes a point that should be an issue in the debate. The same
is true of the word “inequitable” in Resolved, That the inequitable
income tax should be abolished. “Inequitable” is clearly a prej¬
udicial term, the use of which gives the affirmative an advantage
from the mere statement of the proposition.
Such terms as “fair employment practices,” “right to work laws,”
and “diplomatic recognition,” as used in former national questions,
were unfortunate because they evoked emotional responses in un¬
informed people from the mere use of the terms, although the
terms had specific meanings apart from the emotional connotations.
 SELECTING AND PHRASING THE DEBATE PROPOSITION 63

Restrict the scope

Acceptable subjects may result in poor debates because the

phrasing o£ the proposition fails to narrow the debate to the time
limit. The subject of world trade constitutes an excellent study for
debaters; the entire field of world trade is, however, too broad for
a debate limited to one hour. For example. Resolved, That the
United States should revise its loorld trade policies has no limits.
Propositions that properly limit the subject are: Resolved, That
the United States should abolish all tariffs; Resolved, That the
United States should join the European Common Market; or Re¬
solved, That the non-Communist nations should adopt a policy of
free trade. The following proposition is too broad: Resolved, That
the United States should reform its tax program. The proposition
Resolved, That the United States should adopt a sales tax is suitable
for debate because it properly restricts the field of taxation. Instead
of phrasing the proposition Resolved, That the American system
of education should be reformed, restrict it to Resolved, That the
federal government should guarantee an opportunity for higher
education to all qualified high school graduates.

Summary

Care in the selection and in the phrasing of the proposition is

essential to intelligent debating and profitable classroom assign¬
ments. Propositions arise from questions of policy, of value, or of
fact. Propositions of policy propose a change in a prevailing social,
economic, or political program; propositions of value question the
worth of a proposal; propositions of fact seek to determine the
existence of alleged facts. Propositions of policy make the best
debate questions because they are more frequently debated in life
situations.
The following characteristics of a good debate question should
be observed: (1) It has current interest. (2) It has continuous inter¬
est. (3) It provides for a broad background study. (4) It is adapted
to the participant’s ability.
The following rules govern the phrasing of debate propositions:
(1) Use a complete sentence. (2) Provide a debatable resolution.
(3) Phrase the proposition affirmatively. (4) Include only one cen-
64 THE PROCESSES OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

tral idea. (5) Avoid ambiguous terms. (6) Avoid prejudiced terms.
(7) Restrict the scope.

Oral Assignment

The chairmen of the panel discussions of the last period should report
on the conclusions reached by their panels—time limit, five minutes. Class
members should take notes. An open forum should follow the reports.

Collateral Readings

Abernathy, Elton, The Advocate: A Manual of Persuasion, Ch. 2. New

York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1964.
Courtney, Luther W., and Glenn R. Capp, Practical Debating, Ch. 4.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1949.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 2. New York: American
Institute of Banking, 1962.
Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 2. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1961.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 2. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 3. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
Ill
Preparing for Argument
and Debate
 <>v < ♦.

; A* 144 * I f -I
rn
• ,<> >> i *■, - ■#»(W ■ ^l^llSli ^ifA
7i» 4ii^ ■** *■ * ^ 11 <«.

11 r
i

■ u..r. ’,'■#
- .\ {!■'
1 • ii

4 t .. , * •

-f i. >
-•
.4

•i .-<•■ 1.4.

,f
• '•■« • *1

-. Hlf r f>-

■' . rf.w**
« * ■'.
•JoA^ jiK
 Finding and
Evaluating Material

A leading forensic director, asked what he considered most im¬

portant in successful debating, answered, “Know more about the
subject than your opponent.” Thorough preparation may not be
the most interesting part of debating, but it often proves the most
rewarding. Almost all successful debaters testify in later life to the
value of habits of research acquired from college forensic work. In
a survey of fifty former college debaters, this factor was listed
among the five most important benefits derived from debating.^
Representative replies follow: C. J. Humphrey, a prominent lawyer,
stated, “Debating taught me early that hard work, diligence, and
preparedness often offset the initial advantage of better speakers
who are not prepared.” Dr. Ralph Phelps, President of Ouachita
College, stated, “First, it taught valuable lessons in research. This
included a knowledge of sources, digging deeply into a problem,
and organization of facts thus found.” The Reverend J. W. Bruner,
a successful minister, stated, “I would also emphasize that the
reading and research . . . broadened my thinking and helped to
make me at least conversant on many subjects which I would not
have explored otherwise.” Frank M. Rosson, Vice-President and
General Counsel of the Government Personnel Mutual Life Insur¬
ance Company, stated, “It is my firm opinion that the study and
preparation of debate cases were of inestimable value in the
planning and preparation of law cases and briefs in my later
years. . . . The same mechanics employed in the preparation of
debate cases I found could be carried over in the preparation of
cases on appeal in the appellate courts.” In short, finding and eval-

1 Edna G. Allen and Glenn R. Capp, "As the Debaters See It,” Speech Activities,
VI, No. 4 (Winter, 1950), 150-53.

67
68 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Dating material result in successful debating and make permanent

contributions in later life.

Sources of Material

Before studying the procedure for gathering material, examine

the sources from which the debater may draw. Consider the follow¬
ing primary sources.

General knoivledge

Instead of going immediately to' the library in search of argu¬

ments, think first about the proposition—consider its meaning, how
it may be narrowed, what fundamental principles inhere, and what
the main arguments might be. As a basis for such reflective thought,
your general background of information will be helpful. Because
of the vastness of modern means of communication, you perhaps
have a greater knowledge of current subjects than you may realize;
you need only to think reflectively to recall the information. To
make a tentative evaluation of material, start by listing the possible
arguments on both sides of the resolution. First impressions will
undergo changes after further investigation, but putting thoughts
on paper stimulates thinking and leads to additional research.
Re-examining what has been read, studying new material, and
revising initial arguments will enable you to analyze the question
and arrange your thoughts logically.
In planning your study, understand the distinction between
direct and indirect preparation. The latter comes through ex¬
perience, travel, association with others, general study, and observa¬
tion; the former consists of specific research, reflective thought, and
reasoning. Both types of preparation are essential, but the debater
with a background of general knowledge has the initial advantage.
Consider the following suggestions for developing a general
background:
1. Read a newspaper daily. Not all items found in the papers
prove helpful, but the general trend of domestic and world affairs,
editorials and syndicated columns, the financial section, and special
features serve the debater well. Keeping up with current problems
pays rich dividends for developing a background of information.
2. Read a news magazine each week. The leading news maga-
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 69

zincs are United States News and World Report, Newsweek, and
Time. These magazines summarize and synthesize current hap¬
penings and keep you abreast of national and international affairs.
You can get a broader understanding from the news magazines than
from the daily papers alone because news magazines give analytical
and extensive accounts of current events.
3. Read some of the better magazines each month, for example,
Harper’s, Atlantic, Scribner’s, Review of Revieios, Fortune, Amer¬
ican Economic Revieiv, Vital Speeches, Academy of Political Sci¬
ence, Survey Graphic, and other periodicals in special fields of
interest. Such magazines ordinarily contain articles based on exten¬
sive research that give needed facts and stimulate thinking. Read
articles that represent varying points of view; for example, maga¬
zines like The Nation, The Neto Republic, and The Reporter
give a liberal point of view to offset the conservative flavor of some
of those magazines already listed. Digest magazines sometimes
prove helpful in spite of their condensation, but it is best to read
the original articles.
4. Read good books regularly. A regular habit of reading books
will add to your background of information. Try to achieve a
balance between classical and contemporary books, fiction and
nonfiction, prose and poetry. The book review sections of the news
magazines and such publications as the New York Times, the
Saturday Review, Harper’s, and Atlantic will provide information
about the leading current books; for information about the classics,
consult such books as May Lamberton Becker’s Adventures in
Reading, Francis Xavier Meehan’s Living Upstairs: Reading for
Profit and Pleasure, and John O’Donnell’s Much Loved Books.

Conferences or interviews

Helpful material may be obtained from interviews or confer¬

ences with informed persons, and the college campus offers a fruit¬
ful source for such interviews. If, for example, the debate question
pertains to the Supreme Court, a professor in political science
could be interviewed about the function of our court system. A
professor of law could give information on how our courts operate.
Interviews with the president of the local bar association, with
some prominent attorney or judge, or with an official from the
state bar association would be profitable.
70 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Interviews will be most productive after you have studied the

subject sufficiently to ask discerning questions. Plan the interview
carefully to get the desired information in a minimum of time.
Try to obtain information not readily available by reading, to
clarify ideas that have arisen from your previous study, to obtain
the opinion of the person interviewed, and to get suggestions for
additional research. Arrange an appointment and explain the
reason for the interview and the purpose that the information will
serve. Properly planned and conducted, the interview may prove
a valuable source of information.

Public addresses and programs

Valuable information may also be obtained by listening to lec¬

tures, discussions, and debates on the subject for debate. Chapter 2
discussed a planned program of lectures by a debate group as a
cooperative method for preparation. Individual members of the
debate squad may supplement this cooperative effort by seeking
programs that bear on the subject. Other sources of information
which may relate to phases of the subject or allied subjects are dis¬
cussion programs on television, community lectures and discus¬
sions, and lecturers for local civic and study clubs.

Correspondence and questionnaires

Correspondence may be necessary to supplement materials found

locally. The Library of Congress, Division of Bibliography, Wash¬
ington, D. C., furnishes excellent bibliographies on many ques¬
tions; selected bibliographies may be secured also from federal
and state departments. For example, if the question deals with an
educational program, the following departments and organizations
in Washington, D. C., could supply bibliographies and other mate¬
rial: the United States Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare; the National Education Association of the United States;
and the National Advisory Committee on Education. The state
educational association in almost any state would also furnish
material upon request.
If the proposition pertains to some bill pending before Congress,
copies of the bill may be secured from your congressman or senator.
Many societies and leagues furnish partisan publications on ques-
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 71

tions affecting their causes. On socialized medicine, for example,

write the American Medical Association or your state medical as¬
sociation. The cost of such material is small.
Many state university extension departments furnish material
for the cost of return postage. This material may take the form
of handbooks, clippings from newspapers, and long quotations
from books. Some well-selected material is mimeographed or printed
and sold to debaters at cost. It may be possible to obtain pertinent
articles and pamphlets through correspondence with city librarians.
The questionnaire is useful in securing the latest information,
and material thus secured has the advantage of originality. Sup¬
pose the proposition for debate contends that your state should
adopt a retail sales tax. Information concerning the status of
the sales tax may be obtained through questionnaires to the various
departments of state. Such questions as the following would pro¬
vide useful information;

1. When was the sales tax adopted in your state?

2. Has it been used continuously since its adoption?
3. What is the sales tax rate?
4. Has the rate been changed since its adoption?
5. Other than the sales tax, what are chief sources of tax income in your
state?
6. Approximately what percentage of the revenue from the sales tax is
required for its collection?
7. About what percentage of the revenue of your state is derived from
the sales tax?
8. Compared to your state income tax, if any, what is your opinion of
the extent of evasions of the sales tax?_ greater than income
tax; _ about the same; _ less than income tax.
9. Compared to your state income tax, if any, what is the public’s atti¬
tude toward the sales tax? _ more favorable toward the sales
tax; _ about the same; _ less favorable toward the
sales tax.
10. As a source for state taxation, rate the following types of taxes as first,
second, third, and fourth; _ income tax; _ sales tax;
_real property tax; _ natural resource tax.

Know precisely the information needed before making out the

questionnaire; otherwise the material secured may not be helpful.
The value of the questionnaire depends on the percentage of
returns, and short questions usually receive a higher percentage of
replies than long and involved queries. The following suggestions
should prove helpful;
72 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

1. Send a letter (typed, not mimeographed) with the questionnaire. State

briefly the purpose and the importance of the information sought;
express thanks for the courtesy of a reply; offer to send a compilation
of your findings.
2. Type or mimeograph the questionnaire on paper size 8/2 by 11 inches.
Observe these rules:
a. Use one side of the paper only; leave sufficient space for the an¬
swers.
b. Make questions clear and to the point.
c. Where exact information is not essential, ask for approximations.
Avoid making it necessary to consult files, make telephone calls, or
otherwise inconvenience the one who is asked for information.
d. On matters of opinion use multip^le choice questions. For example,
instead of asking “What is your‘opinion of the sales tax?” use
the check method;_for,_neutral,_against.
3. Send all letters and questionnaires first class mail.
4. Enclose a self-addressed and stamped envelope.
5. Send a second letter if no reply is received within ten days. A second
follow-up letter may be sent.

Discussion

Discussion can become a major source of information through

common efforts of a debate squad. The well-planned forensic pro¬
gram makes use of an exchange of ideas and serves as a method of
pooling materials. Talking ideas over with others will help clarify
your own thinking and improve your facility at expressing your¬
self on the subject. Discuss the subject with your roommate, your
debate colleagues, and your professors. (Chapter 2 explained a
program of formal and informal discussions.) Informal considera¬
tion of material and tentative plans of argument should be dis¬
cussed first; these considerations lead naturally to the more formal
discussion methods. Both formal and informal discussions help in
cooperative preparation.

Research

Research constitutes the most important method of preparation.

Consider the following sources;
Encyclopedias. As an initial step, consult a standard
encyclopedia for a brief over-all view of the subject before making
a detailed investigation from other sources. The general view
derived from an encyclopedia helps acquaint you with the subject
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 73

as a whole and indicates the direction for your research. Old edi¬
tions are kept up-to-date by supplementary volumes; for example,
Encyclopedia Britannica publishes its yearbook, Britannica Book
of the Year; The Encyclopedia Americana issues the annual year¬
book, The Americana; The New International Encyclopedia pub¬
lishes The New International Yearbook. They treat economic,
political, and social questions at length and include well-selected
bibliographies. The references listed in the encyclopedias will lead
to additional material which, in turn, will also contain bibliogra¬
phies. With these aids, you can compile a working bibliography in
short order. These sources plus those secured through correspond¬
ence and interviews will properly launch your study.
Source Books and Textbooks. Having gained an over¬
all view of the subject, start your research in earnest by consulting
source books and textbooks for basic knowledge.
In using a library, consult the card catalogue for bibliographical
aids. All books in the library are listed alphabetically by author,
title, and subject matter. Frequently you may have difficulty in
finding articles or books that treat a given proposition directly.
Suppose, for instance, the proposition is stated Resolved, That the
United Nations should be changed to a federal world government.
Most likely you will not find an article or book with this exact
title, but you can select key words or associated terms and search
for articles whose titles suggest other topics. Titles such as “United
States Foreign Policy,” “League of Nations,” “Federation,” or
“Confederation” invite further study. To one who has an inquir¬
ing mind, the investigation of many topics will usually yield con¬
structive material.
Since a thorough investigation must precede intelligent debat¬
ing, concern yourself first with gaining background knowledge
through source books. In the initial stages of research, give little
attention to pro and con arguments. Do not restrict your investiga¬
tion to the immediate question; give attention to related fields.
For example, if the question relates to federal aid to education,
study school administration, school finance, taxation for school
purposes, and similar subjects.
Magazines and Newspapers. After gaining basic knowl¬
edge, give attention to dependable magazines and newspapers, such
as those listed earlier in this chapter, for specific arguments.
Evaluate all news stories cautiously; items disseminated by the
74 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

news gathering agencies such as the Associated Press and the United
Press International prove most reliable. Consult the New York
Times Index for a complete listing of newspaper articles; most
newspapers will carry similar news items on the same dates. Use
the Readers’ Guide and Poole’s Index to find magazine articles.
Readers’ Guide, published monthly, is made into annual volumes
by many libraries and into three-year volumes by others, and it
lists magazine articles the same way as the card catalogue lists
books—by author, title, and subject matter. Newspapers and maga¬
zines prove invaluable for keeping up to date on current ques¬
tions, but be discriminating in yourv^choice of articles.
Governmental and Private Documents. Use govern¬
ment publications to find authentic material and statistical infor¬
mation. The annual and monthly reports of state and federal
departments provide reliable facts.
The Congressional Record may be invaluable as a source for
current legislative debates on your subject. The official journal of
Congress, it is published daily during congressional sessions and
carries all congressional debates. Other pertinent articles and ad¬
dresses are published in the appendixes.
The Library of Congress publishes governmental documents on
almost all subjects. Many university libraries are depositories for
such documents. Lists of references may be secured by writing the
Division of Bibliography, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
The Catalogue of Public Documents and the Monthly Catalogue
will probably be available in your university library. Send orders
for individual copies of governmental pamphlets to the Super¬
intendent of Documents, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
Of special importance to college debaters is Public Law 88-246,
passed by the Eighty-eighth Congress on December 30, 1963. This
act provides for the “preparation and printing of compilations of
materials relating to annual high school and college debate topics.”
House Document No. 363, dated September 1964, was the first
publication issued under this act. It contains an excellent compila¬
tion of articles, analyses, and official statements on the national
debate topic. Copies may be received free from your congressman
and senator or from the United States Government Printing Office
for one dollar.
Certain standard government documents prove helpful on al¬
most all topics: The Statistical Abstract of the United States can
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 75

be secured through the Government Printing Office, Washington,

D. C., and the Federal Reserve Bulletin can be ordered from the
Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D. C.
In addition to official publications, many special pamphlets and
books are issued by interested organizations and private research
centers. The following publications provide needed factual data:
The World Almanac, available through the World-Telegram and
Sun, New' York City; The Statesman’s Yearbook, the Macmillan
Company, New York City; Information Please Almanac, also by the
Macmillan Company; the Book of States and various state almanacs.
Other materials are readily available through public relations divi¬
sions of interested organizations. Some of these sources may show
personal bias, but the serious student learns to study articles
critically.
Handbooks. Several “debaters’ handbooks’’ contain
material and suggestions prepared especially for debaters. For ex¬
ample, the H. W. Wilson Company, New York City, publishes the
Reference Shelf Series; J. Weston Walch, Publishers, Portland,
Maine, issues a handbook series annually; The Congressional Digest
Corporation of Washington, D. C., publishes the Congressional
Digest. These publications contain selected articles, suggested in¬
terpretations, analyses, briefs, and bibliographies. Do not use the
analyses contained in such handbooks as substitutes for independent
research and analysis; use them as aids.

Attitudes in Research

Procedures and sources of research serve the debater well in

thorough preparation, but the attitude he acquires toward research
is also important.

The inquiring attitude

Develop an inquiring mind; unless you become a discoverer you

will not get very far. Many false trails will be followed, for no one
can tell beforehand exactly what articles will prove most helpful.
In debate, as in almost all activities, persistency and consistency
eventually prove effective. If you cultivate a real desire to find
material, you will not lack opportunity.
Because you cannot incorporate in your arguments all the good
material you find, some debaters may question the wisdom of col-
76 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

lecting material not to be used in their debates. However, the in¬

formation gained from investigation and the new outlook that
comes from long hours of study are permanent assets—the tests
applied to each argument make their contribution. Superficial
indeed is the thinking that exhausts itself in the delivery of a few
opinions or excerpts from digest materials prepared especially for
debaters. Thorough investigation of national or international
problems may lead to real contributions in later life. An interest
in information comes through cultivating the inquiring mind.

The tentative attitude \,

Adopt a tentative rather than a fixed attitude toward questions

during the early stages of investigation. The proposition should be
approached with an open mind, not simply with the attitude of
finding arguments to support preconceived ideas.
It may often prove difficult to distinguish between fact and
opinion, especially when reading propaganda material. A good
exercise is to read an article and classify each statement on the
basis of fact or opinion; such classification will likely show a
preponderance of the latter. Consider your own extreme views and
ascertain if their source is fact or otherwise. If you are fully honest
with yourself, you will find that often your views are prejudices
rather than convictions.
Many matters once accepted as fact change. Nothing remains
static. Note these common beliefs of the past which have been
disproved: the world is flat; women are not physically able to use
a typewriter for extended periods; air brakes cannot possibly stop
a train; man will black out if he travels faster than sixty miles an
hour. On the other hand, many theories or opinions of the past
are demonstrable facts today, for example: germs cause commu¬
nicable diseases; man’s life expectancy can be extended; man can
perfect a flying machine; a nuclear bomb capable of destroying an
entire city is possible. In research, adopt the scientific attitude. The
true scientist never works with a closed mind; he accepts certain
hypotheses as true tentatively, but he depends upon further in¬
vestigation to prove or disprove the hypotheses. Accept findings
tentatively and alter your opinions if further investigation war¬
rants change.
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 77

The discriminating attitude

Research calls for discrimination in reading. One of the com¬

mon errors of immature debaters is that they believe everything
they read. Some experienced debaters, on the other hand, acquire
a propaganda neurosis—they do not believe anything they read.
Alfred Korzybski ^ once said that “the two easiest ways to slide
through life are (1) to believe everything and (2) to believe nothing.”
Either attitude relieves one of the necessity of thinking, of weigh¬
ing arguments and evidence, of sifting opinions, and of coming to
individual conclusions. Discriminating reading may take more
energy, but it is necessary for any worthwhile research.
When a Senate committee was investigating activities of certain
munition makers of World War I, a stinging denunciation of the
committee appeared in an editorial of a popular magazine. This
editorial gave statistics to prove its contentions of malpractices;
these statistics contradicted the committee findings, based upon
authoritative sources, before the committee published its conclu¬
sions. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the publishers of
the magazine owned a large share of stock in a munitions factory.
The opinion and the interpretation of purported facts by the
magazine were based upon personal bias and selfish interests. The
discriminating reader must weigh all statements carefully if he
desires to find correct factual information.
Many of the tests of evidence and reasoning in succeeding chap¬
ters will help you distinguish between conflicting information en¬
countered in research. It suffices here to caution you to cultivate
the discriminating as well as the inquiring mind.

The weighing attitude

Recognize that facts and argument exist on both the affirmative

and the negative sides of every debate proposition and issue in
question. Often the evidence and reasoning may almost balance.
Many debaters acquire the “all or none” attitude in their research,
causing them to make dogmatic statements and sweeping conclu-

2 Irving J. Lee, Language Habits in Human Affairs (New York; Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1941), p. xx.
78 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

sions. They think that an argument must be either 100 per cent
true or 100 per cent false. The actual situation may be that it is
51 per cent true and 49 per cent false; it may even be 50-50. As¬
sociate Justice Robert Jackson once made a speech in which he
discussed certain principles of education at length. At the conclu¬
sion of his talk, he expressed the belief that what he had said was
about 51 per cent correct. He explained further that, since he had
to act on the matter, he would act on his 51 per cent belief the
same as if it were a 100 per cent belief. He recognized the close
margin on which he had to base his decision.
The proposition Resolved, That the federal government should
adopt a retail sales tax is illustrative. Fundamentally sound argu¬
ments and abundant evidence may be found on both sides of the
proposition and on each argument for either side. One must make
a decision on the matter, weighing advantage against disadvantage.
Since equally intelligent people arrive at opposite conclusions
through such a procedure, it becomes evident that the argument
and evidence are not all on one side.

Recording Material

Wide reading on a subject is not enough. Through careful notes,

you should make all worthwhile material available for future use.
Of course, some materials may not be worth taking notes on be¬
cause they reveal shallow thinking, false conclusions, and immature
opinions; thus, the first problem in taking notes involves deciding
what to record. You need not take full notes on everything when
you begin your study because your first reading should be in source
books for background understanding. When the general lines of
the argument are clear in your mind, more copious notes will be in
order. Naturally, more pages of notes than can be used will be
made. Copious notes offer a wider choice of material when final
arguments must be rounded into shape.
You must decide for yourself what method to use in making
notes. Although no fixed rules prevail, you should adopt a definite
plan and follow it rigorously in order to avoid wasted effort. You
may find that cards offer the most convenient means for recording
notes. There are cards three by five inches, four by six inches, or
five by eight inches; the four-by-six size is large enough to con¬
tain ample material and is convenient to use. Jotting down scraps
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 79

of information on pieces of paper, envelopes, and margins of text¬

books proves almost worthless.
Some debaters prefer to use a notebook instead of cards. The
notebook proves convenient for note taking, but it may be awkward
to use in a debate. If you choose a notebook, select the loose-leaf
variety so that the notes and arguments can be filed properly. Use
an alphabetical index or an index of your own devising; to be of
value the material must be easily located during a debate.
You may decide for yourself what notes to take and what form
to use, but there remains little choice on some matters—simple
honesty and efficiency demand that certain rules be followed.
Quotations must be accurate and should be acknowledged by use
of quotation marks. If you wish to record only the gist of the
writer’s ideas and express them in your own words, do not juggle
the thought and the words of the author; give an accurate repre¬
sentation of his ideas. Never quote a few isolated sentences in a
paragraph or a few paragraphs at random unless the sentences and
paragraphs so selected represent accurately the conclusions of the
author. The omission of a word, a phrase, or a clause within the
sentence, or a sentence or two within the paragraph, may change
the writer’s meaning. Misrepresentation through faulty quotation
is indefensible. It falsifies the author’s purpose and adds the weight
of his name to an argument without his consent. A man’s printed
opinion may be as dear a possession as a piece of material property.
The forms for card notes are shown on page 80. If the quotation
or note is too long for one card, use additional cards, lettered a, b,
and c. If you find opinions similar to one on a given card, indicate
such opinions by a cross reference. If the matter contained on the
card constitutes argument for the opponent, write down on the
same card a brief refutation of the argument or put such refutation
on a separate card with a cross reference on each card. Do not be
satisfied until you find refutation material on all possible points.
Dependence on your memory for refutation and sources of evidence
usually invites defeat—under stress of a closely contested point, a
lapse of memory may occur.
In recording notes, you should quote original sources rather
than books or articles based on them. If the debate concerns some
bill or similar document, secure an official copy of the matter;
instead of quoting from a book review, quote from the original
book. Certain publications that have established reputations for
80 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

6"

Author, Title, Magazine or Book, Page

4"
Quotation or gist of article

Cross references

or

6"

Topic

Quotation or gist of article 4"

Cross references or refutation

Author, Title, Magazine or Book, Page

accuracy of quotations and honesty in selecting representative

parts may be accepted without question, but make it a rule to
secure the original when possible. When quoting, be sure to give
the source. To read from a work proves more effective than to read
from a card, though a debater can hardly carry along all books
used in his preparation.

Summary

Consider the many sources of debate material: (1) general knowl¬

edge, (2) conferences and interviews, (3) correspondence and ques¬
tionnaires, (4) discussion, and (5) research. Adopt a systematic plan
 FINDING AND EVALUATING MATERIAL 81

for research and include the following sources: (1) encyclopedias,

(2) source books and current texts, (3) periodicals and newspapers,
(4) governmental and private documents, and (5) handbooks.
Acquire an intelligent attitude toward research. The proper at¬
titude includes: (1) an inquiring mind, (2) a tentative rather than
a fixed attitude, (3) a discriminating mind, and (4) a weighing at¬
titude.
The recording of materials to be used in the debate may take
the form of: (1) cards of such size as desired, or (2) a notebook—
preferably loose-leaf so that filing may be done conveniently. At all
times remember to be fair in recording material. Whenever pos¬
sible, make notes from original sources rather than from books or
articles based on these sources.

Oral Assignment

Divide the class for another round of panel discussions on the subject
“How can the problem best be solved?” on the topic chosen for classroom
debates. Have each panel elect a chairman different from the chairmen
of the first panel discussions. The chairman should give a five-minute re¬
port on the conclusion reached by his panel at the next class session.

Collateral Readings

Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate, Chs. 4, 5,

6. New York: Dodd, Mead 8c Co., 1963.
Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 4. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1961.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 4. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
Kruger, Arthur N., Modern Debate, Ch. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1960.
McBath, James H., ed.. Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 5. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8c Winston, Inc., 1963.
Nichols, Alan, Discussion and Debate, Part I, Ch. 3. New York: Harcourt,
Brace 8c World, Inc., 1941.
 Analyzing the Proposition

Through analysis one considers a fjroposition in its various parts,

determines its underlying philosophy, interprets its meaning,
decides what should be excluded, and arrives at the main issues
and subordinate points. The ultimate purpose of analysis is to
discover the main issues—the basic points upon which the estab¬
lishment or overthrow of the proposition depends. These main
issues inhere in the proposition; they must be discovered through
diligent study, reflective thinking, logical reasoning, and careful
analysis, and they become the main divisions of the case. For ex¬
ample, the main issues of the proposition Resolved, That the United
States should join the European Common Market may be stated
as follows:

1. Do weaknesses in the United States foreign trade policy call for a

change?
2. Would membership in the European Common Market remedy these
weaknesses?
3. Would joining the European Common Market be a desirable policy for
the United States?

When the affirmative side states these issues positively, they be¬
come the affirmative’s main contentions. Each contention must be
proved as a requirement to a prima-facie case. The negative side
must then negate or concede each of the affirmative main conten¬
tions; when the negative side negates the main issues, they become
the negative’s main contentions in the debate. As explained in
Chapter 3, the negative side will prevail if it can successfully defeat
one or more of the affirmative main contentions. Discovering the
main issues thus constitutes a prerequisite to intelligent argumenta¬
tion.

82
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 83

Types of Issues

In determining the main issues, first consider the types: stock

issues, potential issues, admitted issues, and real issues. The distinc¬
tion among these types follows.

Stock issues

Stock issues are those principal points common to almost all

topics for argumentation. When applied to a debate proposition,
they help determine the real issues. They may be stated as follows:

1. Is a change needed?
2. Would the proposed policy meet the need?
3. Would the proposed policy be a desirable solution?

These questions apply to all propositions of policy. Relate them to

the following national questions of recent years to see how readily
they apply: Resolved, That the federal government should guar¬
antee an opportunity for higher education to all qualified high
school graduates; Resolved, That the non-Communist nations of
the world should establish an economic community; Resolved,
That the United States should adopt a program of compulsory
health insurance for all citizens; Resolved, That the federal govern¬
ment should establish a national program of public work for the
unemployed. Stock issues may not always be worded exactly the
same way for all propositions, but they help determine the real
issues—need, practicability, and desirability.
Standard questions may be applied in determining whether a
stock issue will become a potential issue. Note how these ques¬
tions apply to the proposition that the United States should adopt
a policy of federal aid to education:

I. Is a change in policy for financing education needed?

A. Do evils in the present methods of financing education call for a
change in policy?
1. Do serious problems in financing education exist?
2. Are the alleged problems really evils?
3. Are the evils sufficiently serious to warrant a change?
4. Are the evils inherent in the present policy?
B. Does want for benefits other than the alleviation of financial prob¬
lems make a change in policy desirable?
1. Would benefits actually accrue?
84 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

2. Would these benefits be sufficient to justify a change in policy?

3. Could these benefits be secured without a change in the pres¬
ent policy?
II. Would the proposed policy of federal aid to education meet the need
of the present system?
A. Would the results justify a change in the present policy of financ¬
ing education?
1. Would it alleviate evils in financing education in sufficient de¬
gree to justify its adoption?
2. Would it produce other benefits in a degree to justify its adop¬
tion?
B. Would the attendant evils of the change make its adoption un¬
wise? ^
1. Would the proposed program' be accompanied by new evils?
2. Would the alleged evils produce harmful results?
3. Would the alleged evils outweigh the advantages of the change?
4. Would the policy of federal aid be inherently harmful?
III. Is the proposed policy of federal aid to education a desirable solution?
A. Would it produce advantages other than the alleviation of evils?
B. Would any other policy remedy the existing evils as effectively as
the proposed policy?
C. Would any alternate policy be as free from attendant evils as the
proposed policy?
1. Would it intensify the evils of the proposed policy?
2. Would it have fewer evils than the proposed policy?
3. Would it produce other evils?

These questions may be adapted to any proposition of policy to

determine the potential issues. They serve as a starting point for
complete analysis.

Potential issues

Potential issues must be proved to establish a case. They are the

issues inherent in the proposition as distinguished from the issues
of a particular debate. In Chapter 3, we learned that the affirmative
side must present all potential issues even though one or more of
them may be admitted. The proposition that the federal govern¬
ment should adopt a retail sales tax illustrates this point. The
potential issues may be stated as follows:

1. Is there a need for additional revenue for the federal government?

2. Is the retail sales tax a practicable plan for securing the needed rev¬
enue?
3. Is the retail sales tax a desirable plan for securing the needed revenue?
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 85

The affirmative side must prove all three of these potential

issues to establish a prima-facie case. Unless the need for revenue
can be established, why proceed to the second issue? If the need is
established, the affirmative case remains incomplete until the
speakers can prove the other contentions—the plan will meet the
need and it will be a desirable solution. Even if the affirmative
could foresee the negative’s concession of the “need for revenue,”
it would still have to present this contention because the issue of
need” is a requirement for a prima-facie case; all potential issues
must be advanced to meet the requirements of an adequate case.

Admitted issues

The admitted issues consist of those main contentions advanced

by the affirmative that the negative concedes without argument.
When the negative concedes one or more of the potential issues, it
implies that it does not care to contest such issues but will con¬
centrate its attack on the remaining contentions. This concession
does not mean that the affirmative has wasted time in presenting
the conceded issues, because they constitute a necessary part of the
prima-facie case. Neither does such an admission weaken the nega¬
tive’s case. The admission simply makes clear the negative’s posi¬
tion and permits it more time to attack other issues. Negative
concessions should always be made for cause, not mere preference;
they should enable the negative to concentrate its attack on issues
in which it has an advantage from the inherent nature of the issue.
The example cited in the proposition of federal retail taxation
applies here. The negative may concede the first contention on
“need for revenue” if it becomes apparent through study that the
facts justify the concession. Such an admission would focus the
argument on the second and third issues, one of which the negative
must overthrow. Possibly the negative might concede both the first
and second issues. In that event, it must either present a substitute
tax program as preferable to the sales tax or show that the sales
tax would cause more problems than it would remedy.

Real issues
The real issues consist of the potential minus the admitted issues.
They become the decisive points of controversy in a debate, deter¬
mining whether the case is sustained or defeated. Furthermore, the
86 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

real issues in a proposition may vary from one debate to another.

For example, on the federal retail sales tax proposition, if the
negative contests all three of the potential issues, all become real
issues in the debate. The potential and the real issues then coincide.
On the other hand, should the negative concede the “need for
revenue,’’ this contention would be dropped from the debate;
contentions two and three would then become the real issues. If the
negative should admit the first two, the third would be the only
real issue in the argument.
A debate may sometimes be narrowed to one real issue because
of the importance of that issue. In Rebates on the national proposi¬
tion that Congress should be giveri the power to reverse decisions
of the Supreme Court, this condition frequently occurred. The
argument that the proposal would destroy our system of checks
and balances, making Congress not only the judge and jury but
also a litigant, overshadowed all other arguments. When the nega¬
tive side succeeded in making this argument the ultimate issue, it
often won.
The argument over “will the plan work?” sometimes becomes
the only real issue in a debate. This situation frequently occurred
in debates on the proposition that nuclear power should be put
under control of an international organization. The affirmative
found it relatively easy to show a need for international control
and that benefits would accrue from the plan. The negative team
concentrated its attack on practicability, arguing that the plan
would not work in view of conflicting ideologies in the world and
that Russia could not be depended upon to keep her agreements.

Plan of Analysis
The following cjuestions constitute a workable plan for analysis.
Before attempting to read all available material on the subject for
debate, think the question through and apply stock issues to the
proposition. For example, in the proposition Resolved^ That the
federal government should adopt a uniform retail sales tax, the
following analytical questions and subquestions apply.
I. Is there a need for additional federal revenue?
A. Is the present need for additional revenue imperative?
B. Is this need permanent?
C. Is the need a need for more revenue, or is it a need for the wiser
expenditure of the revenue already available?
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 87

II. Will the proposed sales tax meet the need?

A. Would it provide the needed revenue?
B. Would it be a practical tax program?
C. Would further taxation harm the consumer?
III. Is the proposed sales tax a desirable plan for raising the needed rev¬
enue?
A. Would the sales tax result in more advantages than disadvantages?
B. Is it more practical than to increase the tax on other sources of
revenue?
C. Is the sales tax superior to other forms of taxation not now uti¬
lized?

After thinking through the proposition and applying the stock

issues, continue reading to correct and supplement original ideas.
During research, keep lists of points pro and con on the question,
recording these points at first without regard to organization. The
following would likely find a place on the temporary list of af¬
firmative arguments:

1. The sales tax is more likely to produce additional revenue than are
other tax sources.
2. There is a need for additional federal revenue.
3. Present sources of taxation cannot raise additional revenue.
4. The national budget is not balanced.
5. Public welfare activities need additional funds.
6. National defense requires additional funds.
7. Many sources of revenue are overtaxed today.
8. Sales can bear additional tax.
9. Income is taxed too heavily.
10. Business is taxed too heavily.
11. Real property is primarily a source of revenue for state and local gov¬
ernments.
12. The sales tax is a desirable method for raising additional revenue.
13. Personal property is taxed heavily by state and local governments.
14. The federal government is more than 300 billion dollars in debt.
15. A uniform retail sales tax can provide additional revenue.
16. Agriculture needs further subsidies.
17. More funds are needed for developing nuclear power.
18. Tariffs keep out needed products.

This list is not exhaustive; it merely illustrates. In the final

analysis all possible relevant points on both sides should be listed.
A glance at the list shows that the arguments are not recorded in
logical order; distinctions are not yet made between main points
and subpoints.
Check the list and exclude irrelevant and unimportant points.
88 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

What should be excluded may not be evident at first, but a study

of the proposition will add to your knowledge and develop your
ability to distinguish the essential from the nonessential. For ex¬
ample, points 11 and 13 in the list should be excluded because they
constitute sources for state revenue exclusively.
After irrelevant material has been excluded, all points may be
organized into main contentions and subpoints. The tentative list
of arguments may be arranged as follows:
I. There is a need for additional federal revenue, (point 2 on the list)
A. The national budget is not balanced, (point 4)
B. The federal debt is more than 300 billion dollars, (point 14)
C. Public welfare activities need additional revenue, (point 5)
D. National defense requires additional funds, (point 6)
E. More funds are needed for developing nuclear power, (point 17)
F. Agriculture needs further subsidies, (point 16)
II. The sales tax is more likely to produce additional revenue than are
other tax sources, (point 1)
A. Many sources of revenue are overtaxed today, (point 7)
1. Income is taxed too heavily, (point 9)
2. Business is taxed too heavily, (point 10)
3. Tariffs keep out needed products, (point 18)
B. Sales can bear additional tax. (point 8)
III. An increase of the sales tax is a desirable method for raising addi¬
tional revenue, (point 12)
A. Present sources of taxation cannot raise additional revenue.
(point 3)
B. A uniform retail sales tax can provide additional revenue, (point
15)
The preceding arrangement is only a skeleton brief; it shows the
relationship between main issues and supporting points. The com¬
plete brief contains all possible subpoints and supporting evidence.
In short, a workable plan for analysis involves a fourfold proce¬
dure: (1) Think the proposition through. (2) During research keep
a list of arguments and evidence found on both sides of the proposi¬
tion. (3) Exclude the irrelevant arguments on the tentative list.
(4) Arrange the remaining arguments into main contentions and
supporting points.

Preliminary Steps in Analysis

The following preliminary steps will help you make a complete

analysis. They serve as a necessary background for applying the
plan of analysis explained in the foregoing section.
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 89

1. Determine the present significance or immediate reason for debating

the subject.
2. Make a comprehensive study of the history of the question.
3. Dispose of extraneous matter.
4. Decide on a reasonable interpretation of the proposition.
5. Discover the underlying philosophy of the proposition.
6. Contrast affirmative and negative main contentions.

Give careful attention to these preliminary steps early in your

preparation to insure a fundamental understanding of the ques¬
tion. During the actual debate, the first affirmative speaker gives a
brief analysis of the proposition in his introduction, preliminary
to the development of the affirmative case. He will not always give
these steps one by one; he will, however, give all needed analysis
with emphasis on the interpretation of the proposition. An explana¬
tion of the proposition as a whole must receive attention early in
the debate. In the following discussion of the steps, segments of
the introduction to a brief will be used to illustrate each step.

Determine the present significance of the subject

The immediate reasons for debating any proposition arise from

the circumstances that give it current interest. An understanding
of these circumstances makes clear what the proposition involves,
how recent developments have changed its significance, and how
the immediate attention of the audience can be secured.
On propositions dealing with recently developed principles, the
present significance of the question becomes especially important.
Such a question debated in recent years was that the non-Com-
munist nations of the world should establish an economic com¬
munity. The success of the European Common Market, established
by treaties signed in 1957 among six European nations, gave rise
to the concept of economic communities. The late President Ken¬
nedy’s proposed Foreign Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gave the
proposition further significance. These developments showed that
the proposition dealt with a new concept in international relations.
For the proposition Resolved, That the federal government
should guarantee the opportunity for higher education to all quali¬
fied high school graduates, the present significance of the subject
may be briefed as follows:
90 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

I. Recent developments give the proposition present significance.

A. The launching of the Russian sputnik in October, 1957, caused a
re-examination of the United States school system.
1. People began to ask “Why can’t Johnny read?” “Why can’t
our schools keep pace with scientific development?”
2. Students were urged to follow a college preparatory high school
course, and high school curricula were strengthened.
3. Colleges re-examined their curricula, eliminated “frill” courses,
and adopted honors programs.
B. The World War II “baiiy boom” is beginning to crowd our col¬
leges today.
1. Estimates are that college populations will likely double be¬
tween 1960 and 1970. ^
2. Crowded conditions have placed a financial burden on our col¬
leges, increased the costs of attending college, and caused the
colleges and students to seek new sources of funds.
C. An increasing percentage of persons are attending high school and
college.
1. In 1920, 32.3 per cent of the 14-17 year group went to high
school; in 1962, 87.3 per cent attended.i
2. In 1920, 8.1 per cent of high school graduates went to college;
in 1962, 37.2 per cent attended.^

Stiidy the history of the question

Early in your preparation, study the origin and history of the

question to insure a thorough knowledge of it. An understanding
of the background clarifies the meanings involved and provides
evidence for supporting arguments. You need not, however, give
full details of the origin and history during the debate; give only
as much of the history as necessary for explaining the background
of the arguments.
For example, to get the full import of a proposal to strengthen
the United Nations, you must know the previous efforts to secure
world-wide cooperation. Become acquainted with the problems en¬
countered in establishing the American Union, the League of Na¬
tions, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
and the European Common Market. Only through an understand¬
ing of former efforts toward world organization can you understand
fully a proposal for future world cooperation.

1 Abraham Ribicoff, “The Battle for Better Schools,” Parent’s Magazine (Febru¬
ary, 1962), p. 45.
2 Ibid., p. 45.
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 91

Note, as shown below, how the major events in history apply to

the proposition that the federal government should guarantee an
opportunity for higher education to all qualified high school
graduates.

II. The relationship of the federal government to education in the

United States has had an interesting history.
.4. It dates back to the Continental Congress, which in 1785 set aside
land for educational use.
B. The Federal Constitution of 1789 made no specific proposal about
education.
1. An examination of Madison’s Journal of the Constitutional
Convention shows that the question was considered extensively
and was probably intended to be included under the general
welfare clause.
2. Beginning in 1802, the Congress of the United States has
granted aid to education in general as well as to specific in¬
stitutions.
C. The Morrill Act of 1862 established the land-grant colleges.
1. Conditions and requirements were set up for the expenditure
of the funds.
2. Prior to the Morrill .[Link], all federal grants were made uncondi¬
tionally.
D. The Marine School Act of 1911 marked a departure from pre¬
vious grants.
1. It was the first grant for special education.
2. It was the first grant that required the states to match federal
funds.
E. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was the first to give the federal
government the right to administer the funds.
F. During the depression of the 1930’s, various measures to aid edu¬
cation were adopted by the federal government on a temporary
basis.
1. Economic conditions of the country were reflected in educa¬
tional institutions, both public and private.
2. Most of the federal aid took the form of direct grants.
G. Various “G.I.” bills were passed soon after World War II.
1. The concept of federal aid was extended to include the financ¬
ing of higher education to those who served during the war.
2. The acts were motivated partly by the desire to raise the pro¬
ductive and social capacities of the American people and partly
as recompense to soldiers for service to the country during the
war.
H. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 provided federally
sponsored loans to needy and qualified students.
I. Various acts in recent years have provided long-time loans for
building dormitories and other revenue-producing Imildings.
92 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

1. These funds were extended and enlarged in December, 1963.

2. Additional bills are now pending in Congress.

Dispose of extraneous matter

All points in a proposition cannot be argued; the disputable

and the indisputable must be separated. Do not think that you
should contest every statement made by the opposition, for no
argument is possible without an admitted basis of fact. Conces¬
sions of irrelevant matters are necessary for orderly debate—the
disposal of irrelevant matter limits the question to the main con¬
tentions and centers interest on the,^basic issues. For example, on
the question of whether or not the federal government should
guarantee the opportunity for higher education to all qualified
high school giaduates, the following arguments may be excluded,
as shown below.

III. As a basis for argument, certain matters should be admitted or de¬

clared irrelevant.
A. The constitutionality of the proposal should be waived.
1. The proposition pertains to the desirability of the proposal,
not its legality.
2. The argument concerning separation of church and state does
not apply.
a. The aid would go to students, not colleges.
b. The aid would be available to students of all faiths and
would be voluntary, not compulsory.
B. Whether or not the framers of the constitution established the
principle of federal aid to education is irrelevant.
1. No specific provision was made for federal aid.
2. Whether or not federal aid was implied cannot be ascertained
with certainty.
C. That the cost of the program might exceed the national debt ceil¬
ing is immaterial.
1. The ceiling of the national debt can be raised.
2. The national debt should be considered relative to the gross
national product and national wealth.
D. Whether or not the federal government can actually “guarantee”
all students an opportunity for higher education should not
render the proposition void.
1. Making higher education financially possible for qualified stu¬
dents meets the intent of the proposition.
2. Financial aid would be made on application only; the extent
of the grant would depend on financial need.
E. That education faces other financial problems more serious than
those involved in the proposition is irrelevant.
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 93

1. This proposition relates to one facet of the problem, not to all

the financial problems of higher education.
2. Other propositions could be debated within the framework of
education.

In disposing of extraneous matter, consider the various types. Of

the several classifications of this type of matter, the following
predominate: (1) irrelevant matter, (2) waived matter, (3) omitted
matter, (4) conceded matter, and (5) admitted matter.
Irrelevant matter does not pertain directly to the subject under
discussion; waived matter consists of those points that both sides
agree not to discuss although they may relate to the subject. Usually
constitutionality is waived because many things may be desirable,
yet not constitutional; furthermore, the constitutionality of an act
cannot be determined except by court action. Omitted matter
is that left out of the discussion by design although it may be
pertinent to the question. Conceded matter consists of those points
brought forward by one side and granted by the opposition. Ad¬
mitted matter is matter well known to all and hence not subject
to argument. For instance, in the proposition concerning trial by
jury, it would probably be admitted that certain evils exist under
the present method of administering justice. Under some condi¬
tions, classification of these matters may be changed; for example,
instead of waiving the constitutionality of a given question, it
could be considered irrelevant.

Decide on a reasonable interpretation

Decisions on the meaning of a proposition must be made before

there can be an effective debate, and they constitute a fundamental
part of preparation and analysis. Definitions may be tentative early
in your study, subject to final decision after additional study and
analysis. The interpretation of the proposition, however, should
come early in a debate in order to avoid confusion and to insure a
debate on the issues rather than an argument over the meaning
of the proposition.
As pointed out in Chapter 3, the affirmative has the right to
interpret the proposition as well as the obligation to be fair and
objective. The best safeguard against disagreement over the mean¬
ing is a logical interpretation in the introductory speech. Remem¬
ber that every good question has a principle involved. For example.
94 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

on the question of increasing the federal income tax the affirmative

is not prohibited from favoring other tax measures, but it must
uphold the principle of income taxation as its primary contention.
On the other hand, the negative may favor any number of tax
reforms, but it should not incorporate the basic principles of
federal income taxation. Interpret the proposition so as to bring
out the basic philosophy underlying it.
Terms and words must be defined before a clear interpretation
can be made. Dictionary definitions are not always satisfactory, be¬
cause the dictionary defines words as a collective process; defining
words for the purpose of debate is a selective process. Also, terms
used in debate questions take on Irew meaning under changing
conditions.
Definitions of specific words in a proposition or terms that arise
in the course of a debate may be arrived at by the following
methods: (1) etymology, (2) authority, (3) exemplification, (4) ex¬
plication, and (5) negation.
Etymology deals with the origin and history of words. Since
meanings of words change, a consideration of origin alone may be
insufficient and the etymology of a word may not help distinguish
a general from a specific meaning. The study of origins of words,
however, may lead to working definitions.
The citation of an authority applies only to the extent that you
can find an acceptable expert. For example, if the term “nuclear
weapons” should appear in a proposition, Edward Teller would
be an acceptable authority because of his expert training in the
field of nuclear power. George Romney would be helpful in defin¬
ing terms pertaining to industrial management. An acceptable
authority must be qualified in the field in which you quote him; ac¬
complishment in one field of endeavor does not imply knowledge
of other fields.
Definition by exemplification means selecting an individual case
to represent the whole. This method is valuable when a typical ex¬
ample can be found. The word “quadruped,” for instance, is
defined in Webster’s Nexv International Dictionary as “an animal
having four feet, as most mammals and many reptiles. . . .” The
horse or the cow exemplifies. The term “economic community”
could probably best be explained by citing an example of the plan
in action, for example, the European Economic Community.
Explication enlarges upon bare statements to make clear what
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 95

may be involved or implied. The value of explication depends

upon the soundness of the reasoning behind the explanation. In
the proposition Resolved, That labor should have a direct share
in the management of industry, the term “direct share” must mean
more than the right to make suggestions, because labor has that
privilege now. Any share less than an equal share, however, would
be ineffective. More than an equal share would give too much
power to labor. Thus, by explication, a definition of “direct share”
indicates that capital and labor should have equal shares in manage¬
ment.
Negation defines by explaining what a term does not mean. To
illustrate, restate the explanation above as follows: “direct share”
does not mean the right of labor to make suggestions to manage¬
ment because labor already has that right; it does not mean that
labor should be given advisory powers only because in essence this
power would mean little more than the right of suggestion; it does
not mean a majority control by labor on industrial management
boards because this plan would put the final control of industry
into the hands of labor. Thus, through a process of elimination,
an acceptable definition may be arrived at. Definition by negation
rarely suffices wdthin itself, but it may be valuable when used in
conjunction with other methods.
Definitions should be fair, clearly stated, and concise. They must
be based upon reason, not mere preference. Never define terms in an
unusual way in order to take the opposition by surprise; such inter¬
pretations may give you a temporary advantage when debating
inexperienced opponents, but they will lead to a poor debate. For¬
merly, teams often agreed on terms prior to the debate to prevent
wasted time and to insure a debate on issues; now, definition of
terms is considered to constitute an essential part of analysis. Defi¬
nition in the first affirmative speech increases spontaneity and re¬
serves for the affirmative one of its basic rights to offset the burden
of proof. Failure to agree on the meaning of terms early in a debate
may prevent a clash of arguments; unless a direct clash occurs, there
will be no intelligent debate. If definitions given by the first affirma¬
tive speaker are not acceptable, objection and clarification should
be given by the first negative speaker immediately upon securing
the floor.
The following section IV of a brief defines necessary terms of the
proposition Resolved, That the federal government should guaran-
96 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

tee the opportw^ity for higher education to all qualified high school
graduates.

IV. For a mutual understanding, the following terms should be defined.

A. “Federal government” means the United States government act¬
ing through legally elected representatives to Congress.
1. The federal grants shall be made directly to the student or
college.
2. The federal government shall not make the grants to the vari¬
ous states for distribution.
B. “Should” means that the affirmative must advocate adopting the
proposal.
1. The affirmative does not have to show that the proposal will
be adopted. n''-
2. The proposal means immediate adoption, not some plan for
the future.
C. “Guarantee the opportunity” means that the federal government
shall make it financially possible for qualified high school gradu¬
ates to attend college.
1. The federal aid should be in the form of money grants to the
student to finance college attendance.
2. Whether or not the federal government makes additional grants
to the college is optional.
D. “Higher education” means education beyond the high school level.
1. It may include junior college, senior college, professional
school, or graduate school according to the qualifications of
students.
2. It does not include trade schools.
E. “Qualified high school graduates” means those students who meet
the reasonable requirements of the program.
1. The financial needs of the student should be based on family
income and other finances available.
2. The academic qualifications of the student should be deter¬
mined by (a) a national testing program, and (b) the student’s
high school record.

Discover the underlying philosophy

The underlying philosophy means the implications of the propo¬

sition that go beyond the arguments for or against its adoption; it
means a change in basic concepts. Almost all policy propositions
involve a fundamental change in a principle or a basic economic,
political, or social philosophy. For example, the proposition that
the non-Communist nations of the world should establish an eco¬
nomic community involves a fundamental change in international
trade relationships, based not upon individual nations but on a
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 97

combination of nations. It calls for a combination of nations to

act as a unit in competing with individual nations or with another
combination of nations. The community adopts trade restrictions
against outside nations but maintains free trade among member
nations. In short, the proposition embodies a relatively new trade
concept in international relations, the community-of-interests con¬
cept. This change in fundamental policy constitutes the underlying
philosophy of the resolution.
What underlying philosophy applies to the proposition that the
federal government should guarantee the opportunity for higher
education to all qualified high school graduates? As you learned
from the brief history of the proposition, higher education has not
until recently been considered as a necessary part of one’s schooling.
Now, however, technological progress, increasing specialization,
higher standards of living, and greater responsibility of the individ¬
ual citizen in world affairs call for a re-examination of our concept
of higher education. All of these variables interact to demand an
educated public. Never before has economic progress been so de¬
pendent on an educated populace; never before have the demands
of individual jobs been as high; never before have all income levels,
especially the relatively lower levels, been so high as they are now,
demanding capable judgment in their expenditure; and never be¬
fore have the decisions of the American voters been so far-reaching
in their effect. In brief, changed conditions have given rise to a
new coricept regarding the responsibility of the federal government
toward the education of its citizens.
The two basic questions that involve a change in underlying
philosophy are:

1. Are the demands of present-day society such that we should change our
concept of higher education to include public responsibility for edu¬
cating qualified students?
2. Should the federal government execute this change by a program of
grants to qualified students to insure their higher education?

What does the concept of higher education actually involve? Do

present conditions demand acceptance of the creed that “every
qualified individual has a right to a higher education”? This philos¬
ophy has never been accepted in the past, but it must be considered
under the proposition. In a political period of taking for granted
one’s rights, we often forget such underlying assumptions. The af-
98 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

firmative must prove by a logical sequence o£ contentions that this

particular philosophy o£ higher education financed by the federal
government should be adopted. This philosophy probably will
never be explicitly stated, but it should be understood by all who
debate the question. It inheres in a basic understanding of the new
problem of education, and the basic philosophical concepts inherent
in all propositions of policy must be discovered as a part of proper
analysis.

Contrast affirmative and negative main

contentions

The last step in analysis is illustrated by the following contrast

of the affirmative and negative contentions on the issues of guaran¬
teeing an opportunity for higher education to all qualified high
school graduates.

Affirmative Contentions

I. There is a need for federal assistance to qualified students who can¬

not afford higher education.
A. Because of high costs of attending college, an increasing number
of potential students have become financially unable to attend.
1. The average annual family income in the United States is
$5,700; the annual cost of education has risen to approximately
$1,500 in public schools and $2,200 in private schools.
2. Private sources of assistance, although helpful, are not sufficient
for children of low-income groups.
a. Present scholarship programs are designed primarily to at¬
tract superior students.
b. Loan programs involve too great a risk for students from
low-income families.
c. Student work is insufficient to meet the high costs of at¬
tending college.
B. The public as a whole loses by failure to educate all qualified
students.
1. It fails to realize the full productive capacities of all citizens.
2. It fails to realize the full capacities of all citizens for informed
judgment in national and international affairs.
II. The policy of federal aid to qualified students is a practical plan.
A. The federal government is the only agency with a national taxing
ability; it can obtain the money to finance the program on a
more equitable basis than can the individual states.
B. Private contributions and endowments, although helpful, have
failed to keep pace with the need.
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 99

C. The various veterans’ bills have given the federal government a

precedent for administering such a program.
D. The plan will enlarge the concept of federal relationship to edu¬
cation by removing the financial barrier to equality of oppor¬
tunity.
III. The policy of federal aid to qualified students is a desirable plan.
A. Cultural benefits would accrue from an educated populace.
B. It would place the responsibility of financing education on so¬
ciety in general, which ultimately receives the benefits.
C. It would result in a better informed electorate.

Negative Contentions

I. There is no need to guarantee a higher education to all qualified high

school students.
A. There is not a serious need for an increase in the number of col¬
lege trained personnel because the United States has the highest
percentage of college graduates in the world.
1. The need for the future is for more laborers, not executives.
2. The nation’s colleges are taxed to the limit today to care for
present enrollments.
B. The motivational factor in nonattendance in most cases is some¬
thing other than inability to pay the costs.
1. Many children of low-income groups would not attend if they
had the money.
2. The need is for better guidance and greater motivation, not for
more finances.
C. Students who have both the capacity and the desire to attend col¬
lege can do so at the present.
1. More than thirty million dollars in scholarships go unused
every year.
2. Loan programs are available to meet the needs of almost all
students from states, industry, and colleges.
3. Industry is supplying more and more funds to students in the
form of both scholarships and loans.
4. A college scholarship service has been set up to help those who
need aid; many colleges give attractive scholarships from cur¬
rent funds.
5. Needy students can work part-time at campus jobs and during
summer months.
6. The federal government has already established large loan
funds by the National Defense Act of 1958 and by supplements
in 1963.
II. A policy of federal grants to qualified high school graduates is im¬
practical.
A. The administration of such a program would be difficult.
1. The cost would add to an already large national debt.
100 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

2. It would create a still larger federal bureaucracy.

B. Experience with the veterans’ programs will not help much be¬
cause they were limited programs conducted through the Vet¬
erans Administration.
C. To extend the concept of federal activity in higher education to
include grants to all qualified students would not assure equality
of opportunity. Many students could not attend because they
must work to supplement family income.
D. Federal aid would lessen local interest in education.
III. A policy of federal grants to qualified high school graduates would be
undesirable.
A. The standards of education are lowered when it is extended to
the masses.
B. The federal government would h^ve another program, difficult to
administer, to add to its already large number of enterprises in
the educational field.
C. There would be an increasing dependence on the federal govern¬
ment for financing all education; thus private sources of loans
and scholarships would disappear.
D. The federal government could eventually usurp control of the
schools and establish a standardized plan.
E. Federal aid would cause an increase in the costs of attending col¬
lege and thus increase the number of students who would need
federal aid.

The affirmative and negative contentions may vary in different

debates. Normally, affirmative teams would contend for all three
issues; the negative could admit the need for additional funds for
qualified students but contend that the funds are rapidly becoming
available through private sources. The negative might argue that
federal aid is neither a practical nor desirable means of financing
the education of qualified high school students. Although procedure
may vary, the principles of contrasting main contentions exempli¬
fied here are common to all propositions and constitute an essential
part of analysis.

Summary

Analysis is the process of breaking down a debate proposition

into its parts or of discovering the main issues. There are four types
of issues: stock, which are questions common to all policy proposi¬
tions; potential, which are basic points that inhere in the proposi¬
tion; admitted, which are those issues excluded from the debate by
the negative through concessions; and real, which are the ultimate
 ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION 101

issues in a particular debate. You discover issues by logical reason¬

ing and research.
A workable plan of analysis calls for a fourfold procedure: (1)
Think the proposition through. (2) During research, list arguments
pro and con on the proposition. (3) Exclude irrelevant arguments
from the list. (4) Arrange the remaining arguments into main con¬
tentions and supporting points.
The preliminary steps in analysis consist of six steps: (1) Deter¬
mine the present significance or immediate reason for debating the
subject. (2) Make a comprehensive study of the history of the ques¬
tion. (3) Dispose of extraneous matter. (4) Decide on a reasonable
interpretation of the proposition. (5) Discover the underlying phi¬
losophy of the proposition. (6) Contrast affirmative and negative
main contentions.

Oral Assignment

The chairmen of the panel discussions of the last class period should re¬
port on the conclusions reached by their panels—time limit, five minutes.
Class members should take notes. An open forum should follow the
reports.

Collateral Readings

Baird, A. Craig, Argumentation, Discussion and Debate, Ch. 6. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 3. New York: American
Institute of Banking, 1962.
Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate, Ch. 14.
New York: Dodd, Mead 8c Co., 1963.
Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 3. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1961.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 3. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
Kruger, Arthur N., Modern Debate, Chs. 4, 5. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., 1960.
 Applying and
Evaluating Evidence

Chapters 5 and 6 developed research, and analysis as simultaneous

rather than independent processes. As you study a subject, apply the
principles of analysis so that you may understand the proposition
thoroughly. In preparation and analysis, seek the best arguments
to develop your case and the most valid evidence to support your
arguments. Keep in mind your ultimate purpose—to develop the
most logical case possible for or against the proposition. Proof is a
result of all your allegations, reasons, appeals, and forms of support.
You must convince your listeners of the truth and reasonableness of
your case.
In his writings on rhetoric, Aristotle discussed three forms of
proof: (1) ethos—the ethical factors that reside in the speaker, or the
impressions that listeners form of the integrity, attitude, ability, and
knowledge of the speaker; (2) pathos—the appeal to the basic drives,
motives, and desires of man, or the emotional appeal; (3) argument
proper—the appeal to reason and evidence, or the logical appeal.^
As a debater, use all three forms of proof to gain acceptance for
your contentions, but stress logical proof. Evidence, as a part of
logical proof, receives detailed treatment in this chapter. The fol¬
lowing chart shows how evidence relates to proof and how it applies
to the subordinate points, the issues, the case, and the proposition.

The Divisional Processes of Debate

I. The Proposition: the resolution that the affirmative side affirms and the
negative side negates—each team attempts to prove its side.

1 The discussion of evidence and reasoning in this text follows Aristotle’s Rhet¬
oric, which differentiates among the forms of proof above. For a treatment
that considers them together, see Stephen E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument
(Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1958).

102
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 103

A. The case: the total of all the contentions and proofs presented for
a side of the proposition—the case must be prima facie, sufficient to
win as originally presented.
1. The issues: the inherent main divisions or points of the proposi¬
tion that, when proved, constitute a prima-facie case,
a. The subordinate points: all the subpoints used to prove an
issue.
(1) Ethical proof: the factors of integrity, ability, attitude, and
knowledge displayed by the debater that help him gain ac¬
ceptance of his arguments.
(2) Emotional proof: the appeals to the basic drives, motives,
and desires of man that help the debater persuade his
listeners.
(3) Logical proof: the argument itself, based on the reasons
and evidence that help the debater convince an audience.
(a) Evidence: the facts and opinions used to support an
argument.
(b) Reason: the inferences drawn from the evidence.

Evidence Explained

Evidence consists of any factual material or opinion used to prove

a contention. It gives support to arguments and serves as a basis
for inferences, which relate to the issue through reasoning. The facts
and circumstances per se constitute evidence; inferences drawn from
the facts and circumstances constitute reasoning. Logical proof, the
result of both evidence and reasoning, serves as the foundation upon
which the agreement to a proposition rests; it is the conclusion
established through evidence and reasoning.
Unrelated evidence has little value. A fact must be related prop¬
erly to an argument before it can contribute to proof. For example,
the facts that ignorant and prejudiced men exist and that miscar¬
riages of justice often occur prove nothing about trial by jury. But
if it can be shown that whenever ignorant and prejudiced men sit
on juries, miscarriages of justice result, the reasoning demonstrates
the logical relationship between the two statements. Further, if the
proposition involves the question of needed changes in trial by jury
because of injustices, the relation established above would then
constitute proof of the need for changes. To be sure, the existence
of other weaknesses in our system must be shown, but this reasoning
establishes one phase of the proposition, that ignorant and prej¬
udiced men cause miscarriages of justice.
Evidence has its origin in the law of evidence in our courts. The
104 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

rules of evidence are more voluminous and complicated in law than

in educational debate, but the same principles apply. In courts of
law the following constitute evidence; physical objects such as a
lethal weapon, fingerprints, handwriting, and stolen property; the
circumstances surrounding the commission of the act; statements
made by persons concerning the defendant; statements made by the
defendant to persons testifying at the trial. Statements by experts
may, under certain circumstances, be admitted as evidence although
the person testifying does not have first-hand information about the
facts of the case; for example, the ballistics expert may testify that
a bullet came from a certain gun or the psychiatrist may state that
certain acts constitute insanity. Brieffy, in courts, evidence consists
of objects or things, statements of fact, and statements of opinion.
To protect the defendant, a large body of rules has grown up
concerning what constitutes evidence and what evidence becomes
admissible. The hearsay rule, for example, states that a person can¬
not testify as to what a person says about another. A cannot testify
what B told him about C, except under well-defined conditions. The
best evidence consists of B’s own testimony. Exceptions exist, how¬
ever, to the hearsay rule; for example, A would be permitted to
testify under the circumstances above if 5’s statements were a dying
declaration. Through legal rules, the courts seek the best evidence.
The hearsay rule affords a working example of how evidence in law
protects the individual.
In educational debate, an economic, social, or political principle
is on trial rather than a person. There is no occasion for the testi¬
mony of persons on the witness stand or for the introduction of
objects; no need exists for strict rules on the admissibility of evi¬
dence such as prevail in law.
Evidence in debate can be explained best by example. The affirma¬
tive on the proposition of federal aid to education alleges an un¬
equal distribution of educational facilities among the various states.
The questions arise: What evidence may be submitted to prove this
allegation and where can such evidence be found? The debater may
cite reports of governmental agencies and of educational surveys or
quote informed persons. He can establish, for comparative purposes,
that states with long school terms spend more money on education
than do states with short terms. Evidence for use in debates may be
found in statistical tables and in statements of facts and opinions
gathered from many sources—books, magazines, newspapers, govern-
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 105

merit reports, and research publications. All arguments must be

supported with evidence sufficient for proof conforming to the tests
for authenticity.

Types and Characteristics of Evidence

There are two kinds of evidence in educational debate, as there

are in courts of law: facts and opinions. Facts consist of statistics,
circumstances surrounding examples and analogies, and other tangi¬
ble evidence, whereas opinions are statements of belief concerning
the proposition. A statement, based upon a government report, that
the national debt is 309 billion dollars constitutes factual evidence;
a statement that we must increase our payments on the national
debt to avoid inflation exemplifies opinion evidence. Each type ap¬
plies in developing an argument.

Facts

Statistics and the circumstances of examples and analogies should

be applied accurately and effectively in developing each argument.
Consider the following explanations and precautions for each type.
Statistics. Statistics consist of compilations of numeri¬
cal facts on the basis of relative numbers of occurrences. They show
the proportion of instances of a specific kind and serve as a basis
for inference. For example, on the issue of the increasing cost of
state government, a debater cited statistics covering a ten-year pe¬
riod as follows: “In 1954, the total cost of the state government was
$126,498,724.83; in 1959, it was $406,672,473.30; in 1964, it was
$648,323,499.81. These statistics show an increase of more than 500
per cent over ten years.” The matter was thus presented graphically
and concisely.
Statistics mean more than a collection of figures. Figures become
statistics when they represent a situation or condition. Unless com¬
parative statistics use the same definition of the unit of measure¬
ment, they have no common meaning. That 30 million mentally
disturbed people live in the United States means nothing until we
define “mentally disturbed.” One cannot show that more juvenile
crimes occurred in X state than in Y state in 1964 simply by citing
figures released by the attorneys general of the two states; first it
must be determined if each state used the same definition of “juve-
106 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

nile.” Suppose that X state defines a juvenile as a person under 18

years of age and Y state defines him as under 21? Furthermore, the
term “crime” may not have been defined the same in the two states.
To compare the two sets of statistics would be misleading.
Statistical information may be obtained from government reports,
publications of economic research organizations, statistical abstracts,
authoritative almanacs, industrial guides, or other authentic sources.
Statistical information released by propaganda agencies, public-re¬
lations departments, and other organizations hired for creating good
will often proves misleading, since propaganda organizations usually
disseminate only those facts favorable to their cause.
Consider the following suggestion^ for presenting statistics: (1)
Cite the exact source; avoid overworked phrases like “statistics
gathered with great care show,” “reliable figures show,” “the un¬
deniable facts prove.” Say instead, “these statistics were published
by the United States Department of State in January, 1964”; “ac¬
cording to the American Medical Association report ‘Socialized
Medicine,’ page 171, the facts . . .”; “these figures were taken from
the book Schools in America by John Doe, a 1964 publication, page
816.” (2) Present statistics in round numbers when using large fig¬
ures where exactness is not important; they are more easily under¬
stood and applied, and they also save time. Instead of stating that
foreign aid appropriations in 1964 were $3,167,894,342.75, say that
the appropriations were approximately three billion dollars. (3)
Make statistical information vivid and graphic by relating it to mat¬
ters familiar to the audience. The statement that foreign aid appro¬
priations total three billion dollars makes small impression upon the
average citizen; but when it can be shown that this appropriation
costs each man, woman, and child approximately twenty dollars
as his proportionate share, the statement takes on added meaning.
The assertion that the national debt is 309 billion dollars means
less to many people than does the statement that every individual’s
share of the national debt approximates 2,000 dollars. (4) Check
statistics against other sources of information in order to test their
authenticity. If statistics arouse doubts, check them against informa¬
tion released from official sources.
Usually propaganda agencies do not fabricate figures; rather,
they place misleading interpretations on figures, make incomplete
surveys, or carefully select only favorable statistics. They sometimes
compare releases based upon different units of measurement and
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 107

thus distort facts. The responsibility rests upon the debater to dis¬
tinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.
Examples. An example for argumentation is a specific
instance, a past happening, or a hypothetical situation from which
one infers that a similar condition prevails in the instance at issue.
Suppose you want to show the cumulative effect of strikes in indus¬
try, that not only the industry in which the strike occurs is affected
but that allied industries also become involved. You cite the coal
strikes as an example; they shut down production of coal, then the
steel mills cut down production for lack of coal, the automobile
manufacturers curtail production for lack of steel, and other indus¬
tries become affected because they cannot buy automobiles. The
facts and circumstances of this example constitute evidence; such
facts per se contribute to conviction. You go beyond the evidence
and infer that since this strike affected other industries, the same
condition will result in the future from other strikes. Inference from
facts of an observed situation to the conclusion that the same cir¬
cumstances will prevail in an unobserved situation is known as
generalization—the process of reasoning from example.
Observe these suggestions in presenting examples: (1) Cite ex¬
amples representative of their class, not exceptions to the general
rule. The evidence derived from an example serves as a basis for
inferences on similar cases; to draw an inference from an extreme
example leads to a false conclusion. Suppose you contend that prices
did not increase after the war, and base your contention on examples
of the rubber industry, public utilities, and the postal system? Do
these examples represent industry in general? Examination shows
they do not: development of synthetic rubber tended to keep prices
down; public utilities are quasi-public industries; and the postal
system is governmentally owned. More representative industries
would be steel, automobiles, building, clothing, and food. (2) Pre¬
sent the example fairly and accurately; do not omit unfavorable
parts of the circumstances; consider all pertinent details. To illus¬
trate, it would be unfair to use the postal system as an example of
government efficiency in business if the deficit in our postal system
were omitted. (3) Point out examples that make clear the point to
be gained and give the circumstances in sufficient detail to make
the conclusion evident. Bear in mind that the audience may not be
familiar with the details of the illustration. A simple reference to
an example without giving details to make it understandable lessens
108 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

its value. (4) See that the example is vivid and timely. Present the
details clearly and interestingly. Whenever practical, choose exam¬
ples within the immediate interest range of an audience. In a debate
on the strike problem where other teams had invariably referred to
larger strikes in distant cities, one visiting team emphasized two
strikes then in progress in the locality. The cases with the local
setting were more effective because the audience had a personal in¬
terest in them.
The Analogy. An analogy for argumentation consists
of a comparison of certain known features of two things in order
to draw inferences concerning unknown features. By analogy we
contend that if two things are alike-in many known respects, they
will probably be alike in unknown respects. For instance, we may
argue that a common market of the Western Hemisphere would be
successful because the European Common Market has been success¬
ful. Numerous points of likeness among the nations of Europe and
those of the Western Hemisphere would have to be shown. Then
the analogy would state that since the nations of Europe and the
Western Hemisphere are alike in respects affecting economic prob¬
lems, and since the common market has been successful in Europe,
a common market would likewise be successful in the Western Hemi¬
sphere. The similarities cited constitute the evidence; the inference
that a common market in the Western Hemisphere would be suc¬
cessful constitutes the reasoning.
The following suggestions apply to the analogy: (1) The points of
likeness should outweigh the points of difference. In the example of
the common market, the evidence must show that the nations of the
Western Hemisphere and Europe are more alike than different in
matters concerning the success of international trade. If the con¬
trary were true, the inference from the comparison would not hold.
(2) The points of comparison must be true; that is, the points of
likeness in an analogy must actually exist. (3) The objects compared
must be representative of their class. In the example of the common
market, let us suppose that Europe and the Western Hemisphere
are unlike other communities of the world. In such event, the infer¬
ence made concerning the Western Hemisphere would be justified,
but a generalization including other communities of that class would
not be justified. In many instances, the analogy serves as a basis for
generalization concerning all objects or things in the class of those
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 109

compared, and the things chosen for comparison must be representa¬

tive of their class.

Opinions
Opinions as evidence consist of statements of what people think
about a proposition. In essence, opinion statements are simply con¬
jectures or beliefs. For argumentation we infer that because quali¬
fied experts support our inferences, their opinions add probative
force to our conclusions.
Consider the following precautions when quoting an opinion: (1)
Quote experts only. To be of value, the opinions must come from
a person qualified through experience and training to give expert
opinion on the proposition. The writers of textbooks, of articles in
recognized professional journals, and of reports in other objective
sources usually fulfill this requirement. (2) Do not rely exclusively
on opinion statements. Quotations from authorities are more per¬
suasive than logical and cannot be conclusive proof within them¬
selves, although they lend prestige and dignity to conclusions based
on careful reasoning and adequate evidence. Since the experts dis¬
agree on almost all questions of policy, however, opinion statements
should be used only to corroborate conclusions. (3) Quote men in
the field of their competence only. The fact that a person qualifies
as an expert in one field does not within itself qualify him in other
fields. The opinion of a member of the United States Supreme Court
on a question of law would carry more weight than would his opin¬
ion on federal aid to education; the fact that a person is a well-
known athlete does not qualify him to give expert opinion on the
nutritional effects of certain foods; and the popularity of a person
does not necessarily indicate his degree of competence. (4) Quote
authorities accurately and do not take statements out of their con¬
text. Make sure the quotation reflects accurately the expert’s be¬
liefs. Do not omit essential parts of a quotation so that you distort
the author’s meaning.

Classification of Evidence

Classification of evidence follows legal usage closely although the

classification is more rigid for law than for educational debate. Evi¬
dence, as used in law and applied to debate, may be testimonial or
110 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

circumstantial, spoken or written, expert or ordinary, original or

hearsay, positive or negative, real or personal, deliberate or casual.
Evidence used in establishing proof must be properly related to the
proposed issue. This relationship can be better understood after
consideration of the different classes of evidence in legal usage.

Testimonial or circumstantial

Testimonial evidence arises from statements of individuals about

observed happenings made for the purpose of establishing the truth
or falsity of an allegation. In law, the person giving the testimonial
evidence is one who witnessed the^happening about which he
reports or who speaks from recognized knowledge of admittedly
original documents. The one who gives direct evidence bases his
statements upon his own personal knowledge and observation
rather than upon hearsay or inference. He may not offer as direct
testimony what someone else has sworn he witnessed except under
clearly defined circumstances; such evidence is often ruled inad¬
missible.
Circumstantial evidence is based upon inference or presumption,
conclusions that go beyond the observed facts. Inference may be
the result of associating certain facts and showing that a known con¬
clusion could be inferred from the facts. These types of evidence
may be illustrated as follows:

Tom and John are members of the same class in college. Tom has es¬
tablished an excellent academic record; John has recently been placed
on academic probation. John and Tom take the same difficult examina¬
tion, resulting in papers strikingly similar despite the fact that John
attended a ball game during the afternoon preceding the examination
and later attended a dance, whereas Tom attended neither, but spent
the afternoon preparing for the test. John sat by Tom on the morn¬
ing of the examination. When one testifies to these situations, he gives
circumstantial evidence that establishes probability that John copied
from Tom’s paper.

Smith sees Brown hit Jones with a club; later Jones dies from the
effects of the blow. The testimony of Smith would be direct evidence
or testimony in the case. On the other hand, suppose that Smith sees
Brown furtively leave a house; later, Jones is found in the house suf¬
fering from knife wounds. A knife recognized as Brown’s is found near
the body of the wounded man. Upon investigation it is learned that
Brown hurriedly left town. These facts would constitute circumstantial
evidence that Brown was guilty of assault upon Jones.
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 111

Circumstantial evidence is of greater value when there are several

phases to the circumstance. Ordinarily one circumstance alone has
little weight in establishing a case. For instance, if a calling card
engraved “John Smith” is found in a man’s pocket, that circum¬
stance alone would be insufficient for making a conclusion concern¬
ing his name. If, in addition to the card, there are found in the
man’s possession a billfold, a brief case, and articles of clothing all
inscribed “John Smith,” the cumulation of evidence would lead to
a high degiee of probability that the man is John Smith.
Testimonial evidence in law has close parallels in educational
debate. In both law and debate, evidence includes factual material
and opinion; both make use of statistics, example, analogy, and
quotation from authority. Circumstantial evidence in law is ana¬
logous to reasoning in debate. The conclusion must be inferred; the
bases for inference are the facts and circumstances thereof.

Spoken or written

Spoken evidence consists of the words of a person repeating what

he has heard or describing what he has observed and is the type of
evidence most widely used in courts of law. Oral testimony is
brought into the law case when witnesses are questioned. Written
evidence may be an original document—a will, a resolution, an offi¬
cial set of minutes; or it may be an opinion based on such original
document. For debate purposes, written evidence may be found in
books, magazines, governmental pamphlets, and other writings, and
is more widely used than spoken evidence since the procedures al¬
low little opportunity for oral testimony.

Expert or ordinary

If an opinion comes from a recognized authority, the evidence is

expert; otherwise it is ordinary. The doctor who testifies concern¬
ing the cause of a man’s death gives expert testimony; if the same
doctor expresses his opinion on socialized medicine, he gives ordi¬
nary testimony. A lawyer gives an expert opinion on a question of
legal procedure; his opinion concerning the value of nuclear power
or the economic soundness of income tax reduction would be ordi¬
nary testimony.
This distinction often becomes important in debate. A large auto-
112 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

mobile manufacturer may warrant public acclaim, but his industrial

genius does not justify the acceptance of his opinion on the Euro¬
pean Common Market. An individual must be qualified to give
expert information on the point at issue before his opinion can
count heavily as evidence.

Original or hearsay

Original evidence originates with the one presenting it. For in¬
stance, witness A testifies concerning what he saw at the scene of a
crime; correspondent A writes about what he observed in Russia.
Hearsay evidence consists of evidence ,fhat one receives from another.
For example, witness B testifies as to what A told him that he saw
at the scene of the crime; correspondent B writes about what he
heard and read about Russia. Although often pertinent, hearsay
evidence is inadmissible in law as a general rule, although excep¬
tions to the hearsay rule exist. If Smith’s word carries force as evi¬
dence in law, he should be called to testify himself.
Strict compliance with the hearsay rule cannot be enforced in an
educational debate. If an authority is quoted as having made a
statement and such statement is not offered in writing, it would not
be possible to prove its authenticity by direct testimony. Usually
the evidence used by debaters comes from books, pamphlets, and
other documentary sources; if possible, this evidence should be
quoted from original sources. If secondary sources must be used, it
must be determined if the evidence has passed through reliable
hands or if it has been altered. The tests of evidence in the final
section of this chapter will help in determining these matters.
Evidence from original sources has more probative force than
does material from secondary sources, but this does not rule out evi¬
dence that originates with the debater—for example, materials
derived from an interview or from a personal survey. It does em¬
phasize the importance, however, of showing how original evidence
was derived from an objective study.

Positive or negative

Negative evidence differs from positive evidence in that the former

is noticeable by its absence. The absence of filling stations and
garages in an isolated community indicates that few of the inhabit-
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 113

ants own automobiles; the absence of liquor houses in a city consti¬

tutes evidence that the city is in “dry” territory. Positive evidence
consists of any existing facts or opinion statements relative to a
proposition. The presence of many filling stations and garages in
a community would be positive evidence that automobiles are used
there; the presence of numerous liquor houses in a city would be
positive indication that the city is in “wet” territory. Because most
evidence is positive, one seldom hears the terms positive and nega¬
tive differentiated.
Negative evidence is more important in law than in debate. A
lack of evidence where one would reasonably expect to find it may
be convincing in itself. A debater depends largely on positive evi¬
dence.

Real or personal

At a court trial, real evidence consists of objects such as a gun, an

official document, or a will. Personal evidence consists of statements
of people expressing their own opinions or describing the circum¬
stances of a situation. The introduction of a weapon used in a crime
exemplifies real evidence; a description of the weapon by a witness
is personal or verbal evidence. In debate, the submission of an ac¬
tual contract agreement between employer and employees consti¬
tutes real evidence; an explanation of the agreement constitutes
personal evidence.
Real evidence plays a more important part in court trials than
in educational debate. Objects introduced in a court trial are subject
to inspection by the opposing counsel, judge, or members of the
jury. The procedures in college debate prevent extended use of real
evidence, but they admit use of personal evidence.

Deliberate or casual

Deliberate evidence is given with the knowledge or intent that

it may be used at a later date, whereas casual evidence is given with¬
out such knowledge or intent. If a person expresses his opinion for
publication, such a statement would be deliberate evidence. If the
same person expressed an offhand opinion in conversation with a
group of friends, such a statement would be casual evidence. Casual
evidence usually has the advantage of being free from bias and from
114 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

the effect of public opinion. The increasing use of brainstorming

sessions by industry is based on this principle. Deliberate evidence
has the advantage of prior thought and investigation. Although both
types apply in educational debate, deliberate evidence predominates.

Use of classification

In educational debate, the strict rules of evidence of our courts

of law do not apply, but from the law of evidence in the courts
come many of the accepted procedures for presenting evidence in
educational debate. The admissibility of evidence in debates is
determined by relevancy in the absejtce of strict rules of procedure.
Rarely does a debater have occasion to make fine distinctions
among the kinds of evidence, but he should know the differences
in order to understand fully the place of evidence in argumenta¬
tion.
In using any kind of evidence, be sure to advance arguments and
not mere assertions. Assertion consists of statements unsupported by
convincing evidence; argument carries weight because inferences
drawn from the evidence follow logically. Anyone who, without
further efforts to establish his contention, becomes satisfied with the
validity of a statement because “it is generally understood to be
true’’ is guilty of using assertion for argument. It may be true that
a certain investment in stock is safe, but the assertion that a promi¬
nent rich man recently became an officer in the company does not
make the investment safe, for that assertion offers little proof. Do
not be satisfied, therefore, until you find reliable evidence to cor¬
roborate each contention.

Tests of Evidence

The tests of evidence may be summed up under three heads—

source, quality, and quantity.
If the source of evidence warrants the belief in its validity, then
proceed to apply tests of probability and consistency to determine
its quality. These tests apply to the evidence as well as to the person
giving it. If the evidence meets the requirements of quality, next
test its sufficiency; determine if enough evidence has been presented
to establish probability. If the source of the evidence proves to be
untrustworthy, there is little need for refuting the evidence itself.
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 115

Likewise, few reasons exist for applying the tests of quantity to

evidence that lacks quality. Strong evidence may come from unex¬
pected sources; poor evidence may have its origin in what appears
to be an acceptable source.
As a debater you have a twofold responsibility: to challenge all
evidence not likely to stand up under attack; to present only the
type of evidence that can be successfully sustained under attack. By
applying the following tests we may determine what constitutes
reliable evidence.

Source

The following questions test the validity of the sources of fact

and opinion evidence:
Is the Authority Prejudiced? It matters little why an
authority becomes prejudiced, because he usually has a distorted
view; he seeks evidence that will support his preconceived ideas and
overlooks the rest. Some of the syndicated writers in our daily news¬
papers are pro-administration and others are anti-administration,
so the reader who knows the topic and the writer of a given article
can often anticipate its general trend. Since some men become prej¬
udiced because of the positions they hold, the testimony of a high
official in either a labor union or an industrial organization would
likely be objectionable in a dispute between labor and capital. In
a proposition advocating the outlawing of strikes, the testimony of
such men would probably be biased.
We distrust statements issued by propaganda agencies and many
public relations departments because prejudices stem from the very
nature of their organizations. Any person less interested in discov¬
ering the total facts of a situation than in finding only those facts
favorable to his own cause shows prejudice. Whatever the cause of
the prejudices, the testimony from these sources carries little weight.
Is the Authority Mentally Qiialified? An authority
must be mentally qualified to render a mature judgment. The fact
that a man has attained a prominent position does not qualify him
per se as an authority. He may have been elected senator because
he was a good showman—a master at hoodwinking people rather
than at enlightening them. He may have bought his position as
mayor of the city or inherited his position as vice-president of the
company. You can determine the caliber of a writer by studying
1 16 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

the reasons he gives for his opinions. Be less interested in what a

purported authority says than in why he says it. A quotation from
an article used in support of a contention should be considered in
relationship to its context. Ask yourself if the article as a whole
gives evidence of the author’s qualifications as an authority.
Is the Authority Morally Qiialified? Next, the moral
qualification of the authority must be tested. What is his general
reputation for truth and honesty? Judge the moral qualifications
of an authority in part by his special interests in the issue. If it can
be shown that he will gain undue wealth or prominence from his
testimony, a motive for possible dishonesty may be established. In
a debate on price fixing, the negative^team quoted extensively from
the findings of an economic research organization; later the affirma¬
tive side presented evidence to show that the research organization
was maintained by an industrial concern opposed to price fixing.
This information largely nullified the negative’s evidence, for most
people distrust a person whose opinions are patently influenced.
Is the Authority Qiialified by Training and Expe¬
rience? A witness may stand the tests concerning prejudice and men¬
tal and moral qualification, and yet fail as a competent authority
because he lacks training and experience. An authority must be in
a position to know the facts and to interpret them properly; he
should speak from first-hand knowledge, not from shallow investi¬
gations. Above all, he ought to be well informed concerning the
matters about which he writes.
The question arises, “What special opportunities has the witness
had that enable him to speak with authority?’’ Too often greatness
is only relative. For example, the opinion on an interpretation of
the Constitution by a district judge would hardly offset the opinion
of a recognized author on constitutional law; the word of an em¬
ployee in a department of our national government would not carry
the weight of the secretary of that department. A statement from an
editor of a college newspaper would scarcely be worth as much as
a statement from a nationally-known columnist.

Quality

After testing the source of evidence, next inquire into its quality.
The fact that an authority meets all the tests of source does not
guarantee that his statements constitute the best evidence. Investi-
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 117

gation must determine the probability and the consistency of the

evidence. Apply the following test questions:
Is the Evidence Probable? Regardless of how logical
and valid a piece of evidence may appear, it must harmonize with
general knowledge and human experience. Human beings will
react to a given situation much as they have done in the past. Evi¬
dence that a prominent politician refused to take office after win¬
ning his campaign for governor will hardly be accepted without
question; incongruous behavior must be explained and justified.
In a debate about strikes, one speaker presented evidence to prove
that only one-tenth of one per cent of the workers were ever in¬
volved in strikes at the same time. The implication was that only
a few people are affected by strikes; hence strikes could not be so
bad as claimed. But at that time the locality was experiencing a bus
strike, and the audience indicated by their reactions that they did
not accept such evidence; they knew that a majority of the local
workers were adversely affected by the tie-up of transportation. As
a matter of fact, the evidence as presented about the number of
workers on strike was valid, but the implication that the debaters
inferred was not accepted because the evidence was not probable in
the light of human experience.
Is the Evidence Consistent? Determine if the evidence
is internally and externally consistent. Evidence becomes inconsist¬
ent internally when it presents contradictory material to prove an
argument or to prove different contentions in the same case. For
example, in a debate on increasing natural-resource taxes, one
speaker gave evidence to prove that the producers of natural re¬
sources would be driven out of business by an increase in taxes.
Later in the same speech, he showed that the natural resource pro¬
ducers would pass the tax on to the consumer by higher process
costs. These contentions contradict each other. In another case, a
debate on socialized medicine, the first negative speaker contended
that the evils of the present system did not warrant a change. His
colleague presented a counter-proposition, thus admitting the need
for a change and substantially contradicting the first contention.
External inconsistencies result when evidence from one source
contradicts that from another. Such inconsistency often occurs in
the presentation of statistical information. In one debate tourna¬
ment, students presented evidence to show that the cost of living
had increased during the preceding five years. Some teams cited evi-
118 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

dence that the increases were as little as 29 per cent; others gave
evidence that the increases were as high as 175 per cent. These ex¬
tremes constitute an inconsistency; both claims could not be correct.
No doubt the inconsistency could be explained by an examination
of how the groups of statistics were derived. Since few debaters
bother to give details about statistical material, listeners become
confused when such discrepancies arise.
The tests of probability and consistency may be made clearer by
an illustration applied to legal usage. A witness testified to the
identity of people who had been involved in a gunfight. The witness
stated that he recognized certain persons during the disturbance,
and as proof he submitted a piece oTpaper naming several persons
allegedly involved. Upon inquiry he said that he had written the
names during the disturbance, and that he recognized the persons
by the flashes of gunfire. The paper was not soiled; the names were
written evenly; and there was no evidence of nervousness on the
part of the witness. Naturally the testimony was challenged. First,
general experience suggests that men are hardly so thoughtful under
such circumstances; second, men seldom show such calmness under
lire; and finally, the neatness and orderliness of the sheet contra¬
dicted the statements of the witness. Despite the fact that the case
is exceptional, it remains true that frequently evidence fails to meet
the various tests. The alert debater will scrutinze evidence pre¬
sented by his opponent as well as test his own evidence before
presenting it.

Quantity

After applying the tests of source and quality, next determine if

sufficient evidence has been given to justify your conclusions. There
can be no “one and only” answer to how much evidence is neces¬
sary to prove an argument—much depends upon the nature of the
argument and the beliefs of the audience. Obviously, quoting one
authority or presenting one or two examples or giving statistics that
cover a limited phase of the subject does not provide sufficient evi¬
dence to establish proof. For example, in proving that the evils of
the present system of medical service warrant a change, considerable
evidence will be necessary. No one evil warrants a change of the
entire system. Therefore, cite several evils and support each by an
abundance of evidence. On the other hand, to prove that there is
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 119

an unequal distribution of medical facilities requires little evidence,

for disparity in facilities is recognized by most people.
Do not waste time citing extensive evidence on points on which
there will be little likelihood of disagreement. It requires more evi¬
dence to establish vital issues than it does to establish inconsequen¬
tial points. Be sure, however, to offer sufficient evidence to prove
the contention advanced. Do not draw conclusions that go beyond
the evidence.
The beliefs of the audience help determine the sufficiency of
evidence; evidence accepted as sufficient by one audience might be
inadequate for another. The following questions should help deter¬
mine audience acceptability:

1. What are the attitudes of the audience toward the argument?

a. Does the audience favor the point of contention?
b. Are the members of the audience on the whole neutral?
c. Would the audience likely oppose the point of contention?
2. What is the background of the training and experience of the audi¬
ence?
a. Is the audience highly or poorly trained?
b. Is there disparity in training?
3. What is the social and cultural background of the audience?
a. Are personal desires of the audience much the same?
b. What is the general social opinion of the group?
4. What is the approximate age level of the audience?
a. Are the majority young?
b. Are there disparities in age?

The existing beliefs of the audience help determine the extent of

evidence required. Obviously if members of the audience already
believe the contention, less evidence will be needed. The attitude
of the audience may be gauged by political affiliation, geographical
location, economic status, social and cultural attainment, religious
beliefs, and current importance of the problem. Attitudes vary on
public questions from time to time and from locality to locality.
Before World War II, the subject of isolation was debated fre¬
quently. At that time the Middle West favored isolation more than
did the Southwest and Far West. Since the war, the general attitude
in almost all localities favors international cooperation. Whenever
possible, get information concerning beliefs of the listeners before
the debate.
Consider the intellectual level of the audience in determining the
sufficiency of the evidence. Ascertain the general background of
120 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

training and experience of the listeners in relation to the proposi¬

tion for debate. The higher the critical ability, the greater will be
the need for supporting material. Similarly, informed people are
less likely than the poorly informed to accept a speaker as an
authority.
People usually interpret what a speaker says in relationship to
their own desires, and these desires often result from social and
cultural standing. For instance, on the proposition of a minimum
salary for public school teachers, less evidence would usually be
needed to convince the college graduate than the nongraduate. On
propositions for public improvements—such as new roads, schools,
and hospitals—more evidence and different types would ordinarily
be needed to convince persons with lower-class social and cultural
backgrounds than for others. In testing the sufficiency of evidence,
therefore, consider the interests and attitudes of different social
groups.
Attention to the age level of the audience may also help de¬
termine the sufficiency of evidence. Since young people lack wide
experience and knowledge, they are usually less critical and take
suggestions more readily than do mature people. Likewise, older
people are less likely to consider a speaker an expert than are
younger persons.
Finally, corroborate one type of evidence by other types. Rarely
should one type alone be used to support an argument. This prin¬
ciple applies especially to expert opinions, because for each author¬
ity cited an equally distinguished authority who holds a contrary
view can usually be found. Since opinions held in common by many
carry more weight than does the opinion of one person, do not rely
on one or two authorities. Corroborate opinions by evidence such
as statistics, examples, and analogies. Variety in both types and
sources of evidence shows breadth of understanding and tends to
support one’s contentions.

Summary

Ethical, emotional, and logical proofs apply to educational de¬

bate, but logical proof forms the basic appeal. Evidence and reason¬
ing constitute logical proof. Evidence consists of factual material
and opinion; reasoning consists of inferences from the evidence.
Evidence for debate closely parallels the law of evidence in our
 APPLYING AND EVALUATING EVIDENCE 121

judicial system. The two general types of evidence are fact and opin¬
ion. Facts come from statistics, examples, and analogies; opinions
grow out of beliefs. Statistics consist of compilations of facts on the
basis of relative numbers of occurrences; examples are specific in¬
stances; analogies are comparisons.
Evidence may be classified as follows: (1) testimonial or circum¬
stantial, (2) spoken or written, (3) expert or ordinary, (4) original
or hearsay, (5) positive or negative, (6) real or personal, and (7) de¬
liberate or casual. The tests of evidence come under three classifica¬
tions: (1) tests of source, (2) tests of quality, and (3) tests of quantity.
In testing the source of evidence, ascertain if the authority is prej¬
udiced, mentally qualified, morally qualified, and qualified by train¬
ing and experience to render acceptable testimony. The probability
and consistency of evidence determine its quality. Quantity is deter¬
mined by the nature of the argument, audience beliefs, and by the
corroboration of evidence.

Oral Assignment

The oral assignment shall be in the form of a restricted symposium.

1. Each member of the class should prepare a list of seven topics on the
subject chosen for classroom debates suitable for a symposium.
2. The best program, as determined by the instructor, should be selected
for presentation.
3. The instructor should select a chairman and speakers for each topic.
4. The time limits for each speech should be five minutes.
5. An open forum should follow the discussion.

Collateral Readings

Abernathy, Elton, The Advocate: A Manual of Persuasion, Ch. 3. New

York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1964.
Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Chs. 5, 6. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1961.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 5. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
Kruger, Arthur N., Modern Debate, Ch. 10. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., 1960.
McBath, James H., ed.. Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 9. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1963.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 7. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
 Reasoning Logically

Chapter 7 developed evidence as a part of logical proof. Reason¬

ing, the other component of argument, receives detailed develop¬
ment in this and the following chapter.

Reasoning Explained

Argumentation is an appeal to the understanding for the pur¬

pose of influencing belief. Conviction results in part from logical
reasoning. Logic, the process of distinguishing between good and
bad reasoning, tests the thinking process to determine if the infer¬
ences drawn from evidence conform to the established rules of
reasoning.
Evidence alone is not sufficient to establish logical proof. There
must be a means of relating the evidence to the proposition, and
this relationship must be established through reasoning—the process
by which we infer a conclusion from premises. By diligent effort, we
can secure abundant evidence; changing the evidence into argu¬
ment requires mature thinking and reasoning. Certain inferences
must be made from the evidence at hand; these inferences must be
set forth so that others may understand the relationship. Careful
thinking and communicative presentation are both necessary for
effective oral argument. From the study of logic one learns how
to interpret evidence; from the study of rhetoric one learns how
to communicate the interpretation to others. The importance of
reasoning, therefore, becomes readily seen.

Deduction and Induction Distinguished

The methods of reasoning differ according to the character of

the inference. As explained in Chapter 1, reasoning may be clas¬
sified broadly into induction and deduction. Inductive reasoning

122
 REASONING LOGICALLY 123

proceeds from the particular to the general; deductive reasoning

proceeds from the general to the particular. Through the deduc¬
tive process we go from a general statement in the premise to a
particular statement in the conclusion; in inductive reasoning we
go from a number of particular premises to a general conclusion.
For example, suppose the proposition concerns inflation. You could
establish a general statement concerning price increases through
induction. By examining conditions in several representative states,
and finding that prices have increased in these states since the
Korean war, you could infer that prices have increased in the
United States since the Korean war. Having established this gen¬
eral statement, you could then through deduction apply a particular
situation to the general statement and infer a particular conclu¬
sion. The process is represented as follows:

Induction

Prices have increased in New York since the Korean war.

Prices have increased in Michigan since the Korean war.
Prices have increased in California since the Korean war.
Therefore, prices have increased in the United States since the Korean
war.

Deduction

Prices have increased in the United States since the Korean war.
Illinois is a state of the United States.
Therefore, prices have increased in Illinois since the Korean war.

The same process may be applied to almost any situation; for ex¬
ample, by examining unemployment problems in several representa¬
tive industries, you may draw the general conclusion that there
has been unemployment in the major industries. The general con¬
clusion thus derived may serve as the basis of a deduction to a
particular case.
Although the method of reasoning differs in induction and
deduction, they are not antagonistic types of reasoning. The one
supplements the other. Some deduction is present in induction,
since induction must proceed from assumptions, and the inductive
method for establishing a general premise serves as the starting
point for deduction.
124 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Induction Explained

In induction, the truth concerning a general class results from

an examination of its parts. Individual instances constitute repre¬
sentative examples of the entire class, and from these known in¬
stances a conclusion can be drawn relating to the whole class. The
conclusions arrived at by induction cannot be conclusive because
they are based on approximations. Inductive reasoning should be
looked upon as scientific investigation—a process of investigating,
analyzing, and explaining individual peases in an attempt to estab¬
lish a general rule.
There are two kinds of induction, perfect and imperfect. Perfect
induction results when all parts of a class are examined and
found to have certain characteristics in common. To understand
perfect induction, consider the well-known example: All the planets
revolve on their axes, since Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto revolve on their axes. The
general conclusion, that all planets revolve on their axes, comes
after the discovery that each individual planet revolves on its axis.
The perfect induction, in reality, does not require an inference
since the conclusion is based on established facts. There is no going
from a known to an unknown; it is all known. As various logicians
point out when considering similar cases, there is no reasoning in
the true sense because a conclusion can be reached without an
inference.
Imperfect induction differs from perfect induction in that only
a part of the class is examined and from this examination a gen¬
eral conclusion is drawn. For instance, one may conclude that the
planets revolve on their axes from an examination of only three
representative planets—Mars, Mercury, and Earth.

Generalization

The process of generalization calls for the examination of several

representative cases or examples. If certain factors appear in each
example of the same class, you may conclude that the same factors
prevail in those cases or examples not examined. In short, certain
known instances may be examined and a conclusion drawn regard¬
ing a whole class without an examination of each instance in the
class.
 REASONING LOGICALLY 125

Suppose the conclusion to be drawn states that the work of

Congress was commendable last session. Individual cases may be
given of the work of Congress relative to taxation, labor, civil
rights, foreign aid, and control of nuclear power. If you find that
the work of Congress was commendable in these legislative acts,
you may conclude that the work of Congress as a whole was com¬
mendable.
Note the following illustration:

Example 1: Debaters make superior academic records at Stanford Uni¬

versity.
Example 2: Debaters make superior academic records at Northwestern
University.
Example 3: Debaters make superior academic records at Harvard Uni¬
versity.
Example 4: Debaters make superior academic records at Michigan
State University.
Conclusion: Therefore, debaters make superior academic records.

Let us assume that these universities constitute representative institu¬

tions and that the facts are as stated. This generalization proceeds
on the basis that what is true concerning the academic records of
debaters at these four universities is universally true. Thus a gen¬
eral conclusion results from an examination of particular instances.
In generalization you do not examine all cases; to do so would
be complete or perfect induction. Many propositions, however,
cannot be established short of complete induction. For example,
to prove that all senators are over 50 years of age, nothing short
of a consideration of all 100 senators would suffice. Even one ex¬
ception would disprove the conclusion. However, to prove that
senators past 50 years of age make greater contributions to the
country than do those under 50 is possible without an examination
of the record of every senator.
To avoid fallacies, consider the following questions.

Have you given a sufficient number of examples?

The answer to this question depends upon an examination of

all the facts of the generalization. No set formula for measuring
the number of instances necessary to warrant a generalization can
be stated because the number varies with each proposition. Using
the states of California, Texas, and Florida as examples would
126 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

hardly be sufficient to generalize that agricultural production in¬

creased in the United States in 1964. In measuring general agricul¬
tural production, a variety of products must be considered, some of
which are not produced by these states. Furthermore, agricultural
production depends upon such factors as rainfall and other climatic
conditions, which differ considerably over wide areas. To warrant
the generalization, it would be necessary to select several representa¬
tive states from different sections of the country.
On the other hand, the examples of California, Texas, and
Florida probably constitute a sufficient number to generalize that
the production of oranges increased; Since these three states are the
principal producers of oranges, and other states that produce small
quantities have climatic conditions similar to those of the states
mentioned. Thus it becomes evident that the number of examples
needed for a generalization depends largely upon the nature of the
proposition. One must apply thought and reasoning in determining
whether or not the number of examples given justify the stated
conclusion.
The type of resolution also determines whether or not all the
instances of a proposition must be examined. That all members
of the Supreme Court are college graduates must be established in
this manner. As explained earlier in this chapter, this procedure
is known as complete or perfect induction and involves no infer¬
ence or reasoning; in generalization, a few examples represent all
examples of a class. Usually the greater the number of examples
cited, the stronger the argument becomes.

Are your examples representative of their class?

The examples chosen must not be exceptions to the general rule.

Nonrepresentative instances may be found under almost all propo¬
sitions, and you must avoid the common error of choosing them.
For example, you can find some citizens in the United States who
do not believe in free enterprise. If you take these exceptions and
generalize that the United States is becoming communistic, you
are likely to misrepresent actual conditions. In the same manner,
you might argue that business is bad by citing the railroad industry,
the carriage industry, and other industries adversely affected by
scientific and technological advances. To ascertain the condition
 REASONING LOGICALLY 127

of business today, you must consider representative business con¬

cerns, such as construction, steel, and clothing.
The human tendency to choose extreme examples for making
one’s contentions convincing applies especially to debate. In debat¬
ing government control of industries with war contracts, for in¬
stance, you might use extreme examples disclosed in sensational
articles or books to show the malpractices of some manufacturers
who had war contracts. In fact, the majority of wartime contract
industries produce peacetime commodities except during war. A
few sensational examples of how unscrupulous manufacturers
abused their war contracts hardly represent these industries as a
whole. Examples should be chosen that fairly represent the ex¬
amples not chosen; the parts should represent the whole.

Can yon account for negative examples?

Negative examples are exceptions to those chosen for generaliza¬

tion. A generalization need not be invalidated by negative instances,
but such examples must be accounted for if the generalization is
to stand; otherwise the way is open for opposing speakers to call
attention to them and thus weaken or destroy the argument. Ac¬
count for negative instances by showing them to be exceptional
cases. For example, by reviewing the record of the production of
wheat in the state of Kansas over a fifteen-year period, you may
generalize that Kansas is an excellent state for growing wheat.
Records that reveal poor production for some one year may be
cited, but this negative instance will be explained if you can show
that the poor yield resulted from hurricanes, hailstorms, or other
unusual circumstances.
If negative examples exist in an appreciable number, the gen¬
eralization will be weakened or possibly destroyed; to what ex¬
tent it is weakened depends upon the number of negative instances
not proved to be exceptional. Beware of assuming that negative
examples do not exist because they are unknown, for negative ex¬
amples have been found where they seemed not to exist. A well-
known instance is the old belief that all swans were white—black
swans have been found. In choosing examples for a generalization,
assure yourself that either no negative examples exist or those that
do exist can be satisfactorily explained.
128 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Is your conclusion corroborated by other known

facts and arguments?

If the argument meets the requirements of the foregoing tests,

determine whether or not any causal connection exists between the
conclusions and other known facts. The ultimate test of any con¬
clusion depends upon whether or not it follows logically. For ex¬
ample, a person notices several college graduates who fail in
business and concludes that a college education causes failure in
the business world. How does this conclusion harmonize with other
known facts? Records of our colleges and universities show that
enrollments in their business schools have progressively increased
during the last decade. Big business is increasing its demand for
college graduates. Surveys show that college graduates, as a class,
advance more rapidly in business than nongraduates. The conclu¬
sion from the generalization is contrary to other known facts; the
causal connection between education and failure in business has
not been established even though several examples may be found
as an apparent basis for the generalization.
If the examples from which the generalizations come are repre¬
sentative, if a sufficient number are given, and if negative instances
can be accounted for, a probable truth relative to the whole class
may be reached. Remember that such a conclusion cannot be con¬
sidered conclusive without an examination of all possible cases. It
must be corroborated by other facts and reasons. When a probable
universal law has been reached by induction, the conclusion may
then become the basis for deductive reasoning. In fact, if either
premise of the syllogism is not accepted as true, the premise under
question must be established by induction. These two processes
must go hand in hand; one must serve to substantiate the con¬
clusions drawn from the other.

Analogy

Analogy is reasoning based on the assumption that if two things

are alike in several important known respects, they will probably
be alike in other respects not known or investigated. This form of
reasoning can best be understood when differentiated from deduc¬
tive reasoning and inductive reasoning by generalization. Deductive
 REASONING LOGICALLY 129

reasoning is inference from a general statement to specific instances;

generalization is inference from specific instances to a general state¬
ment; analogy is inference from one specific instance to another
specific instance. As such, analogy does not lead to a conclusion
regarding a specific case, but rather to a resemblance of relation¬
ships between the compared objects. For instance, having observed
that university X and university Y have an equal number of stu¬
dents and are alike in make-up of student bodies, school curricula,
and student interests, the reasoner infers that because a system of
student government has been successful at university X, it would
also be successful at university Y. From this point the reasoner may
extend the inference and contend that student government would
be successful in all American universities similar in size and char¬
acteristics to X university. Thus we see that analogy deals with a
resemblance of relationships and consists in comparing things alike
in the relation they bear to other things.
Analogy is divided into two classes, literal and figurative. Literal
analogy is based upon similarity of two objects of the same class.
It is inferred that the objects resemble each other in points not
known because they resemble each other in known respects. To
illustrate, two men came from the same community, attended the
same public school, later attended the same college, and held com¬
mon membership in clubs and churches. Because of the similarity
in social, religious, and educational background, we infer that the
two men belong to the same political party. Of course, the infer¬
ence may be wrong, but a degree of probability has been estab¬
lished. The inference that other planets are inhabited because
they resemble the earth in many respects necessary for human
habitation may likewise be wrong, but the comparison helps estab¬
lish probability. The tests that follow in this section help deter¬
mine the validity of the conclusion arrived at through analogy.
A common analogy heard in debates on world federation was
that a federation of the United Nations would be successful be¬
cause the federation of the fifty American states has been successful.
The analogy was based on the arguments that conditions facing
the original states in colonial times were analogous to the condi¬
tions facing the United Nations. The inference is made from a
preponderance of resemblances between two situations within a
class—we infer that the resemblances in known particulars extend
to unknown particulars.
130 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Figurative analogy carries the comparison to objects in different

classes. The parables in the teachings of Christ are good illustra¬
tions of this form of analogy—for example, the parable of the seeds
falling onto different kinds of soil. Another example is found in
the parable “cast your bread upon the waters and it will not return
unto you void,’’ where the bread represents good deeds and the
waters represent life. Milton, in Lycidas, gives an excellent analogy
in his comparison of unworthy bishops and faithless shepherds. He
says a bishop should foresee dangers and supply spiritual food for
his church or parish just as a shepherd should guard his flock
against the ravages of wild beasts and lead it into good grazing
places. The effectiveness of argument based on figurative analogy
depends upon the strength of the resemblance that has been pointed
out.
Strictly speaking, analogy is not an identity of one thing with
another, but an identity of relationships. Clear-cut relations, per¬
tinent to conclusions reached, must actually exist and be shown in
the comparison. Even when similarities appear to exist, the con¬
clusions from analogy cannot offer absolute proof, for there may be
only apparent similarity. The analogy, therefore, should be used
in conjunction with other forms of proof.
In using the analogy, determine if it meets the following tests
for this type of reasoning.

Are the similarities more important than the

known differences?

That many points of similarity exist between two things does not
always warrant an inference that the things are fundamentally
similar. The number of similarities may be of less value than their
weight or strength. Irrelevant details, regardless of number, cannot
serve as the basis for a valid analogy. For instance, a common
analogy used in debates on the proposition that the United States
join the World Court was a comparison of the World Court to the
system of courts in the United States. The similarities pointed out
were as follows:

Both had a permanent bench of jurists.

Both met regularly at an appointed time and place.
Both employed strict legal procedure.
Both had a definite body of law upon which to base their decisions.
 REASONING LOGICALLY 131

One important point of difference, however, outweighed these

points of likeness. The United States provided an enforcement
agent for the decisions of the Supreme Court; the nations com¬
prising the World Court provided no such enforcement agency.
Although the points of likeness were many, their importance was
not so great. In using analogy, therefore, check carefully both the
number and importance of the points of similarity.

Can the differences be accounted for?

Differences will not necessarily invalidate the conclusion from

an analogy if you can explain them or demonstrate that they are
nonessential. Similarities in the cases compared need exist only in
matters relative to the point at issue. To illustrate: in the analogy
that a certain type of student government would succeed at uni¬
versity Y because it had succeeded at university X, suppose it could
be shown that the two schools differed greatly in endowment.
Would this difference be a factor in the success or failure of stu¬
dent government at either of the institutions? No—the difference
is not material to the point at issue.
Conversely, suppose we know that Y has fraternities and sorori¬
ties, whereas X forbids such organizations. This difference applies
specifically to the issue—fraternities and sororities, with their inter¬
club councils, may well provide the principal functions that a
student government provides in universities without such organi¬
zations. It would be difficult to minimize this important difference.
In reasoning by analogy, you must show either that no differ¬
ences exist between the cases compared or that the existing dif¬
ferences are not important.

Is the conclusion corroborated by other known

facts and arguments?

The probative force of an argument by analogy is less than that

of some other types of reasoning, because analogy leads to a con¬
clusion concerning the relationships of the two cases involved, not
to a conclusion relative to a general class. For this reason, do not
use the argument from analogy as the only form of support; sup¬
plement it by other types of argument.
132 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Causal Relation

All reasoning from causal relation arises from the belief that a
cause exists for every effect and every cause will produce its effect.
The acts of nature are uniform and consistent—the same cause will
produce the same effect, and the same effect will result from the
same cause, as long as natural law is not interfered with by ex¬
traneous factors. We read that hailstorms have hit the Oklahoma
grain fields; we infer that the grain crop from this section will be
short. We note a large cotton crop; \^e infer that the price of cot¬
ton will decrease. We observe a high divorce rate; we attribute the
cause to hasty or ill-advised marriages. We read that many former
school teachers are returning to the profession; we infer increased
salary scales.
Reasoning by causal relation results in a particular conclusion
and is largely inductive in form. Our acceptance of the conclusion
depends upon the observance of numerous similar instances. We
assume that an economic recession will follow a period of inflation
and speculation because recessions have always followed periods
of inflation. Since prices have decreased in former recessions, we
assume that prices will decrease in any recession.
The principal types of reasoning from causal relation are from
effect to cause and from cause to effect.

Reasoning from effect to cause

In argument from effect to cause, you observe a known effect and

try to determine the cause. You attempt to prove the observed
effect can result from no other cause or causes than those suggested.
The argument is from what comes after to what has gone before.
For example, statistics show an increasing crime rate in the United
States. This increase may be traced to an aspect of war that has
fostered a spirit of disregard for law. Again, we note that the birth
rate of the nation increases noticeably during war; the cause we
attribute to this known effect is that war brings about many hasty
marriages. In each instance, we start with a known effect and at¬
tribute the effect to a specified cause or causes. Apply the following
tests.
Is the Alleged Cause Adequate to Produce the Known
Effect? The strength of the argument from effect to cause depends
 REASONING LOGICALLY 133

on the extent to which the cause can be established. If the cause

is merely a possible one, the argument is weak; if it is probable, the
argument may still be inconclusive; if the cause is absolute, the
argument is conclusive. In some instances, the alleged cause may
not be sufficiently strong to create the known effect. In a debate on
government ownership of industry during periods of war, one
speaker argued that the desire for wartime profits by private in¬
dustry caused the war. Few people would agree that this factor
alone could cause war. Philosophers, theologians, political scientists,
sociologists, economists, and others have considered without una¬
nimity of agreement many causes that may lead to war. One his¬
torian points out more than a hundred contributing factors. It
becomes apparent that no single cause for war can be established
definitely—although the desire for financial gain may be a powerful
human motive, it can hardly be powerful enough to create war. We
must weigh carefully the adequacy of the alleged cause for produc¬
ing the known effect.
Could Other Causes Produce the Known Effect? The
argument from effect to cause may be weakened by establishing a
more probable cause or causes than those alleged. For example,
hasty war marriages may be alleged as the cause for our increasing
divorce rate, but among other causes are inadequate divorce laws,
laxness of our courts in upholding existing laws, and the effect
of the movies, television, and modern literature in glamorizing
divorce. Any of these causes may be as important as the alleged
cause. The soundness of the argument depends largely on the
strength of the probability that no other cause or causes than those
alleged could produce the known effect. This factor does not
prevent the possibility of attributing more than one cause for an
effect; the multiplicity of causes for most effects, however, gives
warning not to omit a cause greater than those advanced.

Reasoning from cause to effect

In argument from cause to effect, you reason that a certain hap¬

pening is probable in that the assigned causes are sufficient to bring
it about. You start with the circumstances sufficient for a cause
and attempt to establish what the effect will be. For example, you
observe that the nation’s wheat supply is diminishing rapidly.
What will be the effect of this scarcity of wheat? Rationing will be
134 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

instituted throughout the nation as a means of controlling the

consumption of wheat. Again, it may be noted that in spite of
attempts to bolster the economy, unemployment persists. What
effect will this decrease in employment have? More drastic measures
will have to be taken to encourage employment. Will decreased
income taxation, more liberal interest notes, or a combination of
several measures be effective? Argument from cause to effect at¬
tempts to establish the most probable effect of a given circumstance.
The following tests apply.
Is the Cause Sufficient to Produce the Alleged Effect?
The strength of the argument from 'Cause to effect depends upon
the adequacy of the cause. In some instances a cause may tend to¬
ward a certain effect without having sufficient force to produce the
alleged effect. For example, the voluntary purchase of government
bonds tends to absorb excess purchasing power, but that plan alone
would hardly prevent inflation. To contend that a program of
government bond purchasing will prevent inflation attaches undue
strength to a cause.
In a debate on state medicine, the affirmative contended that the
high cost of medicine caused a lack of practice of preventive medi¬
cine. The debaters reasoned in part: “The high cost of medicine
discourages use of preventive remedies. Because of the high fees
charged by doctors, many people refrain from using such facilities
until they become absolutely necessary. . . . Such individuals post¬
pone consulting a doctor, hoping that it will not be necessary and
that they may save the fee.’’ In this instance the contention was that
the cause “high fees’’ produced the effect “failure to practice pre¬
ventive medicine.’’ The opposing speakers reasoned that the sug¬
gested cause was insufficient to produce the alleged effect: “These
facts indicate that the present system of medicine makes every
effort to encourage preventive medicine even to the point of furnish¬
ing such service free of charge to those who cannot pay and charging
others according to their ability. The cause of the failure to use
preventive remedies is more fundamental than the high cost of
medical care. A better explanation for this condition is that the
people have not been taught the value of preventive medicine.”
Is the Cause Prevented from Producing the Alleged
Effect? If other forces sufficient to prevent the given cause from
producing the alleged effect can be shown, the argument from
cause to effect will be weakened or destroyed. The owner of an
 REASONING LOGICALLY 1 35

automobile might reason that his car radiator froze during the
night since the temperature fell below the freezing point—until he
learns that his chauffeur had put an antifreeze solution in the
radiator. The antifreeze solution prevented the original cause from
producing the assumed effect. Similarly, a farmer might reason that
the sugar-beet crop of a given section will be curtailed by an ex¬
tended drought until he learns that the beet producers use irriga¬
tion. In these instances, the causes are sufficient to produce the
alleged effects, but intervening conditions prevent the causes from
operating in the usual manner.
In a debate on state medicine, one speaker attempted to show
how a cause would be prevented from producing an alleged effect
as follows:

The gentlemen of the negative contend that state medicine will de¬
stroy the incentive of the doctor to do his best work since he will be
under state control. They reason that state control means a fixed sal¬
ary and standardized methods of treatment and that both factors are
destructive of incentive. We do not deny that the doctor’s remunera¬
tion and freedom of procedure affect his initiative; we do deny that
these factors will operate to cause the effect alleged by the opposition.
The doctor will still control the medical profession under state medi¬
cine. The state wall be responsible only for providing the general or¬
ganization of the plan and for raising the necessary funds. Instead of
being paid a fee for each service rendered, the doctor will be paid a
salary. His salary will depend upon his ability and experience. The
better the service, the higher his salary will be under state medicine.
This plan will provide a strong incentive for the doctor to do his best
work. State medicine will relieve the doctor of tedious business details,
and will thus give him more time to practice his profession. . . . Cer¬
tainly there will be every incentive for the physician to excel under
state medicine because the greater his accomplishments, the better his
position with the state.i

Summary

Evidence and reasoning constitute the components of logical

proof. Reasoning, the process of inferring conclusions from premises,
may be classified as inductive and deductive. Induction proceeds
from a specific instance to a general conclusion; deduction proceeds
from a general premise to a conclusion about a particular case.
There are two types of induction: (1) complete or perfect and (2)

1 Taken from a class debate.

136 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

incomplete or imperfect. Perfect induction consists of an examina¬

tion of all the specific instances of a general class; imperfect induc¬
tion consists of an examination of representative examples within
the class. Inductive reasoning by example, or generalization, is the
process of reaching a conclusion from an examination of representa¬
tive instances. Suggested tests for generalization are as follows: (1)
Have you given a sufficient number of examples? (2) Are the ex¬
amples you gave representative of their class? (3) Can you account
for negative examples? (4) Is your conclusion from the generaliza¬
tion corroborated by other known facts and arguments?
Argument by analogy consists of a comparison between two
things; it is based upon the belief that if two things are alike in
certain known respects they will also be alike in those respects not
known. Analogy is divided into two classes: (1) literal analogy-
similarity of two objects of the same class; (2) figurative analogy-
similarity of two objects of different classes. Tests for the argument
by analogy are: (1) Is the comparison based upon a greater number
of important similarities than there are known differences? (2) Can
the differences in the cases compared be accounted for? (3) Is the
conclusion from the analogy corroborated by other known facts and
arguments?
The method of causal relation is based upon the universal belief
that nothing happens without cause. Two forms of argument from
causal relations are (1) argument from effect to cause—the effect is
observed and one attempts to determine the cause; (2) argument
from cause to effect—the circumstances are known and one attempts
to establish the probable effect. The following tests apply to argu¬
ment from effect to cause: (1) Is the alleged cause adequate to pro¬
duce the known effect? (2) Could other causes produce the known
effect? Argument from cause to effect should be subjected to the
following tests: (1) Is the cause adequate to produce the alleged
effect? (2) Is the cause prevented from producing the alleged effect?
Knowledge of the methods of argument give proper order and ar¬
rangement to reasoning.

Oral Assignment

Prepare the following assignment in the form of an unrestricted sym¬

posium:
1. Each member of the class should prepare a program for an unrestricted
symposium discussion on the subject chosen for classroom debates.
 REASONING LOGICALLY 137

2. The best program should be chosen by the instructor for presentation

before the class.
3. The instructor should select a chairman and speakers for each topic.
The discussion members should not be the same as chosen for the re¬
stricted symposium in the last assignment.
4. The time limit for each member should be five minutes.
5. An open forum should follow the discussion.

Collateral Readings

Braden, Waldo W., and Earnest Brandenburg, Oral Decision Making,

Ch. 6. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1955.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 8. New York: American
Institute of Banking, 1962.
Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate, Ch. 10.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1963.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 6. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
McBath, James H., ed.. Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 10. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1963.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 8. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
 Applying Deductive Forms

Deduction should be looked upon.'hs a form rather than a type

of reasoning. Given a general premise accepted as true, you can
bring a specific case under the general premise and draw a conclu¬
sion about the particular instance. The syllogism constitutes the
principal form for deduction; the enthymeme and sorites are other
forms.

The Syllogism

The syllogism consists of the logical arrangement of three state¬

ments or propositions so related as to warrant the inference of the
last statement from the first two. The two statements from which
the inference is drawn constitute the major premise and the minor
premise. The third statement forms the conclusion.
The major premise consists of a general rule or statement from
which the deduction arises. The minor premise consists of a partic¬
ular instance or statement that falls within the class of the major
premise. The conclusion follows from the two premises relative to
the particular instance contained in the minor premise. The follow¬
ing syllogism illustrates these principles:

Major premise: All speech courses have practical value.

Minor premise: Argumentation is a speech course.
Conclusion: Therefore, argumentation has practical value.

The first two statements must be true and properly related before
a factual conclusion can be reached. The form of the syllogism may
be correct, however, whether or not the premises are in fact true.
Before we can determine whether the conclusion follows logically,
we must subject the three parts of the syllogism to certain tests.
The syllogism should not be considered as an end within itself

138
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 139

but rather as a form in which reasoning may be expressed. It may

serve a useful purpose in examining and testing reasoning as well
as expressing the results of reasoning. Putting arguments into syl¬
logistic form stimulates the ability to think reflectively, to express
relationships logically, and to test the reasoning of others. The ex¬
amples of syllogisms used throughout this chapter are for illustra¬
tive purposes only—the premises may not in fact be true. In debates
the premise must be proved true as a basis for syllogistic reasoning.
There are three principal types of syllogisms: (1) complete or
categorical, (2) conditional or hypothetical, and (3) alternative or
disjunctive. These terms may be found in textbooks on logic and
under various names in textbooks on argumentation and debate.
No attempt will be made here to go into an exhaustive study of
these forms; only such discussion as will be helpful in actual de¬
bate work will be developed.

Categorical
In the categorical syllogism, the major premise consists of a cate¬
gorical or unqualified statement in which no exceptions exist. It
concerns the classifying of things.

Major premise: All speech courses have value.

Minor premise: Acting is a speech course.
Conclusion: Acting has value.

or

Major premise: Every speech course is beneficial.

Minor premise: Debate is a speech course.
Conclusion: Debate is beneficial.

In these examples, the terms “all speech courses’’ and “every

speech course” are unqualified statements. If the terms “some speech
courses” or “a few speech courses” are substituted, the conclusions
do not follow. Further, note that “acting” and “debate” are classi¬
fications of “speech courses.” The categorical syllogism must con¬
form not only to general rules but to the specific rules for this type
of syllogism.
There Must Be Only Three Terms. The terms are
known as major, middle, and minor. Each term should be used
twice in the syllogism. The major term may be recognized as the
predicate of both the major premise and the conclusion. The middle
140 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

term is the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the
minor premise. The minor term is the subject of both the minor
premise and the conclusion.

Major premise: Middle term Major term

All art is cultural.
Minor premise: Minor term Middle term
Singing is an art.
Conclusion: Minor term Major term
Singing is cultural.

For illustrative purposes, consider the following syllogism:

Major premise: All men are mortal.

Minor premise: Rover is mortal.
Conclusion: Rover is a man.

Immediately we sense that something is wrong; the conclusion does

not necessarily follow from the two premises. The fault lies in the
failure to include the middle term in the minor premise. If the
major premise had been “All mortals are men,” the form would be
correct. If the minor premise had been “Rover is a man,” the con¬
clusion, “Rover is mortal,” would follow logically.
The Middle Term Must Be Distributed in at Least
One of the Premises. A distributed term is universal; it relates to a
class of things in its entirety or all the parts of a whole. The terms
"all” and “every” signify universality. Such terms as “all art” and
“every course” are distributed terms, whereas such terms as “some
art” and “many courses” are undistributed.

Major premise: All effective debaters study logic.

Minor premise: Joe Doe is an effective debater.
Conclusion: John Doe studies logic.

or

Major premise: Many effective debaters study logic.

Minor premise: John Doe is an effective debater.
Conclusion: John Doe studies logic.

In the first syllogism, the term “all effective debaters” is distributed

because it includes the entire classification. The form of the syl¬
logism is therefore correct whether or not the conclusion be true.
The second syllogism contains the middle term “many effective de¬
baters,” which is undistributed. Although the conclusion may be
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 141

true, it does not follow logically because of the undistributed middle

term—John Doe may be one of the few effective debaters who has
not studied logic.
If a Term Is Distributed in the Conclusion, It Must
Be Distributed in One of the Premises. This rule is based upon the
principle that a term in the conclusion cannot have a more all-
inclusive meaning than it has in the premises. The rule applies only
to the major and minor terms since the middle term never appears
in the conclusion. The following example illustrates the illicit ma¬
jor (major term has a more restricted meaning in premise than in
conclusion):

Major premise: Debaters are students of logic.

Minor premise: Actors are not debaters.
Conclusion: Actors are not students of logic.

The major term “students of logic” is undistributed in the major

premise. The premise does not state that debaters constitute all of
the students of logic; only some students of logic are debaters. The
major term, used in a distributed sense in the conclusion, excludes
actors. The conclusion does not follow; actors may be students of
logic the same as debaters.
The following example illustrates the illicit minor (minor term
has a more restricted meaning in the premise than in the conclu¬
sion):

Major premise: All debaters are students of logic.

Minor premise: Some effective speakers are debaters.
Conclusion: All effective speakers are students of logic.

The minor term “some effective speakers” is undistributed in the

minor premise because it does not include all effective speakers.
Debaters may be effective speakers without comprising all the group
so classified. The minor term is distributed in the conclusion since
it includes “all effective speakers.” Thus the minor term says more
about effective speakers in the conclusion than it says in the minor
premise.
No Conclusion Can Be Drawn from Two Negative
Premises. Reference to the first rule of the categorical syllogism
shows the reasonableness of this rule. Negative premises tend to in¬
validate the arrangement of major, middle, and minor terms; the
major and minor term cannot be located in relation to each other;
142 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

in essence, no middle term exists. Note the lack of connection among

the major, middle, and minor terms in the following example:

Major premise: No actors are debaters at X University.

Minor premise: John Doe is not an actor at X University.
Conclusion: John Doe is a debater at X University.

The conclusion is not valid, nor would any other conclusion fol¬
low from these negative premises. John Doe may be neither an actor
nor a debater at X University.
If One Premise Is Negative, the Conclusion Must Be
Negative. An affirmative conclusions is impossible where negative
premises occur. The conclusion should be negative with either a
negative major or minor premise. Note the negative in the major
premise of the following illustration:

Major premise: No actors are debaters at X University.

Minor premise: John Doe is an actor at X University.
Conclusion: John Doe is not a debater at X University.

If no actors are debaters and John Doe is an actor, we know that

he cannot be a debater.
The following illustration contains a negative in the minor
premise:

Major premise: Only “A” students are debaters.

Minor premise: John Doe is not an “A” student.
Conclusion: John Doe is not a debater.

If only “A” students are debaters and John Doe is not an “A” stu¬
dent, he cannot be a debater.
A^o Conclusion Can Be Drawn from Two Particular
Premises. A particular premise includes only part of a class, whereas
a universal premise contains all the class.

Major premise: Some debaters are “A” students

Minor premise: Some law students are debaters.
Conclusion: Some law students are “A” students.

The conclusion does not follow from the two particular premises
—all law students who are debaters may be included in that group
of debaters who do not make “A” grades.
The Conclusion Must Be Particular if One of the
Premises Is Particular. This rule is deducible from a general un¬
derstanding of deductive reasoning; deduction proceeds from a
general principle to a particular instance. In the following illustra-
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 143

tion of the rule, the major premise is universal, the minor premise
and the conclusion particular.

Major premise: All debaters are “A” students.

Minor premise: Some law students are debaters.
Conclusion: Some law students are “A” students.

The particular conclusion follows logically from the universal

major premise and the particular minor premise.

Conditional or hypothetical

The hypothetical syllogism is based upon probability; that is, it

has in its premises a condition. In essence, this form states: “If one
proposition is true, then another follows.” Note the condition ex¬
pressed in the following propositions: (1) If world peace is to be
achieved, world government must be perfected. (2) If Congress
decreases taxes, inflation will ensue. (3) If taxes are increased, in¬
dustry will curtail investment. (4) If prices continue to soar, a reces¬
sion will result. In the hypothetical syllogism, the major premise
contains a condition. The minor premise comes within the class
of the hypothesis expressed in the major premise. The conclusion
shows that what is true of the generalization in the major premise
must also be true of the particular instance expressed in the minor
premise. The “if” or conditional clause of the major premise con¬
stitutes the antecedent, and the clause to which the condition
applies is the consequent. In the following example, “if Congress
decreases the income tax” is the antecedent; “purchasing power
will increase” is the consequent.

Major premise: If Congress decreases the income tax, purchasing power

will increase.
Minor premise: Congress did decrease the income tax.
Conclusion: Purchasing power will increase.

The rules for testing the hypothetical syllogism follow:

If the Minor Premise Affirms the Antecedent, the
Conclusion Must Affirm the Consequent. This form is the most
common of the hypothetical syllogisms. It is expressed in the preced¬
ing example and in the following:

Major premise: If Congress decreases taxes, inflation will increase.

Minor premise: Congress will decrease taxes.
Conclusion: Inflation will increase.

The minor premise aErms the antecedent—“if Congress decreases

144 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

taxes”; the conclusion affirms the consequent—‘‘inflation will in¬

crease.”
For practical purposes, let us examine the following statement
made by a debater; ‘‘If the present method of trial by jury secures
incompetent jurors, we should have a substitute for our present
method of trial by jury. All men will recognize the fact that many
incompetent men serve on our juries today. Then, gentlemen, we
should have a substitute for trial by jury.” Did the debater affirm
the consequent in the minor premise of his argument? The minor
premise affirms that incompetent men serve on juries, but it does
not affirm that the present method 'of trial by jury secures incom¬
petent men. Were all the possible conditions considered? There
might have been flaws in the machinery instead of in the method
of trial by jury. The conclusion, therefore, is fallacious.
If the Minor Premise Denies the Consequent, the
Conclusion Must Deny the Antecedent. The minor premise of the
example above may be changed to illustrate this rule:

Major premise: If Congress decreases taxes, inflation will increase.

Minor premise: Inflation will not increase.
Conclusion: Congress will not decrease taxes.

If we assume the major premise to be true, the conclusion follows

logically. The major premise makes inflation an absolute con¬
sequent of a decrease in taxes. If inflation does not increase, taxes
will not be decreased. The minor premise denies the consequent—
‘‘inflation will not increase”; the conclusion denies the antecedent
—‘‘Congress will not decrease taxes.”
If the Minor Premise Affirms the Consequent, No
Valid Conclusion May Be Made. Arranged in this order, the ex¬
ample used above appears as follows:

Major premise: If Congress decreases taxes, inflation will increase.

Minor premise: Inflation will increase.
Conclusion: Congress will decrease taxes.

The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the condition

stated in the major premise. Although further inflation is an ab¬
solute consequent of a decrease in taxes, inflation may result from
other causes. The major premise does not state that inflation will
increase only upon the condition of a decrease in taxes. The con¬
clusion could easily be true, but it does not necessarily follow
logically from the premises.
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 145

If the Minor Premise Denies the Antecedent, No

Valid Conclusion May Be Made. Let us consider the same syllogism
arranged in this order:

Major premise: If Congress decreases taxes, inflation will increase.

Minor premise: Congress will not decrease taxes.
Conclusion: Inflation will not increase.

Again, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the condi¬
tion stated in the major premise. Although the premise states that
inflation will increase if Congress decreases taxes, it fails to make
any statement about the conditions that prompted no decrease in
taxes. Even though Congress does not decrease taxes, increased in¬
flation could result from numerous other causes, such as increased
government spending, payment of bonus to soldiers, cashing of
savings bonds, or any measure that greatly increases buying power
without a corresponding increase in production. The conclusion is
therefore invalid.

Alternative or disjunctive

A third form of syllogism is the alternative or disjunctive. In this

form, the words “either . . . or” occur and present alternative
possibilities. The major premise states the alternative possibilities;
the minor premise either affirms or negates one of the alternatives;
the conclusion negates the alternative not affirmed or affirms the
alternative not negated in the minor premise.

Major premise: The student is either a graduate or an undergraduate.

Minor premise: The student is an undergraduate.
Conclusion: He is not a graduate,
or
Major premise: The student is either a graduate or an undergraduate.
Minor premise: The student is not an undergraduate.
Conclusion: He is a graduate.

The following rules govern the disjunctive syllogism:

The Possibilities Enumerated in the Major Premise
Must Be All-Inclusive. Rarely can problems be resolved into either-
or statements since most problems have more than two alternatives.
Failure to include all possible alternatives in the major premise of
a disjunctive syllogism renders it invalid.

Major premise: To prevent inflation, either taxes must be increased

or wages must be decreased.
Minor premise: Wages cannot be decreased.
Conclusion: Taxes must be increased.
146 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

In this example, the major premise overlooks other preventives for

inflation—increased production, an expanded program of savings,
widespread purchase of government bonds, and other methods
designed to take surplus purchasing power out of circulation. Thus
inflation could be prevented without either increasing taxes or
decreasing wages.
The Possibilities Enumerated in the Major Premise
Must Be Mutually Exclusive. The alternative possibilities of the
major premise should not overlap because the destruction of one
alternative would weaken or destroy the other. Note this error in
the following example:

Major premise: To prevent inflation, either purchasing power or wages

must be decreased.
Minor premise: Wages cannot be decreased.
Conclusion: Purchasing power must be decreased.

Decreasing wages is one of the principal methods for decreasing

purchasing power. If wages cannot be decreased, purchasing power
cannot be decreased. The alternatives are not mutually exclusive.
When the Minor Premise Affirms One of the Alterna¬
tives of the Major Premise, the Conclusion Must Deny the Other.

Major premise: To prevent inflation, either purchasing power must be

decreased or production must be increased.
Minor premise: Purchasing power can be decreased.
Conclusion: Production need not be increased.

When the Minor Premise Denies One of the Alterna¬

tives of the Major Premise, the Conclusion Must Affirm the Other.

Major premise: To prevent inflation, either purchasing power must be

decreased or production must be increased.
Minor premise: Production cannot be increased.
Conclusion: Purchasing power must be decreased.

The Enthymeme

The enthymeme, for the purpose of this discussion, is an incom¬

plete syllogism with either one of the premises or the conclusion
missing.i When the missing part is supplied, the enthymeme be-

1 There are other interpretations of the enthymeme, but the explanation here
applies specifically to college debate. For a discussion of the enthymeme as a
chain of reasoning leading toward probability, see James H. McBurney and
Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate: Techniques of a Free Society (New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), pp. 145-51.
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 147

comes a complete syllogism. The rules for the syllogism then apply.
An enthymeme may take the following form:

Major premise: All lawyers are good debaters.

Conclusion: John Doe is a good debater.

The minor premise “John Doe is a lawyer” is supplied by implica¬

tion. In its complete syllogistic form, the argument appears as
follows:

Major premise: All lawyers are good debaters.

Minor premise: John Doe is a lawyer.
Conclusion: John Doe is a good debater.

In this form the enthymeme may be classified as a categorical,

hypothetical, or disjunctive syllogism.
Rarely do we present an argument in debate as a formal syl¬
logism. Either one of the premises or the conclusion is assumed;
the missing part is implied. Without the enthymeme, deductive
argument would be too stilted and formal for debate.

Types

The three types of enthymemes differ according to the part

omitted from the complete syllogistic form. These types are termed
enthymemes of the first, second, and third orders.
The enthymeme of the first order has the major premise omitted.

Minor premise: Russia is a major nation.

Conclusion: Russia must cooperate to attain a world nuclear con¬
trol program.

The major premise is supplied by implication—“all major nations

must cooperate to attain a world nuclear control program.” If the
major premise is not apparent, it may be reasoned out by principles
already discussed. In the categorical syllogism, the middle term is
the subject and the major term is the predicate of the major
premise. These terms become apparent from the enthymeme as
stated since the middle term is the predicate of the minor premise
and the major term is the predicate of the conclusion.
The enthymeme of the second order has the minor premise
omitted.
Major premise: If the United Nations is given sufficient powers, it can
control nuclear warfare.
Conclusion: It will control nuclear warfare.
148 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

The implied minor premise is “the United Nations will be given

sufficient powers.” This premise becomes apparent when we con¬
sider the rule for the hypothetical syllogism that “if the minor
premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must affirm the
consequent.”
The enthymeme of the third order has the conclusion omitted.

Major premise: The principles of the atomic bomb must either be

kept secret or be shared with other nations.
Minor premise: The principles of the atomic bomb were not kept

The conclusion that “the principles of the atomic bomb were

shared with other nations” is implied. This conclusion is substan¬
tiated by the rule for the disjunctive syllogism, “when the minor
premise denies one of the alternatives of the major premise, the
conclusion must affirm the other.”

Weaknesses

Weaknesses in use of the enthymeme may be illustrated by the

following examples:

All men are liars.

John James asserts that he is a man.

Here the conclusion that John James is a liar follows if the two
premises are admitted. In fact, this form is more effective than the
form of the categorical syllogism because the conclusion appears
obvious. Examine this statement: He is a university man, for he
swaggers. Here it is suggested that all university men swagger.
The weakness of the two examples may readily be seen. The
statement “all men are liars” does not mean that men always lie,
that they never tell the truth. It does mean that at times or upon
occasions men do depart from the absolute truth. When one forces
a general statement into a particular instance, as in the case here,
the result or conclusion may be erroneous. The same may be said
in reference to swaggering university men, for this does not apply
to all university men.
In some instances the enthymeme is substituted for careful think¬
ing; in others it may be expanded into a valid syllogism.
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 149

All means for decreasing purchasing power will help prevent inflation.
The purchasing of government bonds will help decrease purchasing
power.

Here the conclusion “the purchase of government bonds will help

prevent inflation’’ is implied.

All means for decreasing purchasing power will help prevent inflation.
A higher income tax will help prevent inflation.

In this example, “a higher income tax is a means for decreasing

purchasing power’’ is the implied minor premise.

Sorites

A third form of deductive reasoning is the sorites—a chain of

reasoning. This form consists of a succession of syllogisms or
enthymemes with all but the last conclusion suppressed.

Disarmament causes suspicion.

Suspicion causes fear.
Fear leads to alliances.
Alliances lead to war.
Disarmament leads to war.

A slightly different form of the sorites is illustrated in the follow¬

ing example:

Whiskers is a cat.
A cat is an animal.
Whiskers is an animal.
An animal is a living thing.
Whiskers is a living thing.

In the last example, the conclusion of the first group serves as a

basis for the major premise of the second group. To test the validity
of the chain of reasoning, start with the first statement in the chain
and express each separate link in a complete syllogism. The validity
of each link should be tested. Analyze the following chain of
reasoning by this procedure:

Inflation is caused by high wages.

High wages are caused by increased business activities.
Increased business activities are caused by increased demands for goods
and services.
War causes increased demands for goods and services.
.'.War causes inflation.
150 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Summary

Deduction proceeds from a general proposition or law to a par¬

ticular application of it. The syllogism is the principal form for
deductive reasoning. The syllogism has three parts: (1) major
premise—general or all-inclusive statement, (2) minor premise—par¬
ticular or subordinate statement, and (3) conclusion—result of infer¬
ence from relationship of premises.
There are three types of syllogism: (1) categorical, (2) hypothetical,
and (3) disjunctive. In the categorical syllogism, the major premise
consists of an unqualified statement, without exceptions. The hy¬
pothetical syllogism has in its major premise a condition or an
“if” clause. The disjunctive syllogism presents alternative possibili¬
ties in its major premise and affirms or negates one of the alterna¬
tives in its minor premise. Each of these types has tests to determine
the validity of the reasoning.
The enthymeme is an incomplete syllogism with either one of
its premises or the conclusion omitted. Most reasoning for debate
takes the form of the enthymeme since the syllogism often proves
too formal and stilted. When the enthymeme is expanded into a
complete syllogism, the rules for the syllogism apply to it.
Sorites is a chain of reasoning, consisting of a succession of syl¬
logisms or enthymemes with all but the last conclusion suppressed.
To test the chain, expand each link of the chain into a complete
syllogism.

Oral Assignment

1. Each member of the class should nominate one person in the commu¬
nity qualified to participate in a lecture forum on the subject selected
for the classroom debates.
2. The class should discuss the nominees and .select one person and two
alternates by majority vote.
3. A committee from the class should invite the person chosen to lecture
to the class.
4. The lecture should be followed by an open forum in which the class
members participate.

Collateral Readings

Abernathy, Elton, The Advocate: A Manual Of Persuasion, Ch. 5. New

York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1964.
 APPLYING DEDUCTIVE FORMS 151

Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 8. New York- American

Book Co., 1944.

Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 8. Belmont, Calif •

Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1961.

Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 7. New York-

David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.

Kruger, Arthur N., Modern Debate, Ch. 15. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1960.

McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:

Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 9. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
 Briefing the Debate Case

Chapter 3 and much of Part III have pointed toward the build¬
ing of the debate case. A case encompasses all the reasons, evidence,
ethical factors, and psychological appeals that you employ to con¬
vince others of the reasonableness of your side of the proposition.
We are now prepared to outline the cases for and against the
proposition into the form of a debate brief.

Nature and Purpose of a Brief

The brief consists of the logically arranged arguments on both

sides of a proposition. Each side of the proposition may be briefed
separately, but the complete brief includes the steps of analysis and
a thorough marshaling of arguments on both the affirmative and
negative sides. A properly prepared brief contains all the valid
arguments on the proposition and consequently includes more
arguments than can be presented in a single debate. Thus, after
preparing a brief, you choose certain sections of it to constitute your
arguments for a particular debate. The brief encompasses a com¬
plete plan or over-all view of the entire case; it shows the relation¬
ship of issues one to another and of the subpoints and evidence
used to support them.
The brief performs the same function for the debater that the
blueprint does for the building contractor. The contractor would
not start the construction of a building without a finished plan of
the various parts of the building; neither should you attempt to
debate until you have a complete, over-all understanding of the
proposition. The brief helps furnish this understanding. By means
of the brief, you can test the logical arrangement of your argu¬
ments; it thus serves you as an invaluable guide and helps you
organize a clear and concise case.
Do not attempt to construct a brief before making a thorough

152
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 153

Study of the question. Whenever possible, delay preparing the

final brief until after a series of discussions and practice debates so
that you can be sure of the proper divisions of the case and the
arguments that should be included under each division. Make the
brief the final step in, as well as a test of, the preparation. If you
plan to debate the proposition in a series of debates, let the brief
remain open for additions and changes. Under no circumstances
should you let the case become crystallized during the debate
season.
Adopt a definite plan for briefing the proposition. Find the main
issues; arrange the arguments and evidence under the general head¬
ings of these issues; and then brief them into final form according
to rules for briefing.^

The Brief and Outline Distinguished

Consider the brief as an objective arrangement of arguments of

the proposition and the outline as an arrangement of arguments
for a particular debate speech. The brief should be more thorough
and exact than the outline. In some respects they reverse the process
of construction. The brief states the conclusion and then shows why
the conclusion logically results from the statements that follow; the
outline may use generally accepted statements in order to reach the
conclusion as a climax. The outline may consist of a few sentences,
phrases, clauses, or even words in the subordinate parts; the brief
uses only closely related sentences without dependent clauses. The
properly prepared brief is intelligible to anyone, even by sections;
the outline is frequently understood only by the compiler. An
outline may be made early in your preparation; not so the brief.
The following form illustrates some of these differences:

Outline

I. World government practical

A. Eliminates causes of war
1. Provides reconciliation
2. Substitute for war
3. Enforces peace
B. Solves economic problems
1. Removes trade barriers
2. Competitive practices

1 See pages 154-64.

154 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Brief

I. World government is a practical method of solving international prob¬

lems, for
A. World government solves the problem of war, for
1. It provides for the reconciliation of the causes of war.
2. It provides a substitute to perform the functions of war.
3. It provides adequate means of enforcing peace, for
a. It provides for changing conditions.
b. It provides the necessary elements of force.
B. World government will solve the s problems of international eco¬
nomic relations, for
1. It is a practical means of removing trade barriers.
2. It substitutes orderly regulations for competitive practices.

Rules for Constructing the Brief

The following rules for briefing come largely from legal usage.
Although some of the rules may appear technical, they are far less
rigid than the rules for legal briefing. Compliance with them is
necessary for a properly constructed debate case.

General rules

Divide the Brief into Three Sections: (1) an introduc¬

tion to the proposition, (2) a development of affirmative arguments
with a conclusion, and (3) a development of negative arguments
with a conclusion.
The first section of the brief introduces both the affirmative and
negative divisions and contains all the exposition necessary to an
understanding of the proposition. The introduction should be
unbiased in its treatment and should not contain arguments. In a
formal debate, the first affirmative speaker presents the part of the
analysis contained in the introduction that he deems advisable for
an understanding of his case.
The section “affirmative proof” contains the main contentions
supporting the proposition as developed by subpoints. The main
divisions of the brief include all the arguments on the proposition.
This section is concluded by a restatement of the affirmative main
contentions.
The section “negative proof” develops the arguments opposed
to the proposition in the same manner and form as the affirmative
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 155

proof. The general outline of the brief appears graphically as

follows:

Brief

Statement of the Proposition

I. Introduction: Analysis and exposition of the proposition, including

the six steps discussed in Chapter 6
II. Affirmative Proof
A. Statements of main contentions; subpoints—supported by reason¬
ing and evidence
B. Conclusion; restatement of main contentions
III. Negative Proof
A. Statements of main contentions; subpoints—supported by reason¬
ing and evidence
B. Conclusion; restatement of main contentions

Make Each Statemeiit in the Form of a Complete

Sentence. Words and phrases instead of complete sentences may be
used in an outline, but complete sentences for each division and
each subhead are necessary in a brief. The complete sentence states
a point precisely and indicates clearly the relationships between
points and subpoints. The following form illustrates this rule:

Wrong

I. Powers of World Federation

A. Required powers
1. Declare and wage war
2. International commerce
3. Taxation
B. Optional powers
1. Financial matters
2. Postal systems
3. Communications

Right

I. A world federation must be given definite powers to insure effective¬

ness, for
A. Certain powers are obligatory, for
1. The power to maintain armies is necessary as an enforcement
agency.
2. The power to regulate international commerce is necessary for
healthy economics.
156 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

3. The power of taxation is necessary to finance the plan.

B. Some powers are optional, for
1. Power to regulate financial matters would be advantageous.
2. The power to provide a common postal system would strengthen
the ties among the various nations.
3. The power to regulate international communication would help
remove international barriers.

Make Each Statement Single in Form. The brief

requires that each head or subhead be a single statement; com¬
pound and complex sentences should be avoided. Confusion results
from an attempt to support a dual statement by subheads.

Wrong

I. War causes political and economic upheavals in the world, for

A. War causes immediate and long-range problems, for
1. In the economic field the immediate problems are to alleviate
widespread suffering and to transform the war economy into a
peacetime economy.
2. The long-range economic policy includes problems of absorb¬
ing the military personnel into peacetime employment, the seri¬
ous effect on monetary and credit systems caused by large war
debts, and the replenishment of large stocks of goods.
3. The immediate political problems include controlling con¬
quered countries and writing the terms of the peace.
4. The long-range political problem involves working out difficul¬
ties in political systems.

Right

I. War causes economic upheavals in the world, for

A. War causes immediate problems, for
1. It becomes necessary to alleviate worldwide suffering.
2. It becomes necessary to transform the war economy into a peace¬
time economy.
B. War causes many long range problems, for
1. It becomes necessary to absorb military personnel into peace¬
time employment.
2. It becomes necessary to rebuild disrupted monetary and credit
•systems occasioned by the war debts.
3. It becomes necessary to replenish the supply of goods depleted
by the war.
II. War causes political upheavals in the world, for
A. War causes immediate political problems, for
1. It becomes necessary to establish governments in conquered coun¬
tries.
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 157

2. It becomes necessary to write the peace terms.

B. War causes long-range political problems, for
1. Difficulties arising from defunct political systems have to be
solved.
2. Problems of keeping the peace need major attention.

Use a Consistent System of Symbols Throughout the

Brief. The system of symbols used may vary according to individual
desires, but one system should be used consistently throughout the
brief. To change the system of symbols within a brief destroys the
relationships between points and subpoints. The following form is
recommended:

I. __

A.

1.

a.

(1)

(a)

(b)

(2)

b.

2.

B.

II.

Arrange Each Division into Heads and Subheads.

Each subordinate idea should be indicated by a proper symbol and
correct indentation so that the relationships between points and
subpoints can be easily recognized. Failure to subdivide arguments
obscures the logical sequence of ideas.
158 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

fTrong

There is a need for a change in the present policy of interna¬

tional relations. Under the present system, wars occur frequently.
The causes of war are traceable to dissimilar ideologies among
nations. Furthermore, the present system offers nothing to replace
war. It cannot enforce a desirable peace because it does not provide
for changing conditions and there is no element of force in the
present system.

Right

I. There is a need for a change in the present policy of international rela¬

tions, for
A. Under the present system wars recur frequently, for
1. The causes of war are traceable to conflicting ideologies among
nations.
2. The present system offers nothing to replace war.
3. The present policy cannot enforce a desirable peace, for
a. It does not provide for changing conditions.
b. It has no power to enforce international policies.

Mark Each Statement with One Symbol Only. To

mark one statement with two symbols destroys the logical relation¬
ship between points and subpoints.

Wrong

I. Federation is a practical plan for solving international problems, for

A. 1. Federation supplies positive elements of solution.
2. Federation is an international approach to an international prob¬
lem.
B. Federation provides united action, for
1. a. It will bring military competition to an end.
b. It will do away with the treachery and intrigue practiced in
present diplomatic negotiations.
c. It will permit trade to conform to the pattern that will best
satisfy international economic demand.

Right

I. Federation is a practical plan for solving international problems, for

A. Federation supplies positive elements of solution.
B. Federation is an international approach to an international prob¬
lem.
C. Federation provides united action, for
1. It will bring military competition to an end.
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 159

2. It will do away with the treachery and intrigue possible under

present diplomatic negotiations.
3. It will permit trade to conform to the pattern approved by in¬
ternational economic demand.

Make All Statements Impersonal. Such statements as

“we contend,” “I believe,” and “we propose” have no place in a
brief. Make the brief an impersonal statement of all factors in¬
volved. Do not include illogical statements or special pleading in
any form.

Wrong
I. There is a need for world federation, for
A. There are many causes for war, for
1. There are economic causes.
2. There are political causes.
3. I believe the social causes are strongest; war is a curse to man¬
kind.
B. World federation wall decrease the causes for war.
1. I am fully convinced that economic problems can be settled
around conference tables.
2. Problems in politics could be discussed under conditions condu¬
cive to peace.
3. I contend fervently that the federal council would disapprove
war.

Right
I. There is a need for world federation, for
A. There are many causes for war, for
1. There are economic causes.
2. There are political causes.
3. There are social causes.
B. World federation will decrease the causes for war, for
1. Economic problems can be settled around conference tables.
2. Problems in politics could be discussed under conditions condu¬
cive to peace.
3. On general principles the federation council would disapprove
war.

Rules for the introduction

Include the Steps in Analysis. The steps in analysis,

as discussed in Chapter 6, consist of the following:

1. the present significance or immediate reason for discussing the problem,

2. comprehensive history of the question.
160 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

3. the disposal of admitted and irrelevant matter,

4. interpretation and definition of the proposition,
5. the underlying philosophy of the proposition,
6. statement of the main issues of the proposition.

Include All Necessary Exposition of the Proposition.

Much of the material included in the introduction need not be
presented in a debate, but the information proves valuable for
achieving background understanding of the proposition. The fol¬
lowing specimen introduction of a brief illustrates how to present
exposition in the introduction:

Brief

Resolved, That a federal world government should he established.

Introduction

I. It is important that this question be discussed.

A. The increasing destructiveness of war emphasizes the need for
seeking a method for the peaceful settlement of disputes between
nations.
B. Our increasing mastery of time, space, and human conditions
makes us more and more dependent upon each other (James T.
Shotwell, The Great Decision, p. 15).
C. It is important that individuals acquaint themselves with world
conditions.
1. In democratic states, the perpetuation of foreign policies rests
ultimately with the electorate.
2. A better understanding of world problems is conducive to ra¬
tional behavior (Caesar Saerchinger, The Way Out of War,
p. 87).
3. An appreciation of the other person’s point of view is a pre¬
requisite to a sensible foreign policy.
D. The economic interdependence of nations reflects itself in the es¬
tablishment of regional economic communities.

II. History shows that the consideration of a world government is not

new in the minds of men.
A. In 1899, at the suggestion of the Czar of Russia, twenty-six pow¬
ers met in the First Hague Conference for the purpose of pro¬
moting universal amity.
B. In 1907, at the prompting of Theodore Roosevelt, forty-four na¬
tions met in the Second Hague Conference for the purpose of
mitigating the horrors of war.
C. In 1919, the League of Nations was formed for the promotion and
maintenance of world peace.
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 161

D. In June, 1945, the representatives of fifty-one nations signed the

charter that brought into being the United Nations, the purpose
of which is to promote peace and economic betterment.
E. Establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Eu¬
ropean Common Market, and other regional organizations indi¬
cate a trend toward international cooperation.
III. The following matters should be agreed upon as a common basis for
argument:
A. No specific time limit should be imposed for the establishment of
a federal world government; however, it should be established in
the reasonably near future.
B. A detailed plan for the proposed organization need not be pre¬
sented.
IV. The interpretation of the following terms is necessary for an under¬
standing of the question:
A. Eederal government means a government to which the member
states relinquish certain powers, among them being the power to
act upon the individual citizen as well as upon the member state.
1. The federal world government should have power to maintain
a world army.
2. It should have pow'er to wage war.
3. It should have authority over world trade.
4. It should have authority to levy taxes.
B. World government means a government that exercises authority
over all the inhabitants of the member states.
V. The underlying philosophy of the proposition involves two major
concepts.
A. The principle of nationalism is outmoded; the only way to inter¬
national peace and economic well-being is through international
cooperation.
B. Any international organization with power to affect military and
economic peace must be federal in scope.
VI. The main issues are:
A. Is there a need for some type of world organization other than
the present system?
B. Is federal world government a practical means of world organi¬
zation?
C. Would a federal world government prove advantageous?

Do Not Include Argument. Since the introductory

section introduces both the affirmative and negative sections o£
proof, only expository statements should be included. This prin¬
ciple is exemplified in the introduction of the brief in the preced¬
ing section. You will note that all statements are objective and
nonargumentative.
162 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Rules for the proof

Make the Main Contentions in the Proof Correspond

to the Statement of Issues Listed in the Introduction. The main
issues o£ the proposition should he listed in question form as the
final section of the introduction. When the issues are affirmed or
denied, they become the main contentions in the affirmative and
negative sections of the proof. These differences are illustrated as
follows for the proposition that a federal world government should
be established:

Main Issues of the Proposition

I. Is there a need for some type of world organization other than the
present system?
II. Is federal world government a practical means of world organization?
III. Would federal world government prove advantageous?

Main Contentions of the Affirmative

A federal world government should be established, for,

I. There is a need for a stronger world government.
II. A federal world government is a practical means of world organiza¬
tion.
III. A federal world government would be desirable.

Main Contentions of the Negative

A federal world government should not be established, for,

I. There is no need for a federal world government.
II. A federal world government would prove impracticable.
III. A federal world government would be undesirable.

Make Each Main Contention Read as a Reason for

the Truth or Falsity of the Proposition. This rule was illustrated
in the preceding section. Each main contention relates directly to
the proposition. Note that the main issues, as listed in the introduc¬
tion, are affirmed in the affirmative proof and are denied in the
negative.
Make All the Main Contentions Combined Prove the
Proposition. The probative force of contentions I, II, and III,
properly developed, must prove the proposition. Unless the main
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 163

contentions combined prove the proposition, the brief does not

present a prima-facie case.^
Make Each Subpoint of a Main Contention Help
Prove the Main Contention. Unless a subpoint reads directly as a
reason for the contention under which it appears, it has no bearing
on the case. Furthermore, in order to have probative force in a
brief, all the reasoning given in a subpoint must be sufficient to
prove the subpoint when supported by evidence. This rule is illus¬
trated by subpoint A under the first main contention that follows:

.\ federal world government should be established, for,

I. There is a need for some type of world organization other than the
present system, for
\ system of independent sovereign states has not proved successful
in preventing war, for
1. The areas of peace have been widened only if or where sover¬
eignty has been abandoned or shared (Caesar Saerchinger, The
Way Out of War, p. 124).
2. Sovereignty must sooner or later make way for the principle of
the greatest good for the greatest number.
3. Two major world wars have been fought in the past fifty years.
4. The cold war since World War II has kept the nations in a state
of unrest.
5. Nations have devised weapons capable of destroying the world.

Make the Combined Subpoints of a Main Contention

Prove the Main Contention. For the same reasons that the cumula¬
tive effect of the main contentions of a brief must be sufficient to
prove the proposition, so must all the subpoints of a main conten¬
tion, when combined, prove that contention. The weakness of a
main contention may be exposed by attacking either the main con¬
tention itself or any of its subdivisions.
Put the Source of Evidence, If Included, in Paren¬
theses at the Close of the Statement in Which It Appears. If this
rule is observed, it gives authority to the brief. It also provides
useful information that will be readily accessible during a debate.
The rule may be illustrated as follows:

A. The United Nations is incapable of meeting the need, for

1. It cannot take decisive action, for
a. The General Assembly has only the power to discuss and rec¬
ommend solutions.

2 The effect of the failure to present a prima-facie case was discussed in detail in
Chapter 3.
164 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

b. The Security Council is unable to take action, for

(1) The presence of two conflicting ideologies on the coun¬
cil makes unanimous agreement virtually impossible
(Joseph H. Ball, America and the New World, p. 146).
(2) By exercising the veto, any of the Big Five can prevent
any important decision (ibid., p. 147).

In Briefing Points of Refutation, State Clearly the

Argument to Be Answered. In constructing a brief, it sometimes
becomes necessary to answer arguments that favor the opposition,
preliminary to advancing your own arguments. Let the point
answered be so stated that it becomes positive argument for the
side of the proposition briefed. Include points of refutation in the
body of the brief where the point arises. The following section of
a brief illustrates this rule:

II. A federal world government would not be practicable, for

A. There is not a sufficient basis for organization, for
1. There is no common political philosophy around which the or¬
ganization could be built (Joseph H. Ball, America and the New
World, p. 145), for
a. Russia is dedicated to the retention and extension of the
communistic theory of government.
b. The United States supports the democratic theory.
c. Neutral nations differ in their beliefs.
2. There are no common ties of religion between the peoples of
the world.

Rule for the conclusion

Make the Conclusion a Restatement of the Main Con¬

tentions and an Affirmation or Denial of the Proposition. The af¬
firmative and negative sections contain separate conclusions; a
detailed summary is not necessary. The usual procedure consists of
a restatement of the main contentions followed by an affirmation
or denial of the proposition. The following form illustrates this
rule as applied to the affirmative.

Conclusion

Since:
I. There is a need for some type of world organization other than the
present system, and
II. Federal world government is a practical world organization, and
 BRIEFING THE DEBATE CASE 165

III. A federal world government would prove advantageous,

Therefore:
A federal world government should be established.

Summary

The debate brief may be defined as a logically arranged com¬

pilation of the arguments on both sides of a proposition. The brief
is an arrangement of all arguments, as distinguished from an out¬
line of certain arguments for a particular debate. The brief in¬
cludes a complete plan for an entire case. Observe the following
rules when drawing up a brief:

1. Divide the brief into three sections: (1) an introduction to the

proposition, (2) a development of affirmative arguments with a
conclusion, and (3) a development of negative arguments with
a conclusion.
2. Make each statement in the form of a complete sentence.
3. Make each statement single in form.
4. Use a consistent system of symbols throughout the brief.
5. Arrange each division of the brief into heads and subheads.
6. Mark each statement with one symbol only.
7. Make all statements impersonal.
8. Include in the introduction the steps in analysis.
9. Include in the introduction all exposition necessary for an
understanding of the proposition.
10. Do not include argument in the introduction.
11. Make the main contentions in the proof correspond to the
statement of issues listed in the introduction.
12. Make each main contention read as a reason for the truth or
falsity of the proposition.
13. Make all the main contentions combined prove the proposi¬
tion.
14. Make each subpoint of a main contention help prove the con¬
tention under which it appears.
15. Make the combined subpoints of a main contention prove the
main contention.
16. If you indicate the source of evidence, put it in parentheses at
the close of the statement in which it appears.
17. In briefing points of refutation, state clearly the argument to
be answered.
166 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

18. Make the conclusion a restatement of the main contentions and

affirmation or denial of the proposition.

Oral Assignment

1. The class should be divided into panel groups with no more than
seven students on a panel.
2. Each student should prepare an outline for a panel discussion on the
subject “The Affirmative Case” on the proposition selected for class
debates.
3. The panel discussions may be held in various sections of the lecture
room or in small rooms or offices.
4. Each student should hand in a summary of the discussion in which he
participates.

Collateral Readings

Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 11. New York; American
Institute of Banking, 1962.
Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 12. Belmont, Calif.;
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1961.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 12. New York;
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
McBath, James H., ed.. Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 6. New York;
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1963.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 13. New York; The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
Reeves, J. Walter, and Hoyt H. Hudson, Principles of Argument and De¬
bate, Ch. 5. Boston; D. C. Heath & Company, 1941.
 Preparing for Rebuttal
and Refutation

Rebuttal Explained

Rebuttal is the process of destroying opposing arguments and

re-establishing your own constructive arguments. Almost all types
of formal college debate provide for both constructive and rebut¬
tal speeches. In the constructive speech you present a positive case
in support of one side of the proposition. This constructive case,
as originally planned, should be completed in the constructive
speeches; no essential issue should be left to the rebuttals. After
the constructive arguments, each side has rebuttal speeches in which
it attempts to weaken or destroy the opposing case and rebuild its
own. Look upon the rebuttal as argument against argument or
strengthening what has been said. The nature of the rebuttal
speeches makes them extemporaneous, for they must be organized
during the debate to adapt to the opponent’s arguments.

Refutation and Rebuttal Distinguished

Debaters sometime use refutation and rebuttal synonymously.

One distinction, however, should be understood. Refutation con¬
sists of destroying opposing arguments, a tearing-down process,
whereas rebuttal includes both destructive and reconstructive
methods, attacking your opponents’ arguments and rebuilding your
own. Refutation is usually used throughout the debate. After the
first affirmative speech, refutation becomes necessary in each suc¬
ceeding constructive speech to clear the way for additional con¬
structive arguments. The first negative speaker should not begin
his constructive speech until he has refuted essential parts of the

167
168 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

first affirmative speaker’s argument.^ Likewise the second affirma¬

tive must not ignore what the first negative has said and start with
his own constructive speech—he must first attack the principal argu¬
ments advanced by the negative.
A speaker may use refutation to advantage if he can anticipate
a particularly strong argument. Refutation of an argument in ad¬
vance of its presentation weakens that argument when it does
come. Refutation becomes, therefore, a part of both the construc¬
tive and the rebuttal speeches. Rebuttal is a broader process that
includes refutation.

Types of Rebuttal and Refutation

The tearing-down and building-up processes in debate are three¬

fold, including (1) attacks on opposing arguments, (2) defense of
own arguments, and (3) attacks on minor points.

Attacks on opposing arguments

In most instances, you should attack your opponent’s arguments

before rebuilding your own. This method helps keep the opposi¬
tion on the defense and leaves the opposition less time to destroy
your arguments. It frequently becomes necessary to clear away the
beliefs advanced by opponents before you can hope for acceptance
of constructive arguments that you present. This destructive phase
of argument is illustrated in the final debate of the 1962 National
West Point Tournament when Miss Sarah Benson of Ohio State
University began the second negative constructive speech as follows:

I’d like to go right to that affirmative plan and consider it in relation¬

ship to each of the need areas which we heard. First of all, remember
we’re told that unions can restrict production through makework prac¬
tices. Well now, remember, at the opening of this debate the affirma¬
tive team told us there was a legal inconsistency between what labor
unions can do and what business could do; therefore, we need anti¬
trust applied to labor organizations. Well, I’m going to submit that,
first of all, the affirmative need area here is not compatible with the
philosophy of antitrust legislation. Now remember, we’ve never been
told that business can’t restrict production. I point out to you that busi¬
ness certainly does restrict production. We know that steel mills only
operate 9 or 10 months out of the year. Certainly there is no legal in-

1 For an effective instance of this method, see how Milton has Belial open his
argument in Paradise Lost, Bk. II, 11. 120ff.
 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 169

consistency here. This doesn’t fit in with the philosophy of the affirma¬
tive team. It doesn’t fit in with the philosophy of antitrust legislation.2

Defense of oivn arguments

When you face arguments that tend to tear down your side, you
must strengthen your original arguments. This type of rebuttal
seeks to offset the attacks of your opponents and thus enables you
to re-establish your constructive case. In the following illustration,
note how Calvin Kent of Baylor University sought to re-establish
his case from the attack presented by Miss Benson in the example
above.

First of all, they tell us this: well, we don’t think that you’re complying
with the principle of antitrust. Because why? The steel mills aren’t
forced to operate all the time. Well, this doesn’t have any relevance
to our case at all. I think we pointed out to you that we were within
the philosophy because the court had clearly decided in the case of U.S.
V. Bruns that makework and featherbedding were restraints of trade.
.\nd this point they never dealt with. Why? Because they raised prices
and pinched productivity. .And antitrust, as they themselves admit, is
intended to do away with this particular problem. So I think we are
complying with the antitrust principle.3

Attacks on minor points

Minor points may be attacked for several purposes: to introduce

a speech, to gain favor with the audience, to weaken the authen¬
ticity of a particular argument, or to lessen the prestige of the op¬
posing speakers. In the final debate of a national Pi Kappa Delta
tournament, one speaker began as follows:

Ladies and gentlemen: The last speaker for the affirmative opened his
address by saying that he had never debated before a more intelligent
audience. I assume that, since we are on the negative, it is our burden
to claim that we have. However, we will shift this burden for the
moment.4

This opening was an amusing diversion from the main argument

and brought a favorable reaction from the audience.

2 James H. McBurney and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate: Tech¬

niques of a Free Society (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 436.
3 McBurney and Mills, op. cit., p. 444.
4 George W. Finley, Winning Debates, Orations, Speeches (New York: Noble &
Noble, Publishers, Inc., 1936), VI, 30.
170 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Later in the same debate, an opponent opened his rebuttal with

this refutation:

We cannot let one statement pass without correcting it. My colleague

offered five cases in which we would prophesy, if we were forced by
the gentlemen to take the role of prophet, that the Congress of the
United States would have passed the law a second time by a two-thirds
vote. Those five cases were: the Minimum Wage Law, the Child Labor
Law, the Triple A, the Hot Oil provisions of the NRA, and the Legal
Tender Act. The first speaker for the negative came back and said that
only one of those laws got a two-thirds majority vote. Gentlemen, we
respectfully submit to you that you a,fe mistaken and I offer to you on
the basis of the Congressional Recofd that all five of them got a two-
thirds majority vote.^

The probative effect of this point of controversy was not so im¬

portant as was the loss of prestige and ethical appeal occasioned
by the preceding speaker’s lack of knowledge of the facts.

General Methods of Refutation

Opposing arguments may be destroyed by either one of two

methods or a combination of both. The first method consists of
showing an error in the reasoning process; the second consists of
questioning the validity of the evidence or showing that the evidence s
does not support the conclusion. If you can show errors in reason¬
ing as well as inadequacies of evidence, your refutation will be all
the more convincing.

Methods of attacking reasoning—fallacies

A fallacy consists of an error in the reasoning process. A complete

classification of fallacies is perhaps impossible, since it is not pos¬
sible to perceive exactly what takes place in the mind of the rea-
soner, but four types of fallacies are of primary concern to debaters.
Fallacies of inductive reasoning have already been covered in Chap¬
ter 8; fallacies of deductive reasoning were discussed in Chapter 9.
Such fallacies occur when one violates the rules for these types of
reasoning as explained in the chapters cited. In addition to these
formal or logical fallacies, there are two common fallacies of pre¬
sumption; ignoring the question and begging the question.

5 Finley, op. cit., p. 51.

 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 171

Ignoring the Question. The fallacy of ignoring the

question consists of arguments irrelevant to the point in contro¬
versy. The most common forms follow.
ATTACKING PERSONALITIES. Evading the issue by attacking a per¬
son connected with it ignores the question. An example is seen in
the classic advice of an old lawyer to a young one, “If your argu¬
ment is weak, abuse the opposing lawyers.” The following ex¬
amples illustrate: (1) A student advances a plan for settling labor-
capital difficulties; the opponent, instead of giving valid objections
to the plan, infers that college students are incapable of devising a
workable plan for capital-labor difficulties. (2) A student presents
an argument, based upon sound reasoning and supported by ade¬
quate evidence, for the proposal that the United States should join
the European Common Market; the opponent disregards the sound¬
ness of the argument and launches an attack on the personal char¬
acteristics of a prominent politician who favors the proposal. (3) A
debater quotes the reasoning of a prominent authority supporting
a proposal for changes in succession to the presidency following
President Kennedy’s assassination; the opponent evades the argu¬
ment by stating that the authority held an opposite view twenty
years ago. All these responses have one point in common—they at¬
tempt to evade arguments by an attack on personalities.
APPEALING TO PREJUDICES. This fallacy occurs when the speaker
makes use of prejudices rather than logical reasoning. Note the
following refutation of an argument that the unicameral system
of legislation should be adopted:

The affirmative offers nothing distinctively unicameral. They put for¬

ward only those reforms which we can secure and still keep our Amer¬
ican system. Let us not destroy this time-tried plan of legislation, but
rather let us allow it to rise to its full vigor, unhampered by ills that
encumber it-ills which are strictly extraneous in nature. A system
which has stood the test of years of troublous times in the formation
of a new and mighty nation could not have inherent evils. . . .6

Examples of appeals to prejudice are common among special-in¬

terest groups and in political campaigns. Alcoholism is a sin is
no answer to the arguments against prohibition, nor is in America
all men are still free” refutation to arguments for prohibition. Like¬
wise, “the constitution does not forbid it” is no answer to the argu-

6 Classroom debate recorded and transcribed for study.

172 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

merit against capital punishment. Such reasoning may be effective,

but it ignores the basic argument by appealing to prejudice.
APPEALING TO TRADITION AND CUSTOM. A fallacy similar to the
one above consists of an appeal to tradition and custom as a sub¬
stitute for reasoning; it ignores the point at issue. The following
point illustrates:

The opposition claims that government control of railroads will give

us a more efficient transportation system. Do the gentlemen realize
the full impact of their proposal? It involves increased regimentation
of private business. It drives us one step nearer to socialism and one
step farther away from the time-honored American free enterprise. Let
us keep America free of all foreign “isms.”

The tendency to preserve the status quo gives impetus to committing

this fallacy. It may be easier to reply to an argument favoring a plan
for world peace by the phrase “war is inevitable” than to meet it
with counterreasoning and evidence. Such refutation may be effec¬
tive, but it is nonetheless deficient in logic because it evades the
basic argument.
APPEALING TO IGNORANCE. Assuming that because the facts may
not be known, they do not exist, or that a contention must be
assumed true because it cannot be disproved, appeals to ignorance.
Lack of knowledge is substituted for logical reasoning and evi¬
dence. Affirmative teams sometimes commit this fallacy in an en¬
deavor to avoid discussing the practicability of their proposal.
Pressed for a definite proposal for solving labor-capital problems,
the affirmative responds that a specific program is beyond the ability
of college students—that the details of the plan must be left to
Congress and the experts. Affirmative teams are seldom required to
present detailed plans, yet they should give the general principles
upon which a plan could be devised and should not avoid this re¬
sponsibility by pleading ignorance of the problem. Negative teams
sometimes commit this fallacy when they contend that the affirma¬
tive cannot prove its plan practicable because the plan has never
been tried. Such a conclusion relies upon the assumption that be¬
cause facts are lacking, there can be no proof. Many sound reasons
may favor the })racticability of a plan that has never been tried.
ATTEMPTING DIVISION. This eiTor arises when one attempts a
division or classification of an argument and omits an essential

t Classroom debate recorded and transcribed for study.

 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 173

part of the problem. An affirmative speaker argues that the na¬

tions must either adopt an economic community or follow a plan
of isolation. This division fails to consider the possibility of favored-
nation agreements. In a debate on the adoption of a sales tax, the
affirmative contended that there are four basic and accepted types
of taxation: property, business, income, and consumption. The
speakers attempted to demonstrate that the first three of these could
not be utilized for obtaining additional funds, and they concluded
that only the consumption tax could produce additional revenue
without hardships. In refutation, the negative speakers proposed
that natural resources could well stand additional taxation suffi¬
cient to meet the demand for needed revenue. The affirmative had
overlooked an essential part of the question.
SHIFTING GROUND. A debater shifts ground when he deserts the
point of contention. He abandons a point without proof, but
leaves the impression of supporting it by giving arguments on an
allied point.

The third evil submitted by the affirmative is that the present system
discourages preventive medicine. The gentlemen have contended that
they desire to encourage preventive medicine under their program of
compulsory health insurance. The negative has cited the example of
sulfapyridine as a preventive medicine that hastens the cure of pneu¬
monia. The gentlemen say that this program started in England. That
is exactly where it started, but England does not have a program of
compulsory health insurance. It has a program of government medi¬
cine, a program that would be totally unacceptable to the American
people. Let us avoid this Socialistic scheme.^

Begging the Question. This type of fallacy occurs

when one assumes the truth of a point that is the same or equivalent
to the point in question. The principal forms of this fallacy follow.
REASONING IN A CIRCLE. This reasoning uses two or more un¬
proved propositions in turn to prove another. A student who said
that his colleague was a poor debater because he did not reason
well, and that he did not reason well because he was a poor debater,
was reasoning in a circle. The same error occurs in the following
argument concerning strikes: ‘‘The cost of living has increased be¬
cause many strikes have occurred in American industries, and many
strikes have occurred in American industries because the cost of
living has increased.”

8 Adapted from a classroom debate.

174 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

USING A NONEViDENT PREMISE. The nonevidcnt premise assumes

the truth of a premise that still requires proof. The unproved
premise then serves as the basis for drawing another conclusion,
which in turn serves as the premise from which another con¬
clusion may be made. In the inductive-deductive processes of
reasoning, each conclusion serves as a premise for another deduc¬
tion. Thus a statement may be both a conclusion and a premise
—a conclusion from evidence and reasoning given in its support,
and a premise serving as the basis for drawing another conclusion.
For example, consider the following^ chain of syllogisms:

Major premise: All industries have experienced price increases.

Minor premise: The soft drink business is an industry.
Conclusion: The soft drink business has experienced price increases.
Major premise: The soft drink business has experienced price increases.
Minor premise: The Coca-Cola Company is a soft drink business.
Conclusion: The Coca-Cola Company has experienced price in¬
creases.

The major premise “all industries have experienced price increases”

requires proof. To use the statement as a major premise without
proof exemplifies the fallacy of nonevident premise. The conclusion
of the syllogism, “the soft drink business has experienced price in¬
creases,” may not be in fact true. This statement in turn may serve
as the major premise of another syllogism, and all succeeding con¬
clusions in the chain of reasoning may also be fallacious since they
are drawn from a statement that required proof. To avoid this
fallacy, prove the premises in the chain by inductive reasoning. For
example:

The steel industry has experienced price increases.

The housing industry has experienced price increases.
The clothing industry has experienced price increases.
The farm implement industry has experienced price increases.
Conclusion: All essential industries have experienced price increases.

The conclusion from this generalization may then serve as the

premise for the first of a chain of syllogisms.

Methods of attacking evidence

Although the reasoning of an argument may be sound, the evi¬

dence used in support of such reasoning may not be valid. In addi¬
tion to the methods of attacking the reasoning process of arguments.
 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 175

at least four methods may be used to test the validity of the evi¬
dence.
Insufficient Evidence. Probably the most common error
made in the presentation of evidence arises from failure to give
sufficient evidence to establish the contention. The amount of evi¬
dence necessary depends upon the nature of the argument. Unless
one kind of evidence appears unusually convincing or the point to
be proved requires little support, use two or more kinds of evidence
to support an argument. Use corroborating statistics from two or
more sources to strengthen the contention, or cite several examples
that conform to the general class exemplified. Base analogy upon
something more familiar to the audience than the argument at
issue. Seek the opinions of several authorities to show agreement.
Each argument advanced does not have to be supported in a formal
way by several kinds of evidence, but take care to give sufficient evi¬
dence to justify the conclusion. In actual practice, too many debaters
draw conclusions that are not convincing because the evidence does
not warrant such conclusions. In the following argument, a speaker
points out the insufficiency of the evidence in a debate on state
medicine:

The ladies of the opposition have just two things to say in regard to
our preventive medicine argument. First, they say that the present sys¬
tem encourages preventive medicine; they cited only one example, that
of sulfapyridine’s cutting down the death rate of pneumonia. . . .
Then the ladies say that preventive medicine is only a matter of edu¬
cating the people to its use. We say that we should first make such
services available to the people before trying to educate them to its
use. The ladies have not given sufficient evidence that the present sys¬
tem encourages preventive medicine nor have they been able to jus¬
tify its failure to do so.^

Misapplied Evidence. Evidence advanced to prove a

point may warrant an entirely different conclusion; such evidence
should be attacked by showing that it is misapplied. In an attempt
to show a need for change from the present system of medical serv¬
ice, evidence may be given that tends to prove only the need for
modification; to prove that the evils mentioned warrant a change
to state medicine, one must show that such evils are inherent in the
present system. If the negative can show how the evils pointed out
by the affirmative can be corrected without a change in the princi-

9 Adapted from a classroom debate.

176 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

pies of private medicine, the negative justifies its contention that

the evidence used by the opposition does not prove the conclusion
drawn. A fundamental principle in debate demands that the evi¬
dence presented must prove the conclusion.

The affirmative speakers have given us evidence which they say shows
four evils of bicameralism, which evils prove a need for the one-house
legislature. These evils are not necessarily a part of the system itself.
They are but the result of subsequent development and would exist
in any form of government unless precautions were taken against them.
. . . They have put major emphasis upon two charges against the bi¬
cameral system. First, that much o^ the legislation is unsatisfactory;
second, that there is no fixing of responsibility. As to the first charge,
it is not a result of the two-house system. We find most unsatisfactory
legislation on the statute books because of two real reasons. There is
a lack of scientific knowledge and skill in the drafting of bills. There
is also insufficient time for deliberation. Shall we supply this needed
skill, shall we provide for more time for deliberation of bills, or shall
we destroy the whole system in favor of a system that has met with
failure in every trial in history? As to the charge of failure to fix re¬
sponsibility, we also say that it is in no way directly chargeable to the
bicameral system. This failure to fix responsibility is due to the un¬
limited number of bills which a representative may introduce or spon¬
sor, and to the operation of the committee system. We agree that too
many bills are introduced, but we oppose destroying the whole system
of the government just to weed out these ancillary evils. It is like kill¬
ing a man to cure a cold. The affirmative cannot lay either of these
two charges upon the bicameral system. . . . They have failed to prove
a need for change even if we accept their evidence of these evils.

Inaccurate Evidence. In some instances the evidence

presented may be sufficient and apply specifically to the point and
yet be distorted or inaccurate. Types of inaccurate evidence follow:
(1) Quotations may not be complete. (2) Statistics gathered from
different sources may not be based upon the same unit of compari¬
son. (3) Only extreme examples that are not representative may be
given. (4) Alleged points of likeness in analogies may not be true.
Misleading quotations of expert opinion may result from quoting
an incidental or isolated statement that the authority made in reach¬
ing his final conclusion. To take a statement out of the context of
an academic discussion and quote it as a conclusion leaves an im¬
pression not intended by the authority. A similar situation results
when a set of statistics from one source is compared to a set from

10 Classroom debate recorded and transcribed for study.

 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 177

another source based upon entirely different units. Misrepresenta¬

tion of evidence is inexcusable. As a debater, you must accept the
responsibility of determining the accuracy of your evidence.
In an intercollegiate debate, one speaker attempted to show the
inaccuracy of evidence as follows:

The lady who just spoke made no attempt to refute our arguments
that the advantages she claimed for unicameralism could not be had
by our proposals. She restricted her entire rebuttal to pointing out
that the two advantages we claim for bicameralism would not be ob¬
tained. Let me consider her arguments on these points. First, as to the
diversity of representation she quoted a statement from Professor
Senning to the effect that the argument that a two-house legislature
permits representation of areas as well as population has become ob¬
solete. In making this statement. Professor Senning was speaking gen¬
erally of the several states. We too have his book, and if you will read
further on in his discussion you will find that he stated that in some
states a real conflict does exist between the rural and urban sections.
Such a condition exists in this state.^

Unreliable Sources. Evidence may be objectionable be¬

cause it comes from a prejudiced source. Constantly bear in mind
that many organizations have personal interests in certain questions
of public policy and maintain propaganda agencies for the purpose
of distributing information favorable to their particular activities.
Other sources may be unreliable because of inadequate investiga¬
tion or incompetence of the author. Check carefully the truthworthi-
ness of evidence, for personal bias or incompetence will invalidate it.
Dr. Morris Fishbein uses this method of attacking evidence as
follows:

The report of the committee on the costs of medical care which is kept
alive only by the propaganda which is financially sustained by the Mil-
bank and Rosenwald funds would remove from physicians the right to
say how medicine shall be practiced and put it into the hands of non¬
medical directors.12

Mr. Ellis Storey of the University of Alabama exemplified this

method in the final debate at the West Point National Tournament
in 1955 when he argued against recognizing Communist China.

The members of the opposition quoted us The London Mirror, a Brit¬

ish newspaper, in an editorial criticizing America’s policy. I would

11 Intercollegiate debate recorded and transcribed for study.

12 Morris Fishbein, “Doctor and the State,” American Medical Journal (March
3, 1934), p. 701 (reprint of speech).
178 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

like to point out to you The Mirror does not express the views of the
British Government. However, we do find an Associated Press dispatch
from John Hightower in London, February 18, that Sir Anthony Eden
had said, with British support the United States has established a firm
policy in the defense of Formosa. That’s Eden speaking at the present
time for the British Government.^^

Special Methods of Refutation

In addition to the foregoing general methods of refutation, there

are six special methods for showing the weaknesses of opposing
arguments.

Reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum means the process of reducing an argu¬

ment to an absurdity. By this process you assume, for the sake of
argument, the truth of your opponent’s statement. You then carry
the same line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion and show the
absurdity of it. For example, the negative advances the objection
that state medicine would subject the medical profession to political
influence and would, therefore, be a source of political graft and
corruption. The affirmative accepts the argument and uses it as a
basis to extend the reasoning. The public school system, today under
state control, is also subject to political influence and domination.
By the same process of reasoning advanced by the negative, the
affirmative argues that state education be abolished. Carrying this
same reasoning further, the affirmative concludes that all activities
controlled by the state should be abolished because they are all
subject to political influence. The absurdity of the argument ap¬
pears when the negative’s reasoning is forced to a logical conclusion.
This type of reasoning may be overcome by showing how clearly
it applies to the issue under consideration. If it can be demon¬
strated that state medicine would more likely be subjected to
political graft and domination than other forms of governmental
activities—education, for example—the reduction to absurdity would
not stand.

13 Russel R. Windes and Arthur N. Kruger, Championship Debating (Portland,

Me.: J. Weston Walch, Publishers, 1961), p. 190.
 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 179

Method of residues

Reducing an argument to a definite number of possible conclu¬

sions and showing all conclusions but one impracticable constitutes
the method of residues. For example, the affirmative may present
three possible methods for providing medical service: (1) a con¬
tinuation of the present system, (2) a modification of the present
system, and (3) a plan of state medicine. By a process of logical
reasoning, the affirmative then shows the impracticability of the
first two methods. The conclusion leaves state medicine as the only
remaining plan.
This method of refutation includes a twofold weakness: first, all
possible alternatives may not be presented; second, all alternatives
except one may not be destroyed. Either error weakens the argu¬
ment.

The dilemma

The dilemma consists of showing that an argument leads logically

to only two conclusions—both untenable. These alternatives become
the horns of the dilemma. To illustrate, the negative offers the
objection that state medicine would reduce the remuneration re¬
ceived by the surgeon or physician. In attempting to get the negative
into a dilemma, the affirmative raises the question of whether the
doctor practices for his own financial gain or because of a desire to
render needed medical service. If the doctor desires merely to make
money, he should have his income curtailed; if he is primarily con¬
cerned with rendering needed service, he will not object to govern¬
ment control. In either event, the argument that state medicine will
reduce the remuneration received by the doctor loses its force as
an objection to state medicine.
The soundness of a dilemma depends upon two conditions: first,
it must present all the alternatives; second, it must destroy all the
alternatives. In the use of the dilemma, danger lies in the fallacy of
division—the opposition may refuse to accept either of the alterna¬
tives offered and establish itself safely in a third position that the
dilemma overlooked. For example, the doctor may be motivated by
both the desire for financial profit and the desire to render service;
the alternatives need not be mutually exclusive.
180 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies are exposed when one points out contradictory

contentions in the opposing argument. Contradictions may be
made in either the reasoning process or the presentation of evidence.
The negative on the question of state medicine might contend that
the evils of the present system do not warrant a change, and then
present a counterproposition such as compulsory health insurance.
The counterproposition, virtually admitting the need for a change,
contradicts the contention that the^ present system is satisfactory.
Although easily made, contradictions may be difficult to reconcile.
Make a careful check of your entire case to avoid inconsistencies.

The tables turned

To turn the tables in an argument, you interpret the evidence or

the reasoning of your opponent in a manner to prove your own con¬
tention. For example, the negative team proposes voluntary health
insurance as a better means of distributing medical costs over a
larger group of people than the present system. It contends that
this proposal answers the affirmative’s objection to the unequal dis¬
tribution of medical costs. Under health insurance a few unfortu¬
nate people would no longer have to pay the high costs of medical
service occasioned by expensive operations or prolonged illness, for
the cost would be borne by the insurance program. The affirmative
accepts this line of reasoning and shows that the same principle
applies to state medicine—which spreads the cost among all the
people instead of only those who take out health insurance. The
ability to pay taxes otters a more accurate standard for assessing the
costs of catastrophic illnesses than does the ability to purchase health
insurance. Thus state medicine incorporates the same principle as
health insurance and furthermore spreads the risk over a greater
number of people. The practice of appropriating opposing argu¬
ments to prove one’s own case proves especially effective when skill¬
fully done.

Irrelevant arguments

You expose irrelevancy when you show that an argument ad¬

vanced by the opposition does not materially help prove its case.
 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 181

Exposing irrelevancy is sometimes called the “so what” method. To

illustrate, a popular argument of the affirmative for state medicine
charges the present system with unequal distribution of doctors
throughout the state. The facts show a lower proportion of doctors
in relation to population in rural than in urban sections. The nega¬
tive should deny that this argument opposes the present system—so
few people live in rural districts that it would be an economic waste
to have more doctors in these areas; modern systems of communica¬
tion, improved highways, and automobiles make complete medical
facilities unnecessary in every village and rural section. Also, it may
be more satisfactory as well as more economical to have medical
facilities concentrated in urban districts, for people in rural districts
prefer the complete medical facilities found in cities. Thus, the argu¬
ment of unequal distribution of doctors and medical facilities favors
rather than opposes the present system of medical care. Exposure of
irrelevancy constitutes one of the most effective methods of refuta¬
tion.

Preparation for Rebuttal

Two prerequisites to successful rebuttal are: (1) reasoning abil¬

ity and (2) a fundamental knowledge of both sides of the question.
Do not seek short cuts to these prerequisites, for they may be met
only by continuous practice and diligent research.
Constructive cases may be worked out well in advance; final or¬
ganization for rebuttal must be made during the debate. This state¬
ment does not mean that the general plan of refutation cannot be
worked out in advance. An experienced debater can anticipate al¬
most all opposing arguments and plan his refutation prior to the
debate. For such preparation, the following suggestions may prove
helpful:

1. Plan the general method of attack on each argument that you antici¬
pate your opponents may advance.
2. Assemble evidence needed to develop your rebuttal on each antici¬
pated argument.
3. Decide on methods of attacking specific items of evidence that your
opponents may be expected to advance.

Your general plan of attack to meet opponents’ arguments must

at all times remain ada[)table to the specific way your opponent
presents an argument. Never memorize a set of rebuttal points on
182 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

anticipated arguments, because rarely do opponents present an argu¬

ment in exactly the same way. With an understanding of the meth¬
ods of attack and an abundance of evidence at hand, final organiza¬
tion of your rebuttals should not be a difficult task.

Organization of Rebuttal Points

Although preparation for rebuttal should be made in advance,

the final organization of your points must be made as the debate
progresses. Organize rebuttal arguments as clearly as you do the
constructive speeches; during the debate, continuously exclude un¬
important arguments and arrange the important arguments into
effective form. A strong rebuttal cannot be made if you take notes
on your opponents’ arguments in a haphazard manner without sepa¬
rating the important from the unimportant. When attacking an
argument, present sufficient evidence to answer each point fully
before taking up a new point. Rebuttal speeches are ineffective un¬
less you proceed in a logical and orderly manner.
Consider the following three steps in each main rebuttal argu¬
ment: (1) In the introduction, make clear exactly what you propose
to refute. This clarification should be as brief and clear as possible.
(2) Refute your opponent’s arguments and rebuild your own argu¬
ments where necessary. (3) Show clearly wherein your refutation
has destroyed or weakened your opponent’s argument and explain
the status of the debate as a result of your refutation.
Note how a rebuttal speech on the proposition of unicameral legis¬
lation follows these three steps.

The second advantage claimed by the negative for bicameralism is that

it provides a check on hasty legislation—one house checks on the other,
thus preventing ill-considered legislation. I shall show that this check
is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is unnecessary because legisla¬
tion is sufficiently checked where it originates. There now exist three
effective checks to hasty and unwise legislation; an effective additional
check would be introduced by a plan of unicameralism. The first check
is that of the initiative and referendum whereby the electorate as¬
sumes direct participation in the process of lawmaking. According to
Mr. W. F. Dodd in State Government, twenty-one states made direct
legislation a part of their state constitutions in the twenty year period
from 1899 to 1918; he states that it proved an effective check. By means
of the referendum the electorate is given an opportunity to vote on
a measure passed by the legislature, either approving or rejecting it.
A second effective check is that of the executive veto. The veto is fre-
 PREPARING FOR REBUTTAL AND REFUTATION 183

quently used on defective measures which escape the scrutiny of the

legislators. In writing of the effectiveness of this check Professor Sen-
ning in his book The One-House Legislature states, “The old presump¬
tion that the second house corrects and checks the mistakes of the
other is one of the shibboleths which must be discarded. The Governor,
with his veto power, checks the careless and hasty legislation which
the bicameral state assembly has passed.”
A third effective check is that of judicial review. The courts have
the power to declare measures passed by the legislature unconstitu¬
tional when they conflict with the fundamental law as expressed in
the constitution of the states; this ruling has proved very effective. A
fourth check characteristic of unicameralism is that of public opinion,
perhaps the strongest check possible. With publicity given to the in¬
troduction of bills possible only in a small house the volume of worth¬
less legislation would be materially reduced. We contend that legislation
is sufficiently and effectively checked without the second house; there¬
fore, the check of the second house is unnecessary.
Not only is this check unnecessary but it is undesirable. Why? In
the first place because it is not effective. It is common knowledge that
the great majority of important acts of the legislature in states do not
pass before the last ten days of the session. This is due to the opera¬
tions of the committee system. In New York, where a detailed study
has been made of the effectiveness of the second house check, it was
found that only 19 per cent of the bills passed by one house were
killed by the other; of the 967 bills passed in a single session, 505 re¬
ceived the approval of both houses without change and 102 were
vetoed by the Governor mainly because of legislative error. Not only
is this check ineffective, it is actually detrimental to efficient legisla¬
tion. Instead of acting as a check, the two houses cause delay and per¬
mit bargaining in both houses through trading of votes and the shifting
of responsibility. Thus, this second advantage claimed for bicameralism
falls because it is not needed, it is ineffective, and undesirable.

In planning for defense before the debate, prepare a broad out¬

line of your case on a sheet of paper or cards, allowing space be¬
tween points to record refutation material that opponents present
against your arguments. This outline provides a clear chart for
counterrebuttal material. It may be necessary to use a separate sheet
or card for incidental rebuttal points; by combining these sheets,
you can tear down your opponent’s arguments and build up your
own case by a well-organized plan.
Charting the debate as it progresses constitutes another important
part of rebuttal organization. To chart the debate effectively, out¬
line the opposing case as your opponents present it; leave space in

14 Classroom debate recorded and transcribed for study.

184 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

the outline for notes on material to be used in refutation. Use a

two-colored pencil, say red and blue, so that statements to be re¬
futed and statements to be made in refutation can be distinguished
easily. This procedure gives a clear chart of the direct rebuttal
material.
Some debaters prefer to record both destructive and constructive
rebuttal work on the same sheet. This plan calls for sheets of paper
with lines drawn vertically through the center of the page as shown
by the diagram on page 185. On the left side, you may outline the
opposing case and record arguments to be made in refutation. On
the right side, write a broad outline^-of your own case and leave
space for recording opposing arguments used in attacking your case.
This plan enables you to determine at a glance the status of an
argument at any time.

Summary

Rebuttal may be defined as the process of destroying opposing

arguments and building up one’s own arguments; refutation is the
tearing-down process in debate, a part of both the constructive and
rebuttal speeches. Rebuttal points may be listed under three heads:
(1) attacks on opposing arguments, (2) defense of own arguments,
and (3) attacks on minor points used to introduce a rebuttal speech
or to weaken the authenticity of the opposing case.
Opposing arguments may be weakened or destroyed by attacking
either the reasoning process or the evidence used in support of a
contention. Errors in the reasoning process are known as fallacies.
The principal fallacies applicable to debate are: (1) fallacies of
deductive reasoning, (2) fallacies of inductive reasoning, (3) fal¬
lacies of ignoring the question, and (4) fallacies of begging the
question. There are four methods of attacking evidence: (1) show
that evidence is insufficient, (2) show that evidence is misapplied,
(3) show that fy^'clence is inaccurate, and (4) show that evidence is
obtained from e initii'Cli^ible source.
There are sixiarticial methods of refutation: (1) reduce an argu¬
ment to an absidddity, (2) use the method of residues, (3) point
out a dilemma, (4) expose inconsistencies, (5) turn the tables or
appropriate arguments, and (6) expose irrelevant arguments.
Preparation for rebuttal work consists of cultivating the ability
Rebuttal Chart

Resolved, That a One-House Legislature Should Be Adopted.

Opponents’ case: Negative Our case: Affirmative

I. Advantages of hicamerialism war¬ I. Chance needed because of evils

rants its retention. OF TWO HOUSES.
A. Provides diversity of representa¬ Admits evils—deny change in sys¬
tion. tem necessary—not inherent.
No differences in interests to A. .Aitracts weak men.
justify diversity. Corrected by negative proposal.
B. Serve to check hasty legislation. B. Complexity of procedure.
This check is unnecessary and Corrected by negative proposal.
undesirable. C. Committee system susceptible
II. Propose to modify present system. TO outside influence.
Admit failure as the plan actually Agree—propose abolition.
operates. II. One-house legislation will rem¬
A. Elect one-house by districts— edy evils.
other by population. Agree—but not best plan.
No useful purpose is gained. A. Attracts qualified men—fixes
Plan keeps two houses—the responsibility and provides
source of the evils. continuous sessions.
Plan does not correct evils. Same.
B. Propose smaller houses—salaries B. Simplifies procedure.
paid per annum. Same.
Counter to diversity of repre¬ C. Abolishes conference com¬
sentation argument. mittee.
Same.
III. Advantages of one-house war¬
rants CHANCE.
Agrees to advantages but denies
change necessary to gain them.
A. Less expensive.
Same under negative proposal.
B. Lessens political corruption..
Not possible to eliminate—.
Negative plan good as affirma¬
tive’s.
C. Prevents friction and dead¬
locks.
No answer (hit this hard).

15 The material printed in caps and small caps was prepared before the de¬
bate; that in italics designates the opponents’ remarks; and the regular cap
and lower case material indicates the debater’s own notes.

185
186 PREPARING FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE

to reason and acquiring a fundamental knowledge of the question.

Careful preparation of specific points should be worked out prior
to the debate, but the final organization of rebuttal arguments must
be made during the debate. The rebuttal arguments should be as
carefully organized as the constructive speeches.

Oral Assignment

1. Divide the class into panel groups in the same manner explained in
the exercises for Chapter 10.
2. Discuss “The Negative Case” on the proposition selected for class de¬
bates.
3. Hand in a summary of the discussion.

Collateral Readings

Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate, Ch. 16.

New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1963.
Ewbank, Henry Lee, and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate, Ch. 27.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951.
Freeley, Austin J., Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 16. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1961.
Kruger, Arthur N., Modern Debate, Ch. 17. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1960.
McBath, James H., ed.. Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 11. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8c Winston, Inc., 1963.
Murphy, James J., and Jon M. Ericson, The Debaters’ Guide, Ch. 5. In¬
dianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1961.
Presenting
the Debate
olcd'iQ oill
 Presenting
the Debate Case

Part III took you step by step through the process of preparing
to debate—analyzing the proposition to discover the main issues,
selecting the best evidence to support the arguments, reasoning from
evidence to logical conclusions, arranging the arguments, and using
refutation to uphold your case and weaken your opponents’ case.
Your task still remains unfinished. You must now consider how to
present the case orally. Although a great deal of argumentation in
our society is presented in written form, almost all educational de¬
bates take the form of oral argument. A textbook in argumentation
cannot treat all the fundamentals of oral communication; we can,
however, examine the principles applicable to oral argument.^

Principles of Oral Argument

W’hat constitutes effective oral argument? Consider how the fol¬

lowing principles of oral communication apply to argumentation
and debate.

Direct, conversational, and communicative

presentation

Effective presentation enables you to accomplish your purpose—to

persuade an audience to accept your contentions. Look upon presen¬
tation skills as a means of communicating ideas, information, rea¬
soning, and emotions to your audience—not as a means of exhibiting

1 For a full development of the fundamentals of delivery, see the textbooks listed
at the end of this chapter. Parts of this chapter are based on Glenn R. Capp,
How To Communicate Orally (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1961), pp. 177-283.

189
190 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

your voice, bodily action, or language. If your speaking calls atten¬

tion to your presentation skills, you will fail to communicate your
ideas or persuade your audience. If your audience remains unaware
of how you speak but comprehends your ideas and accepts your argu¬
ments, you are making effective use of delivery skills.
Communicative speaking presents a special problem for the de¬
bater since his emphasis on analysis, evidence, and reasoning often
causes him to neglect presentation skills. Mastering the principles
of argumentation in a course in argumentation and debate leaves
little time for a study of the fundamentals of speech. Furthermore,
the procedures for intercollegiate dejjate present limiting factors.
Because of the time element, debaters often race through their
speeches attempting to include all the major arguments with ade¬
quate supporting evidence. The emphasis on tournament debating
during the past forty years has added to the problem. The audiences
for tournament debates usually consist of a well-informed judge, a
timekeeper, and an occasional additional auditor. This artificial
audience situation causes the debater to adapt to a highly special¬
ized listener and to omit much of the explanation and support
essential for effective presentation to a public audience. He often
acquires a bombastic, rapid-fire manner of speaking seemingly de¬
signed to overwhelm his opponents and judges.
Actually, the debater is more effective when he utilizes conversa¬
tional and communicative speech designed to persuade listeners
rather than to force arguments upon them. Realization of the ad¬
vantages of direct and conversational speech will help you acquire
a communicative delivery. The following factors should enable you
to avoid the undesirable features of presentation often associated
with debaters.
Dividing Your Case Properly. Debaters sometimes di¬
vide their cases unevenly and thus leave insufficient time to develop
them in a communicative manner. As discussed in Chapter 3, an
effective affirmative case must prove that (1) a problem exists in
sufficient severity to demand action, (2) the affirmative’s proposal
will remedy the problem, and (3) the affirmative’s plan will result
in an advantageous condition—its attendant evils will not outweigh
its advantages. The negative side must negate one or more of the
issues; the usual practice is to counter each issue.
The affirmative speakers must first decide upon a division of their
case. The logical adequacy of the case should receive first attention.
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 191

but the breadth of the case must also be considered to permit time
for developing it in a communicative manner. The first affirmative
speaker should present a significant part of the case so as to leave
his colleague enough time for refutation before completing the con¬
structive arguments. However, the first speaker should not rush his
analysis of the proposition, for the analysis serves as the basis for
the case.
The issue of need is usually of utmost importance to the affirma¬
tive case; on most questions the analysis and the need issue will
require the full time of the first speaker. Some affirmative teams do
not spend sufficient time in developing the need issue and as a result
speak much too rapidly and forcibly. Some affirmative teams at¬
tempt to present their entire case in the opening speech—such pro¬
cedure does not allow them sufficient time to support the specific
evils with adequate logical proof. In such cases, the constructive
phase of the debate stops after the first affirmative speech, and the
remainder of the debate consists largely of a rehashing of arguments.
Excessive repetition prevents the debater from developing his
constructive arguments fully and in a communicative manner.
No standard answer can be given to the question of what consti¬
tutes sufficient proof, but too much is better than too little. The
degrees of proof required will vary with different propositions, but
ordinarily the first affirmative speaker cannot develop more than
the issue of need adequately if he gives the proper analysis and
introduction to the debate.^
In short, the first affirmative speaker introduces the question,
gives the necessary analysis for its understanding, and develops the
issue of need. The second speaker re-establishes the need and shows
that the affirmative proposal will correct existing evils and result in
an advantageous condition. The first negative speaker negates the
need, and the second negative speaker shows that the affirmative’s
proposal is impractical and will result in disadvantages that will out¬
weigh the advantages. To perform these necessary duties, the de¬
baters must divide their cases so as to restrict the scope of the debate.
Each speaker should assume part of the responsibility for both con¬
structive and rebuttal work. A case properly restricted and divided

2 For a more detailed discussion, see Glenn R. Capp, "Debating the Affirmative,”
The Forensic (January, 1955), pp. 44-47; and Glenn R. Capp, Robert Huber,
and Wayne C. Eubank, "Duties of Affirmative Speakers-A Symposium,” The
Speech Teacher, VIII, No. 2 (March, 1959), 139-49.
192 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

will permit time for direct, conversational, and communicative de¬

livery.
Selecting Only the Best Arguments and Evidence. The
number of the arguments and the amount of evidence on many na¬
tional debate topics may seem almost inexhaustible, but because of
the time limits of educational debates, the debater must be selective.
It is better to develop a few of the best arguments fully and with a
communicative delivery than to race through a multiplicity of points
without adequately developing them.
For example, the first affirmative’s duty consists of showing that
certain evils prove the need for a change. This speaker should con¬
centrate on the strongest evils, those that can be corrected by his
proposal and that he can develop adequately in the allotted time.
A long list of evils, without proper arrangement and development,
may represent such a scattered attack that the audience and judges
fail to see any fundamental weakness in an existing order—fail to
see the forest for the trees. In one debate, on the subject of discon¬
tinuing direct economic aid, the first affirmative speaker advanced
the following evils in the order listed:

1. Direct aid creates ill will among neutral nations.

2. Direct aid sometimes results in a give-away race between the United
States and Russia.
3. Direct aid is expensive to the American taxpayer.
4. Direct aid tends to create a false economy in the United States.
5. Direct aid is detrimental to the incentive of undeveloped countries.
6. Direct aid is harmful to internationalism.
7. The direct aid program has failed to contain communism.

The judge criticized the debater’s development of the need issue on

three counts: (1) He had too many isolated evils and as a result did
not have time to develop the philosophy and background of each
evil. It is not enough to list and briefly explain the indictments of
the status quo—each indictment must be developed in sufficient
detail to demand an answer by the negative. (2) The indictments
were not well arranged. The speaker skipped back and forth from
one idea to another to the extent that it was difficult to isolate any
concentrated attack on the aid program. The multiplicity of points
with their jumbled arrangement and hasty presentation made it
difficult for the critic to retain them. (3) The arrangement of points
did not indicate a difference between main points and subpoints.
Some separate evils were parts of a larger indictment contained in
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 193

the list. The critic suggested the rearrangement of points into three
principal indictments, as follows:

I. The present program has failed to contain communism, for

A. It has created ill will of neutral nations for the free-world concept.
B. It has resulted in retaliatory grants by Russia, thus precipitating
a give-away race.
II. The present program has had detrimental economic effects, for
A. It has been a burden to the American taxpayer.
B. It has created a false economy in the United States.
C. It has kept undeveloped countries from developing by lessening
their incentive.
III. The program is harmful to internationalism.

In short, the tendency to include too many points and too much
evidence in a disorganized arrangement causes the debater to rush
his presentation, to speak too forcibly, and to decrease his effective¬
ness. The grouping of the indictments under main headings saves
time because the philosophy of many evils stems from the same
cause. One background explanation thus suffices for each particular
category. The debater should limit the scope of his arguments and
group them under main headings to allow for a concentrated attack.

Proper attitudes

Debaters are sometimes said to be arrogant, bombastic, conceited,

and unsportsmanlike. Not all debaters deserve these epithets, but
some do. Some debaters acquire the idea that opponents are enemies
that must be defeated at any cost, that judges are necessary evils
standing in their way to becoming champions, and that the audience
should not be seriously considered. Establishing proper mental atti¬
tudes is essential to effective delivery, for attitudes are reflected in
the total impression that a debater makes on his audience. Debaters
should acquire the proper mental attitudes toward their subjects,
their opponents, their audiences, and their judges.
Toward Subject. Some critics of educational debating
question the ethics of debating both sides of a proposition. They
claim that this practice encourages sophistry, fosters intellectual dis¬
honesty, and causes students to disregard their convictions. Although
such students may go thiough the process of developing logical argu¬
ments, their lack of conviction will be shown by subliminal signs of
which both the audience and the debater may not be aware. Is there
a justifiable rationale for debating both sides of a proposition?
194 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

We must start with the premise that certain factual arguments

exist on all sides of a question and on both sides of a resolution.
There is no such thing as “the truth” relative to questions that pro¬
pose a change in an existing social, political, or economic policy.
Truthful arguments and valid evidence exist on either side, and
equally intelligent men may evaluate these arguments and facts and
come to different conclusions. Otherwise, how can we account for
political parties with varying beliefs, religious organizations with
differing doctrinal principles, and nations with conflicting ide¬
ologies?
The same principle involved in debating both sides of a debate
proposition applies to the lawyer deciding whether or not he should
accept a case. He may be asked, “Can you ethically defend a person
whom you know to be guilty?” The obvious reply is, “How can you
know that he is guilty prior to the trial? If guilty, of what is he
guilty?” A person may take the life of another and receive a verdict
that ranges all the way from “not guilty” to “death.” The purpose
of the trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Unless both sides are represented by able advocates, injustice may
result. The lawyer’s obligation can be satisfied only by presenting
the strongest case possible for his client consisting of sound argu¬
ments and factual evidence.
In much the same way, the debater marshals the best arguments
and most valid evidence for his side of the proposition. In doing so,
he does not infer, “This is the side in which I believe”; rather he
says, “Here is the most valid case that I have been able to devise for
this side of the proposition.”
An important question of public policy deserves careful study
from all points of view. There must be two sides, and they may have
an almost equal balance of arguments and evidence. In champion¬
ing either side, simply recognize the existence of fundamental pro
and con arguments. Do not attempt to “prove beyond the shadow
of a doubt” the affirmative or the negative side; present the best
arguments for either side. When you come to the platform with this
attitude, you will usually deliver a sincere, intelligent, persuasive
case because you will not feel that you are being intellectually dis¬
honest in debating both sides of the proposition.
Toward Opponent. If you look upon your opponents
as enemies or as untruthful simply because they oppose you, your
presentation will lack conviction. Instead of allowing the personal
element to enter, consider opponents simply as those expressing a
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 196

different point of view; but for the element of chance, the sides
might have been reversed. Your task is to develop your side as ob¬
jectively as possible, and your opponents’ duty is the same. Deal
with facts, arguments, and fallacies, not in personalities. It is the
argument, not the opponent, that must be destroyed.
Debaters sometimes show discourtesy toward their opponents,
either intentionally or unintentionally. This discourtesy takes such
forms as loud whispering between colleagues while the opposition
speaks, reacting with surprise or dismay at what the opponents say,
exhibiting smugness or arrogance while sitting at the table or walk¬
ing to the platform, or engaging in sarcasm or ridicule while speak¬
ing. Such reactions reflect on the character of the debater; they indi¬
cate a lack of fair play and good manners. As such, they count heavily
against the speaker in the total impression that he makes upon an
audience.
Toward Audience. Debating consists of more than a
weighing of arguments and evidence. It includes persuasion, in¬
ducing an audience to accept your contentions. Delivery is a two-
way process between the speaker and the audience; unless the de¬
bater considers the audience as an integral part of the total speaking
situation, communication will prove ineffective.
Do not look upon your audience as incapable of understanding
the finer points of a well-developed argument. Such an attitude de¬
feats itself because it antagonizes your listeners. Ignoring the audi¬
ence and talking only to the judges, in terms that the average lis¬
tener, unfamiliar with debate tactics and language, does not
understand, is poor psychology; the presence of the audience is
assurance in itself of interest in the question. Therefore, consider
the right of the hearers to the courtesy of being addressed. The
good speaker establishes mental contact with his hearers and makes
them understand his case.
Toward Judges. The judges selected for college debates
are sometimes criticized on the basis that being untrained in educa¬
tional debate, they cannot properly evaluate the students’ perform¬
ance. The argument states that the debater may be trained by an
expert and then evaluated by a nonexpert; he may be graded down
for doing what he has been trained to do. The answer to this criti¬
cism lies in the fact that debaters should learn to adapt their presen¬
tation to varying types of listeners, the types they will encounter in
life situations of advocacy.
The average debate judge is in many ways superior in ability to
196 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

members of the jury in a court trial, the electorate in a political

campaign, or the participants in a policy-determining body. Educa¬
tional debate is in part an exercise in persuasive speaking. If your
judges are well-trained forensic directors, you can assume that they
probably know as much about the topic as you do. Thus, they will
not require the detailed background explanations and careful docu¬
mentation that would be expected by the nonexpert.
The forensic director is well acquainted with the strategical de¬
vices sometimes employed by debaters. For example, “I presume that
the affirmative is waiting until the last rebuttal to answer this im¬
portant argument” is a commonly he'ard stratagem. The inference
desired by the debater is that his opponents have taken unfair ad¬
vantage by such delay. The nonexpert judge might give the debater
an advantage if he made such a claim, but the forensic director
would realize that the affirmative cannot cover all refutation in the
first rebuttal speech and furthermore that the affirmative has the
right to use the last rebuttal speech to full advantage—since the
affirmative side must initiate the argument, debate procedure gives
it the advantage of closing the debate. Thus, a strategic device
that might serve to advantage with one judge might act as a disad¬
vantage with another.
Many forensic directors resent comments by debaters on debate
procedure; others might welcome such instructions. The ideal de¬
bate judge disregards his personal feelings about the proposition
and any extraneous matters that might interfere with his evaluation
of the debate. The debater must realize, however, that not all judges
are ideal. His approach to a judge favorably disposed toward the
proposition should differ from his approach to one opposed to the
proposition. The lay judge offers a more realistic listener, in many
ways, than the expert judge. The debater should analyze his judges
and adapt to their training and experience, because such adaptation
prepares him for life situations of advocacy.

An able advocate

It has become almost a truism in oral communication that a

speaker is no better than his intrinsic worth as a person. Writers
since the Classical period have stressed the character or ethos of
the speaker as a part of the total speaking situation. The ‘‘able-man
theory,” as this theory is called, encompasses the principle that you
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 197

develop yourself as a whole. When you speak, you reveal yourself,

the type of person you are, your qualifications to speak on the sub¬
ject, your experience and training, your soundness of judgment, and
your skills in presentation. Aristotle stressed that an able speaker
is a man of intelligence, character, and good will.
Intelligence. The able-man principle applies to the
debater just as to any other speaker. As the debater speaks, listeners
form impressions of whether or not his intelligence, general back¬
ground knowledge, and preparation qualify him to appraise the
subject properly. They accept the debater’s contentions in part be¬
cause they consider that he knows and properly interprets the facts
and opinions he presents. Abundant evidence, sound reasoning, and
mature judgments affect, not only the logical adequacy of the de¬
bater’s case, but also his ethical adequacy as a person.
The documentation of your arguments indicates the care that you
have exercised in preparing the subject. A variety of sources gives
evidence of research; citing substantial sources indicates that you
have done your research from primary source materials and not
secondary sources or debate handbooks. Giving facts about the quali¬
fications of a supposed authority shows that you are not quoting
persons affected by bias or prejudice. When you refrain from making
sweeping conclusions and extravagant claims, you reveal maturity
of judgment and the ability to reason logically.
Matters that affect the ethics and judgment of the debater count
more heavily than many debaters think. Exposure of questionable
strategic devices affects not only the argument itself but also the
debater’s intellectual honesty and worth as an individual. For ex¬
ample, some debaters make overzealous claims of what they have
done and what their opponents have failed to do. In one debate, an
affirmative speaker began his rebuttal speech by summarizing an
important issue and stating that the negative had remained signifi¬
cantly silent on the point. This claim would probably have made a
more favorable impression on the judge had not the preceding nega¬
tive speaker spent half of his rebuttal speech on the point. The
judge was curious to know whether the affirmative speaker simply-
had not listened to the preceding speaker or whether he thought the
judge had not.
Psychologically, most people respond more favorably to under¬
statement than to overstatement. Yet many debaters make sweeping
claims for themselves and distortingly minimize what their oppo-
198 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

nents have done. What actually transpires in the debate usually

makes more of an impression on the judge than the sweeping claims
of opposing speakers. More important, extravagant claims reflect on
the competency and judgment of the debater; such practices indi¬
rectly affect the listeners’ impressions of the debater’s intelligence.
Character. Your audience and judges will accept your
arguments in part because of the impressions that you make on
them as a person. Indications of your character may be revealed in
many ways. The enthusiasm with which you approach your debates
indicates your real interest in developing yourself rather than sim¬
ply winning victories. The friendlirxdss that you show to your op¬
ponents and to the audience indicates your disposition toward debate
as an educational activity. Your sincerity indicates that you would
not purposely mislead your audience, that you desire to present the
best possible case and support your arguments with the most valid
material. A degree of self-confidence indicates that you are in a
good emotional state and are prepared to evaluate properly what
you talk about. Through these and many subliminal signs the audi¬
ence and judges form impressions of your character, trustworthiness,
and worth as a person.
Occasionally debaters present conflicting testimony or other con¬
flicting factual data during the course of a debate. Seemingly, both
sets of data came from reliable sources, yet the judge knows that
both sides cannot be correct—someone has misinterpreted the evi¬
dence. Which side should the judge believe? Perhaps without realiz¬
ing that he does so, he believes the debater who has made the great¬
est impact on him as a person. The character of the speaker as
revealed by his enthusiasm, friendliness, sincerity, assurance, and
knowledge has made the difference.
Good Will. As explained in the discussion of attitudes,
fairness and accuracy in presenting arguments indicate a person
with an attitude of good will toward his audience and toward debate
as an educational activity. Questionable strategic devices, over-
zealous attempts to expose an opponent, and attempts to deceive an
audience indicate too much emphasis on winning and too little em¬
phasis on giving an accurate evaluation of the case.
Statements that “the negative has remained silent on this point’’
when it has not, that “the affirmative is withholding this argument
until its last rebuttal” when it used its first affirmative rebuttal
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 199

speech wisely, that “the affirmative has given a trick interpretation

of the question” when it defined the terms fairly, that “the negative
has asked questions to get us off our case” when the questions were
pertinent, exemplify the type of questionable tactics that indicate
a lack of good will toward the audience.
By keeping the debate centered on the arguments, avoiding per¬
sonality clashes, and striving earnestly to give an accurate repre¬
sentation of your side of the proposition, you create good will among
your listeners and add to your ethical appeal.

Rhetorical skills

The rhetorical principles of oral presentation taught in speech

courses will help the debater convince his listeners. Although a
textbook in argumentation cannot include a full discussion of these
principles, a brief review of them should prove helpful. Communica¬
tive speech requires the use of language, voice, bodily action, and
poise in coordination with the mind.
Language. The debater’s choice and arrangement of
words help determine his effectiveness in oral argument. Use lan¬
guage to help you communicate effectively, not to impress your lis¬
teners with your large vocabulary. Oral language differs from written
in that it is more repetitious, informal, and direct. The writer uses
titles, subtitles, paragraphs, summaries, and transitions. The reader
can re-read difficult passages or materials not fully understood, but
the listener must comprehend instantly. The debater should observe
audience reactions as he speaks to determine whether or not he is
being understood and whether or not the audience accepts his argu¬
ments. His observations may indicate that his explanations need fur¬
ther elaboration or his arguments additional support.
Oral language should be adapted to the audience and the occa¬
sion. For example, argumentation lends itself to more forceful
language than does exposition. Language used in debates before
audiences or over television should be more formal and show more
restraint than language used in tournament debates.
The aggressive tempo of college debates often causes debaters to
think faster than they can speak. They therefore tend to vocalize
their pauses with “uhs” and “ahs” or with such rest phrases as
“ladies and gentlemen,” “first of all,” “so we see,” and “now then.”
200 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

Such phrases may be repeated constantly without the debater being

aware of it. If he would pause instead of using such mechanical
phrases, his presentation would be more effective.
Rapid speech often results in poor articulation. For example, the
following errors were noted in one debate: cidy for city, hist’ry for
history, jist for just, inny for any, acshully for actually, ginnlemum
for gentlemen, gineral for general, Amurican for American, ev’ry
for every. The accent was also misplaced in several words; for ex¬
ample, de'-tail for de-tail', re'-search for re-search', and in'-sur-ance
for in-sur'-ance. Many debaters have words in their reading and
writing vocabularies that have never been added to their speaking
vocabularies, and as a result, they attempt to pronounce these words
as they are spelled. More often, errors' in pronunciation are caused
by carelessness.
We can improve our use of language by reading good literature,
by associating with cultured people, and by speaking and writing.
Debating offers an excellent activity for improving oral style. Con¬
versely, care in the use of language improves the effectiveness of the
debater.
Voice. A good voice helps the debater communicate
his arguments to an audience; it is never an end in itself. If the
debater uses his voice simply to impress his audience, he detracts
from effective communication.
What goals should the debater seek for the proper use of his
voice? First, he should attempt to be intelligible—to be understood
clearly in the room or auditorium. A flexible voice aids intelligibil¬
ity. It varies in keeping with the content of the speech. If the de¬
bater speaks in a monotone, in a sing-song pattern, or with a con¬
stant rate and volume, he impedes effective communication. He
should strive for a conversational manner and vary the rate, volume,
pitch, and inflection to bring out shades of meaning.
The debater should also aftei ipt to cultivate a voice pleasing in
quality and free of affectations. A voice that is raspy, harsh, guttural,
breathy, thin, or monotonous is unpleasant. Desirable qualities in¬
clude animation, flexibility, modulation, and controlled rate, force,
pitch, and melody. Above all, a debater should not use overly pre¬
cise diction, artificially rounded tones, or any affectations that call
attention to the voice. A warm and pleasant voice results largely
from proper attitudes—a person with a healthy attitude toward de¬
bate, his subject, and his audience will usually reflect those attributes
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 201

in his voice. Voice quality can also be improved by proper training,

such as that available in courses in voice and diction.
Bodily Action. A debater uses both visual and auditory
means to get his arguments accepted. If your words and actions are
congruous, your audience will likely accept what you say; if they are
incongruous, your audience will usually accept what your actions
reflect. An uninhibited person usually uses bodily action, gestures,
and facial expressions to reinforce what he says. Meaningful bodily
action will help you convey meaning, hold attention, and generate
energy and self-confidence.
Bodily action includes movements of the whole body and gestures,
or movements of parts of the body. These types work in coordina¬
tion with facial expressions and posture for total body expression.
Purposeful movements on the platform will assist you in effective
delivery; random movements detract from what you say by calling
attention to themselves. Avoid aimless pacing back and forth or
from one side of the lectern to the other while speaking. A move¬
ment forward to emphasize a point, backward to indicate the con¬
clusion of an idea, or laterally to denote a transition from one point
to another reinforces meaning. Move when you feel the inner urge
to reinforce your ideas with bodily action; avoid planned move¬
ments because they will appear artificial.
Gestures consist of movements of the arms, hands, head, and
shoulders to emphasize oral expression. When used in coordination
with the whole body, they help to communicate ideas. If improperly
used, they detract from effective presentation. Some improper uses
of gestures by debaters consist of the following: (1) They may ap¬
pear planned or unnatural. Gestures must come from an inner
desire to share ideas with others; they must not be forced or planned
in advance. (2) They may be poorly timed. Poor timing usually
results from planned gestures or when the debater fails to think
the thought as he speaks. Focus attention on the thought, not on
the gesture itself. (3) They may appear indefinite, only slight move¬
ments, when the debater desires to gesture but is inhibited from
doing so. Gestures will usually be vigorous and fully made when
the debater loses [Link] in the idea he seeks to convey and forgets
to think about whether or not he should gesture. (4) They may fail
to show variety. Avoid using a single gesture excessively. Some ges¬
tures are used to emphasize ideas, others to describe the size and
shape or distance and movement of objects by imitation. Attempt
202 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

to use a variety of gestures to reinforce different meanings. Coordi¬

nate gestures with other bodily movements to indicate total body
expression.
Poise. Reasonable self-assurance and poise also aid
the debater in oral presentation. Beginning debaters sometimes feel
tense in appearing before an audience or in participating in a
tournament largely because they fear that which they do not fully
understand. With increased knowledge about debate procedure and
with practice in debating, these feelings become less noticeable.
Experienced debaters may also feel ai^xiety, especially when encoun¬
tering a new audience situation or 6rigaging in an unfamiliar type
of debate. Such feelings are entirely normal and may actually be
beneficial since controlled anxiety increases a debater’s desire to
do well, prods him to prepare adequately, causes him to be alert and
energetic while speaking, speeds up his thinking processes, and
causes him to be sensitive to audience reactions.
The simple realization that some nervous feelings are a natural
reaction of conscientious debaters paves the way for bringing appre¬
hensions under control. The following factors will also help; (1)
Realize that excessive anxiety can be controlled. Attempt first to
control the outward signs of tenseness; then, as you become more
familiar with debate procedures and gain experience at tourna¬
ments and before audiences, your feelings of anxiety will become
less severe without your being entirely aware of the change. (2)
Prepare thoroughly for your debates. No other factor gives most
debaters a greater feeling of assurance than the fact that they know
their subject thoroughly and have a well-planned case. The proce¬
dures discussed in Part III, if followed conscientiously, will result
in proper preparation. (3) Keep rested and physically fit. Many
debaters put off preparation until the night before a tournament
and then stay up most of the night to prepare their cases. This loss
of sleep together with the tiring travel to the tournament and the
activities of the meeting cause the debater to become exhausted
before the tournament begins. Such physical exhaustion is often
reflected in nervous tension that mars effectiveness of presentation.
The plan of cooperative group preparation outlined in Chapter 2
will make such last-minute activities unnecessary. (4) Think in
terms of success. If you have chronic feelings of anxiety, try giving
yourself a mental pep talk. Do not dwell on the seriousness of the
occasion and magnify it out of proportion. Think in terms of your
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 203

successful experiences in debate, not about those occasions when

you felt that you did not do well—you earned the right to represent
your school or you would not have been chosen. Adopt an attitude
of success and attempt to do your best.

Stage Conduct and Delivery Mannerisms

Some problems of delivery have special application to debaters.

They may be grouped under the headings of stage conduct and
delivery mannerisms.

Stage conduct

The way a debater conducts himself before and during the debate
makes an impression on his listeners and thus affects his over all
effectiveness. Some of the more noticeable factors of stage conduct
will be considered.
Actions on the Platform. Your reactions during the de¬
bate affect the total impression you make on the judge and audience.
Do not sit on the platform as if you were either ill at ease or bored.
The person who sits rigid with both feet planted firmly together on
the floor makes as poor an impression as the one who slumps in his
chair. Assume a natural position and avoid drumming on the table,
clasping and unclasping your hands, or any other distracting activ¬
ity. Do nothing while sitting on the platform that will call attention
to your actions.
You also impress an audience by the way you walk to the lectern
when it becomes your time to speak. By slouching up to the speak¬
er’s stand, you give the impression of a poor attitude toward debate
and disregard for your listeners. Conversely, if you hurry from your
chair and charge to the stand, the audience may consider you
overly anxious or excessively competitive. If you lower your head,
avoid eye contact with the audience, and walk hesitantly, your
audience will probably think that you lack assurance. Walk to
the platform with a firm step, an erect body, a pleasant expression,
and a direct and confident look at the audience.
The manner in which you walk away from the stand is also im¬
portant. Using the last fraction of time allowed, grabbing notes,
and rushing from the stand shows little concern for your listeners.
A faltering finish is likely to affect whatever good impression you
204 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

have made. To clinch your remarks, complete what you have to

say, pause momentarily, and return to your chair with the same
poise that characterized your taking the floor. Never seem to
apologize for what has been said by your manner of leaving the
platform.
Using Notes and Materials. The improper use of
notes and other materials that the debater takes to the platform
mars effectiveness of presentation. Particularly objectionable is the
practice of making notes on large artist pads that require both
hands to hold; such notes decrease the proper use of bodily action
and cause the debater to focus attention on his notes to the exclu¬
sion of his listeners. Armloads of books and pamphlets taken to
the platform have a similar effect, besides requiring too much time
to arrange and thus prolonging the debate. Actually the debater
would make a better impression if he gave the gist of the quotation
or the statement of facts in his own words; this would leave him
more time for reasoned development of his arguments.
Cards or sheets are improperly employed when a debater plays
with his notes, folds and unfolds them, or puts them in and takes
them out of his pockets. Some debaters read from the card, look at
the card, speak to the card, and do everything but let the card
serve its real purpose.
Perhaps the greatest objection to the use of notes is the too
frequent reference to them; an occasional glance should suffice.
You cannot project yourself to an audience if your eyes are focused
on your notes. Talk with the audience, not merely about a subject.
Looking at notes too often leaves the impression that you are
interested only in your material and care little about communicat¬
ing with people.
Notes, properly used, should be an aid rather than a hindrance.
They relieve the necessity of committing to memory quotations,
tables of statistics, and the exact sequence of supporting material.
Through skillful handling of notes, quotations and statistical tables
may be used without breaking eye contact with the audience. To
do this, the debater must “think through’’ his arguments as he
communicates with his listeners. If the attention of the audience
is focused on the argument, brief references to notes can be made
without diverting attention.
Occasional glances may be made at notes without taking them
from the stand if a speaker’s desk is provided. If the notes are
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 205

to be held, type them on stiff cards. Waving large sheets o£ paper

distracts the audience and decreases communication.
Explaining Charts, Diagrams, and Drawings. Charts,
diagrams, and blackboard drawings are valuable aids if properly
made and displayed. Consider the following suggestions:

1. Stand to one side of the blackboard or diagram so that the

audience’s view is not obstructed and contact with the listeners is
not lost.
2. If you illustrate by drawing, explain the drawings as you
make them. Such explanation saves time and keeps up interest. If
the drawings are complicated, draw them on large sheets of card¬
board and display them when you present the explanation.
3. Make drawings and letterings large enough to be seen by all
members of the audience. A visual aid that cannot be seen confuses
rather than clarifies.
4. Use a pointer to indicate special features of the drawing or
chart. A general reference confuses the listener.
5. Do not display charts or drawings before time for using them.
They will distract attention from what you say.
6. Remove the chart or erase the drawing when you finish with
it. Otherwise your listeners may continue to study your visual aid
after you have finished with it.
7. Check the auditorium before the debate begins and remove
visual aids that may distract from your speaking.

Delivery mannerisms

Peculiarities of delivery vary, but all have one characteristic in

common—they call attention to the speaker and divert attention
from what he says. Often the debater may be unaware of his man¬
nerisms until they become habitual. The following mannerisms,
cited by critic judges, are among the most common for debaters.^
Taking Pencil or Pen to Platform. Debaters some¬
times take pencils or pens to the platform, hold them, wave them
about, put them behind their ears, or use them as pointers. The
audience may follow the movements of the pencil instead of giving

3 The ballots observed were from judges in the Baylor University forensic tourna¬
ments.
206 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

their attention to the arguments. Before going to the speaker’s

stand, put your pencil in your pocket or leave it at your desk.
Misusing Hands. Continuously putting your hands
into and taking them out of your pockets, clenching and unclench¬
ing them behind the back, rubbing them together, clasping and
unclasping them, or placing them on the desk or on the hips distracts
from your delivery. The use of the hands in the ways mentioned
cannot be objectionable if done occasionally; frequent repetition
calls attention to the movement and away from subject matter.
One critic wrote on his ballot that a debater put his right hand
into his pants pocket and withdrew''it thirty-five times in a single
rebuttal speech. The critic’s count indicates that he found this
peculiarity of the delivery distracting. To avoid this mannerism,
begin your speech by resting your hands on the lectern. As you
continue, use them to gesture or to hold your notes. As you become
engrossed in your speech, you will tend to forget about your hands
and use them naturally to help express your ideas.
Improperly Using Speaker’s Stand. Some debaters rest
a leg on the base of the stand, lean heavily on the stand, cling to
it, pull it toward them, or push it away. There is no objection to
resting one or both hands on the stand occasionally, but do not
lean upon it excessively or otherwise use it as a crutch. The speaker’s
stand may be used to advantage by (1) placing notes on it together
with any other materials that may be needed, (2) standing directly
behind it or slightly to one side, (3) varying the position occasionally,
and (4) refraining from pacing from one side of the stand to the
other.
Adjusting Eyeglasses or Clothing. This mannerism
may consist of taking your glasses off and putting them on, placing
them on the table and withdrawing them, or cleaning, adjusting,
and using them as pointers. An occasional touch of the hand to
your glasses may not be objectionable, but excessive adjustments
decrease effectiveness of delivery. To adjust ties, hoist trousers,
button and unbutton coats, or make other similar movements fre¬
quently while speaking diverts attention of listeners from the argu¬
ments. These are nervous mannerisms that tend to disappear as
the speaker concentrates on subject matter, but they become an¬
noying to listeners if used too often.
Indirect Eye Contact. Instead of looking out of win¬
dows, at the ceiling or floor, or at some object in the room, look
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 207

directly at your listeners. Not to look at the audience invites loss

of interest. Some debaters seem to look beyond the audience. This
practice prevents direct eye contact and leaves the debater without
the advantage of facial expression. Looking directly at the audience
and occasionally shifting the glance from one section of the audi¬
torium to another increases audience communication.
Moving Head. Constantly shifting the head up and
down or from side to side is disturbing. Head gestures may serve a
useful purpose; excessive head movements do more harm than good.
Swaying Body. Equally distracting is the swaying
movement or actions where the speaker bends his knees and con¬
stantly rises up and down on the balls of his feet. A speaker naturally
leans forward for emphasis and slightly backward during transi¬
tions of ideas. Such movements aid in delivery; mechanical swaying
movements mar speaking effectiveness.
Resting Weight on One Leg. If the weight of the body
rests entirely on one leg while the other hangs limp, the debater
presents a slouchy appearance. A natural and graceful position
lets one foot rest slightly forward with the greater weight of the
body on the ball of the forward foot. Changes of position naturally
occur and help the debater avoid an ungainly stance.
Playing with Watch Chains and Coins. Displaying
medals on watch chains and fumbling with them frequently seem
to call attention to past accomplishments. This mannerism and
the jingling of coins in pockets mar effective delivery.
Addressing Remarks Too Often to the Opposing Speak¬
ers. You naturally turn to opponents and speak directly to them
from time to time, but too much direct attention to the opposition
tends to inject a personal element into debate and also suggests
neglect of the audience. Unless issuing a challenge or asking a
question of your opponents, address your arguments to your listen¬
ers. Your duty is to convince your judges and listeners, not your
opponents.
Speaking Too Fast. Rapid speaking that allows little
time for pause seems to be characteristic of many debaters. Tran¬
scriptions show that the rate of speaking in debate sometimes ex¬
ceeds 250 words per minute. An effective rate for most speakers is
between 120 and 150 words. The rate of speaking should vary with
content, type of occasion, and temperament of speaker. For ex¬
ample, the rate used to describe a horse race or a dash for the goal
208 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

line would be more rapid than that used to describe poverty in a

slum district. Vary the rate, but do not race through point after
point. A few points well developed and explained are more effec¬
tive than many points inadequately and hurriedly given.
Using Too Much or Too Little Volume. A bombastic
tone or explosive force throughout a speech proves irritating to lis¬
teners. The audience may not be able to hear what is said because of
the noise. Conversely, a speech delivered in tones that cannot be
heard throughout the speaking hall proves equally ineffective. A
judge who has to strain to hear what you say will soon give up and
think about something else; the listeners will think that you are not
convinced of the importance of your material nor concerned with
your desire to communicate with them. Variety in force aids direct¬
ness of communication.
Presenting an Ungainly Posture. Posture means the
stance of the speaker, his bearing on the platform. To stand rigid,
with both feet immovably fixed, is as undesirable as to slouch from
apparent lack of energy. A good posture allows one to keep his
head erect, his chin in, his chest out, and his shoulders relaxed. Do
not maintain one posture throughout a speech; change occasionally
to emphasize meaning and relieve tension.
Using Too Many or Too Feiv Movements. Aimless and
frequent movements prove as objectionable as lack of movement.
Some debaters fan the air, pound the table, or pace the floor con¬
stantly while speaking, and such movements make a poor impres¬
sion and direct attention to the mannerism. Little or no bodily
action makes one appear sluggish and fails to arouse interest. Con¬
trolled movements are effective; meaningless movements detract.
Moving the body forward, backward, or to the side indicates thought
transition and aids clarity. Use the arms, head, and shoulders for
specific gestures to bring out distinctions in meaning and for em¬
phasis. Above all, gestures and movements must be natural and
spontaneous, not mechanical.
Showing Poor Facial Expression. The insincerity of
the fixed smile of professional good will in debaters is easily de¬
tected. Equally objectionable is the arrogant look, the scowl, the
overly anxious look, or the bored appearance. Faulty expressions
are best remedied by a right mental attitude. If you have proper
feeling for listeners and opponents and an interest in the subject,
you will evince these things in your face.
 PRESENTING THE DEBATE CASE 209

Resorting to Name Calling and Loaded Words. Call¬

ing something bad does not make it bad. Do not label a proposal
as communistic or anything else without offering proof. Those who
lack information often appeal to the emotions and prejudices of
audiences by using emotionally loaded words. Such words stir up
hate and fear; they often get a quick reaction, but it is hardly hon¬
est to use them. Such phrases as “fellow travelers,” “egghead,” “do
gooders,” “scheming politicians,” and “money-mad bankers” stir up
emotions rather than intellect. They are not substitutes for logical
reasoning.

Summary

Effective oral presentation is essential to the training for educa¬

tional debate. The following principles apply: (1) Effective presenta¬
tion is direct, conversational, and communicative. Presentation skills
are not ends within themselves, but are the means of communicat¬
ing ideas and persuading listeners. (2) Effective presentation requires
proper attitudes toward your subject, your opponents, your au¬
dience, and your judges. They are all necessary factors for training
in a worthwhile, educational activity. (3) Effective presentation
requires an able advocate—a person of intelligence, character, and
good will. (4) Effective presentation utilizes rhetorical skills—a co¬
ordinated use of mind, language, voice, bodily action, and poise.
Some problems of delivery applicable to debaters include achiev¬
ing proper stage presence and avoiding delivery mannerisms. Stage
conduct relates to your behavior while on the platform, how you
handle your notes and materials, and how you explain charts and
diagrams.
Delivery [Link] applicable specifically to debaters include:
(1) taking pen or pencil to the platform, (2) misusing the hands,
(3) improperly using the speakers’ stand, (4) adjusting eyeglasses or
articles of clothing, (5) indirect eye contact, (6) continually moving
the head, (7) constantly swaying the body, (8) resting weight of the
body on one leg, (9) playing with watch chain and coins, (10) ad¬
dressing remarks too often to the opposing speakers, (11) speaking
too fast, (12) using too much or too little volume, (13) presenting
an ungainly posture, (14) using too many or too few movements,
(15) showing poor facial expressions, and (16) resorting to name
calling and loaded words.
210 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

Oral Assignment

1. A legislative debate should be conducted on the topic selected for class¬

room study.
2. The class should be divided into three groups: pro, con, and neutral.
3. The pro group should introduce the resolution with an opening speech
of eight minutes. Thereafter, the chairman should alternate in recog¬
nizing speakers from each side for speeches limited to five minutes.
4. The neutral group may ask questions but may not participate in the
debate.
5. Toward the end of the class period, the chairman should bring the
resolution to vote. Members of the neutral group should vote with that
side which they consider has done the most effective debating.

Collateral Readings

Capp, Glenn R., How to Communicate Orally, Chs. 10, 11, 12, 13. Engle¬
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 14. New York: American
Institute of Banking, 1962.
Dickens, Milton, Speech: Dynamic Communication, Chs. 9, 10, 11. New
York: Harcourt, Brace fe World, Inc., 1963.
Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate, Chs. 17,
18. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1963.
Murphy, James J., and Jon M. Ericson, The Debaters’ Guide, Chs. 6, 7.
Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1961.
White, Eugene E., Practical Speech Fundamentals, Chs. 4, 5, 6, 7. New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1960.
 13 Adapting Debates to
Public Audiences^
Tournaments^ and Television

In educational debate, each team attempts to convince the au¬

dience that it has upheld its side of the proposition better than
has the opposing team. The debate should be evaluated on the
basis of which team does the most effective debating, not which
side the judge personally favors. Your task is nonetheless more
than building a logical case; you must persuade your listeners to
accept the reasonableness of your arguments. To persuade your
listeners, you must analyze their interests, attitudes, and knowledge
of the subject. Three types of audiences—those for public, tourna¬
ment, and television debates—require varying types of appeal and
methods of procedure.

Public Debates

Public debates provide the most realistic audience situation for

educational debate because they attract the type of listeners most
often encountered in life situations of advocacy. To convince public
audiences, you must keep your specific listeners in mind as you
choose your arguments, supporting material, and elements of inter¬
est. A case that will appeal to one type of audience may not con¬
vince another.

Audience interest

Audiences vary according to the community of their interests.

If members of your audience come from the same profession or
business, they will have common primary interests to which you
may appeal. For example, if you should debate socialized medicine

211
212 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

at a meeting of the local medical association, your choice of argu¬

ments and supporting material would appeal to all members of
the audience in much the same way. If you debated the same topic
before an invited audience at your university, you would likely
encounter listeners of varying interests and beliefs. Your basic ap¬
peals would, therefore, be more general with a heterogeneous au¬
dience than with a specialized one.
If your listeners do not have common primary interests, deter¬
mine if they may have similar secondary interests to which you may
appeal. For example, if you should debate at the local Rotary Club,
you would encounter leaders in th^ community from many profes¬
sions and businesses. Although their primary interests would vary
greatly, they would have common secondary interests regarding
civic affairs and fraternal matters as shown by their membership in
the same club.
Audiences for debates open to the general public may have
neither primary nor secondary interests in common. Local hap¬
penings in the community may be of such importance, however,
that they will appeal to all listeners. If your topic relates to slum
clearance, for example, choose your supporting material from
conditions in the local community, not from those in other cities.
If your topic concerns presidential succession, illustrate your points
by the events of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s succession to the
presidency following the assassination of President John F. Ken¬
nedy. Such momentous events appeal to all listeners.

Audience attitude

Almost all policy questions chosen for educational debates relate

to controversial subjects on which sharp disagreement may exist.
The approach made by each debate team should depend on whether
a particular audience favors or disapproves of its position. For ex¬
ample, let us suppose that the proposition calls for a program of
socialized medicine and the audience consists of the local chapter
of the American Aledical Association. The affirmative team faces an
audience strongly opposed to its position, whereas the negative en¬
joys an audience favorable to its stand. The affirmative must use
psychological principles designed to create an open-minded attitude
that will insure a fair hearing. The affirmative might, for example,
refer to the basic democratic principle that calls for a consideration
of all points of view, compliment the medical profession on its
 ADAPTING DEBATES 213

scientific advances, quote men from the medical profession revered

by the audience, or inject well-chosen humor. Xhe affirmative
should be careful to support each point with adequate evidence
and logical reasoning; it should omit quotations or other evidence
that might antagonize members of the audience, such as statements
prejudicial to the medical association’s cause. In short, the affirma¬
tive faces a psychological problem in persuasion as well as a logical
problem in developing an adequate case.
The negative in this case has public sentiment working in its
favor. It should attempt to strengthen existing beliefs by a logically
arranged case that includes only the strongest arguments against
socialized medicine. It should be courteous to the opposition and
make no obvious play to exploit the favorable attitude of the au¬
dience. The extent of logical proof will be less for the negative
than for the affirmative, however, because of existing beliefs.

Listener background

The more you know in advance about your listeners, the better
you will be able to adapt to their interests and beliefs and choose
effective logical and emotional proofs. Determine their approximate
age level and educational background. If your audience consists
largely of young people, for example, they will usually be more
favorable to new ideas than older people, as well as more open to
suggestion. Listeners with a broad background of training and
knowledge will usually require a higher degree of logical proof
than persons without such backgrounds. The interest in the sub¬
ject and the ability to understand an argument will vary with your
listeners’ prior knowledge of the subject and their training in
reasoning. Chapter 7 discussed how these same factors affect the
sufficiency of your evidence; they affect both your choice of sup¬
porting material and your manner of presentation.
In short, consider educational debate as an activity that calls
for both logical development of arguments and persuasive presenta¬
tion. Adapt your cases to your listeners’ interests, attitudes, and
social and cultural backgrounds.

Tournament Debates

Elements of persuasion and logical argument have always been

integral parts of the processes of argumentation, but the advent of
tournament debating in the 1920’s was largely responsible for the
214 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

change in emphasis in educational debating from persuasive speak¬

ing to logical development of cases. The typical audience in tourna¬
ments consists of a well-trained critic or judge and a timekeeper.
The critic judges largely on the adequacy of the case—the analysis
of the proposition, the organization of the case, the logical adequacy
of the arguments, the validity of supporting evidence, and the
ability at refutation. In short, the critic evaluates the debate ac¬
cording to how well the debater performs these functions, not ac¬
cording to which side is more persuasive.
The tournament has largely replaced the public audience in
educational-debate activities. Many colleges and universities restrict
their forensic programs largely to'tournaments; some report at¬
tending as many as 15 to 20 tournaments each year. The result has
been to extend intercollegiate competition to an increasing num¬
ber of students. Before the advent of the forensic tournament, the
average size of the debate squad was from four to six students who
participated in from eight to ten public debates per year. Profes¬
sor Paul Hunsinger of the University of Denver made a survey of
the forensic activities of 53 representative colleges and universities
for the academic year 1961-62; he found that these schools used
an average of 29 students in intercollegiate competition and at¬
tended an average of 12 tournaments. Twelve universities reported
that 40 or more debaters participated in tournaments, and 16 uni¬
versities reported attending 15 or more tournaments.^ The directory
of forensic tournaments, published by the American Forensic As¬
sociation, lists 123 tournaments in the United States for the aca¬
demic year 1964-65, and it makes no claim to complete listing.^
To realize maximum educational advantages from tournament
debating, consider the following suggestions.

Preparation for life debates

The emphasis on tournament debating, although having a bene¬

ficial effect of extending forensic activities to many students at a
minimum cost, has tended to decrease the importance of educa-

1 Paul Hunsinger, “Comparative Studies of Forensic Budgets,” mimeographed

report of survey, 1962.
^Journal of the American Forensic Association, I, No. 3 (September, 1964), 116-19.
 ADAPTING DEBATES 215

tional debate as a persuasive activity. To offset the emphasis on

the mechanics and logical adequacy of case construction, consider
the tournament as a training activity, not as an end in itself. Al¬
though the declaring of championships provides strong incentives
for thorough preparation, the ultimate purpose of forensic training
is to prepare for life situations of advocacy. After you have become
proficient in tournament debating, your training is not yet com¬
plete—you must learn to adapt your acquired skills to actual life
audiences. Seek occasions to put your training to realistic use
through participation in public debates.

Limiting tournament participation

Eligibility for participation in the West Point National Debate

Tournament and some regional programs is based upon the suc¬
cesses in tournaments held earlier in the school year. To increase
their chances for qualifying, some schools send the same students to
a large number of tournaments in hopes of making a good showing
in at least some of them. These applications sometimes show that
the same two students participate in as many as 80 debates in 15
tournaments on the same subject. This overemphasis on winning
leads to serious criticism of intercollegiate debate as an educational
activity. Some critics aptly ask what the students could possibly have
learned in the eightieth debate on the same subject that they had
not already learned by the fortieth debate. Overemphasis on qualify¬
ing a team leads to a disproportionate expenditure of time, effort,
and money on a few students. It also raises questions about the
educational values of forensic programs that put such a great em¬
phasis on winning and that take students away from the campus
so often.
The tournament can serve a useful purpose by enabling a large
number of students to participate in intercollegiate competition
within the limits of many forensic budgets. These values cannot
be attained, however, if almost all the funds are spent on a few
students. Some forensic directors have imposed limits on tourna¬
ment participation. For example, one university with an extensive
program limits participation for any one student to four tourna¬
ments and six days’ absences from classes per semester. This uni¬
versity attends some 15 tournaments each year, but it permits 40
or more students to alternate in attending them. Such self-imposed
216 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

limitations must be made i£ the tournament is to realize its maxi¬

mum educational potential.

Learning from each tournament experience

Attending several tournaments on the same question can be an

enriching educational activity only if you profit by each tourna¬
ment experience. The practice of using the same case under similar
conditions in tournament after tournament has doubtful values.
Fortunately, the enterprising student can learn a great deal by
utilizing features of tournaments ^fnade available to him. The
majority of tournament debates are judged by capable critics. Some
of the tournaments provide time for oral critiques following each
debate; others provide ballots, with carbon copies for each team,
on which the judge may write his criticisms. The debater can learn
a great deal from these criticisms for improving both his case and
his presentation for the next tournament.
The debate case should always remain flexible; make corrections,
deletions, and additions to the case as indicated by the critics’ sug¬
gestions, by what you learn from your opponents, and from weak¬
nesses you detect in using your case. Make each tournament
experience serve as a basis for improving your case for the next
tournament; engage in practice debates between tournaments to
test your corrected cases. Tournament participation can be a real
educational enterprise for improving your skills in debating.
Variety in tournament experiences also has educational advan¬
tages. Instead of debating with one colleague throughout the year,
change colleagues occasionally to improve your ability to work with
other people and to learn new approaches to the question. Attend
tournaments that employ different forms of debates and other types
of speaking contests. The variety will help prepare you for the
many types of speaking occasions encountered in life activities.
Continue to read new materials on the debate topic throughout
the debate season, especially before important tournaments. Un¬
less you continue to acquire ideas and new ways of stating old
ideas, you will become stale on the subject. Fresh ideas renew inter¬
est and generate enthusiasm for the debate subject. Between each
tournament, revise your case, add new ideas, and refine your
methods of presentation. Only through these procedures can you
realize the full advantages of tournament debating.
 ADAPTING DEBATES 217

Television Debates

In recent years efforts have been made to adapt educational

debate to television. Interested organizations hoped that these de¬
bates would gain public lavor sufficient to attract commercial
sponsors. Although these aims have not yet been fully tealized,
progress has been made. The American Forensic Association, in
conjunction with the National Broadcasting Company and the
American Student Foundation, sponsored a series of seventeen de¬
bates known as “Championship Debating” during the academic
year 1961-62. These debates, carried as a public service, culminated
with an hour-long debate between North Texas State University,
the champion American team, and a British team representing
Oxford University. A similar series was carried over the National
Education Network in the spring of 1964.
Regional and state organizations have also been active in spon¬
soring television debates. For example, the Southwest Conference
Forensic Association arranged the debate series “Young America
Speaks,” which was sponsored by the Sinclair Oil and Refining
Company and carried over WFAA-TV, Dallas, Texas. Television
debating requires an entirely new technique, which probably ac¬
counts for the difficulties encountered in getting public acceptance
for such programs. Let us consider some of the adaptations that
must be made.

Adapting the case

The time usually allowed for television debates is slightly less

than thirty minutes. For example, “Championship Debating” used
the following format:

Affirmative constructive speech 5 minutes

Cross-question affirmative speaker 3 minutes
Negative constructive speech 5 minutes
Cross-question negative speaker 3 minutes
Negative refutation and summary 4I2 minutes
Affirmative refutation and summary 4/2 minutes
Total 25 minutes

The speakers that cross-questioned the opposing speakers also

gave the closing speeches.
The format for “Young America Speaks” called for four con-
218 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

structive speeches of three minutes each, followed by a cross¬

fire period in which the members of each team questioned the
other team for four minutes. One speaker on each team then gave
a closing speech of two and one-half minutes.
Such time limits prevent a full development of the traditional
issues—need, practicability, and desirability. You must select no
more than two or three of the strongest and most appealing
arguments for the case. Time does not permit the detailed develop¬
ment of a plan; concentrate on the need for a change and the
desirability of the proposal. Support each point with evidence that
applies directly, takes little time t^ present, and has universal
appeal. Do not read evidence from books or pamphlets—put it in
your own words or commit it to memory. Besides being time con¬
suming, reading from books breaks your eye contact and direct
communication. Plan your constructive arguments in detail, es¬
pecially the phraseology. Strive for economy of wording, clarity,
and action. Television debating must provide a good show as well
as a logical argument. It must be entertaining as well as instruc¬
tive if large audiences are to be attracted.
The cross-question period can do much to popularize television
debating because it dramatizes thought in rapid action. Plan pro¬
vocative questions on arguments that you anticipate may be ad¬
vanced by your opponents. Once begun, the line of questioning
should be pursued until your point becomes obvious. Questions
may serve (1) to reveal fallacies in your opponent’s arguments,
(2) to show weaknesses in your opponent’s evidence, (3) to reveal
inconsistencies in the opposition’s case, (4) to lay the groundwork
for arguments that your side plans to present, and (5) to give your
side a psychological advantage by injecting humor or clever repar¬
tee into the debate. Unless your series of questions reveals an
obvious weakness in the oppositions’ arguments, you may either
state the weakness immediately or wait until your rebuttal speech
to capitalize on it. Make the cross-question period an integral
part of your case, and follow through on your questions to insure
a strong over all line of attack.

Adapting to the audience

We learned in Chapter 12 that such factors as listeners’ inter¬

ests, attitudes, and backgrounds can be pinpointed with a high
 ADAPTING DEBATES 219

degree of accuracy for public and tournament debates. Potential

listeners for television debates, however, have a greater diversity
of interests and attitudes than other audiences. Unfortunately,
many of these potential listeners also have less motivation to listen.
The members of public audiences are usually too courteous to
walk out; the judge in a tournament must see the debate through
regardless of his desires in the matter. The television viewer, on
the other hand, has no pressures to prevent his changing channels.
The television debater must therefore give careful attention to the
elements of interest and dramatic appeal.
Make your appeals as universal as possible. Because of the
diversity of ages, cultural and social backgrounds, and education,
your listeners will not have a community of primary and secondary
interests. You must appeal to matters of unusual concern, mo¬
mentous events in which all people will be interested. Make psy¬
chological appeals a part of your presentation. Without resorting
to emotionalism, appeal to basic motives such as self-preservation,
economic well-being, power, authority, sentiment, reputation, and
affection. Link your cause with those impelling motives that com¬
mand the attention of people. Make your refutation more direct
and personal than you would in a tournament or public debate.
In choosing your supporting evidence, make liberal use of il¬
lustrative material. Use specihc instances, comparisons, and life
experiences that show action. Avoid technical and theoretical dis¬
cussions that require lengthy explanations; use a simple pattern
of organization that can be easily understood. Begin each speech
in an interesting manner—ask a provocative question, relate a
striking illustration, tell an unusual experience, or quote an im¬
pelling statement. Decide on a central theme for your case; state
it in a brief, slogan-like phrase and repeat it often throughout the
debate. State your main issues in short sentences and re-state them
frequently. In short, make it easy for your listeners to understand
your central theme and your sequence of ideas.

Adapting the presentation

The principles of effective presentation already discussed in

Chapter 12 apply to television debating. In addition, several other
factors peculiar to television debating should be considered.
Adjustment to the microphone includes the following factors:
220 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

(1) Be careful not to move outside the range of the microphone by

moving about, by turning your head to speak directly to your op¬
ponents, by swaying movements, or by changes in stance. Such
movements cause variations in volume that prove irritating to
audiences. (2) Speak in an animated, conversational manner. Avoid
the grand manner usually associated with unusual force, sweeping
gestures, and elaborate style. Strive for a direct, conversational,
communicative manner. (3) Beware of causing extraneous noises
by pounding or drumming on the table, by rustling papers, or by
shuffling your feet. The microphone will pick up these sounds
and they will mar your presentation!. (4) Look directly into the
live camera as indicated by the tally light, a small red light just
below the lenses of the camera. When the cameraman changes
cameras, vary your position slightly so that you always face the
live camera.
Several distracting delivery mannerisms apply with force to
television presentation; especially on close-up shots: (1) looking
away from the camera; (2) observing notes too frequently; (3)
showing a lack of animation in facial expression; (4) adjusting
clothing, glasses, or materials on the lectern; (5) making large and
sweeping gestures; (6) shuffling about; and (7) sitting or standing
in a slouchy position. Attempt to maintain a relaxed but poised
appearance free of such distracting mannerisms.
The technical aspects of producing a television program often
prove distracting, especially to inexperienced performers. The
bright floodlights generate considerable heat. The debater should
wear light clothing and avoid accessories, such as tie clasps and
jewelry, that reflect light. White shirts or blouses and clothes with
prominent stripes and figures should also be avoided. Pastel
shades of blue or gray appear as white on cameras and do not
reflect the bright lights. The activities of the cameraman, the di¬
rector, and the timekeeper may also prove distracting. Although
you must heed the instructions of these technicians, attempt to
visualize your listeners as you concentrate on the substance of
your arguments. If a studio audience is present, direct your argu¬
ments to them much as you would in a public debate.

Summary

Presentation must be adapted to different types of audiences.

In adapting to public audiences, consider their interests and atti-
 ADAPTING DEBATES 221

tildes toward the subject and their age and background. The audi¬
ences of tournament debates consist of highly specialized listeners
who are interested more in the training aspects of debate than
in the success of the persuasion. Although tournaments have ex¬
tended debate training to an increasing number of students, some
schools have overemphasized winning at the expense of training.
To realize the full potential of tournament debating, consider
tournaments as preparation for life debates, limit the number of
tournaments attended, and learn from each tournament experi¬
ence. Television debating requires special adaptation of presenta¬
tion skills, including: (1) adapting the debate to a limited time
that cannot include the traditional case—need, practicability, and
desirability, (2) adapting to an unseen audience, and (3) adapting
to special techniques of presentation. Although television debating
includes all principles of effective presentation, it encompasses
special skills applicable only to television.

Oral Assignment

1. The class members should be arranged into two-member teams for a

class tournament. Members of the class may choose their colleagues if
they have a preference; the instructor should pair those class members
who have no preference.
2. A schedule should be drawn up to provide four debates for each team
and permit sides to be alternated.
3. Two or more debates may be held each day depending on the size of
the class and the rooms available.
4. Those members of the class who do not debate on a particular day
should serve as judges. The instructor should alternate as judge among
the debates so that he will have heard each team at least once during
the series.
5. Each team should be provided with a ballot after each debate. If pos¬
sible, use ballots with carbon copies that provide space for written criti¬
cisms, such as the American Forensic Association ballot.
6. If time permits, the four high-ranking teams should be selected for a
semifinal and final debate.
7. This assignment should extend to the end of the semester.

Collateral Readings

Capp, Glenn R., How to Communicate Orally, Ch. 4. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.
Crocker, Lionel, Argumentation and Debate, Ch. 13. New York: American
Book Co., 1944.
222 PRESENTING THE DEBATE

Ewbank, Henry Lee, and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate, Ch. 13.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951.
Huber, Robert B., Influencing Through Argument, Ch. 14. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
McBath, James H., ed., T.V. Championship Debates. Portland, Me.: J.
Weston Walch, Publishers, 1964.
McBurney, James H., and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate:
Techniques of a Free Society, Ch. 11. New York: The Macmillan Com¬
pany, 1964.
Appendix
 A National
Television Debate^

Resolved, That gambling should be legalized in all states.

WNBC-TV, New York, Channel 4

Anne Hodges: Attempts to abolish gambling have been unsuccess¬

ful in solving the problems that gambling creates. We think it’s
time to try a new approach.
Sheldon Mixson: I’m opposed to any proposition predicated on the
premise that crooks are clever people and also gamblers who find
ways to get around the laws. Therefore, we should do away with
the laws.
John Swaney; The legalization of gambling will be one of our most
effective weapons against organized crime.
Michael Henke: I’m opposed to any government program that
preys on the weaknesses of its citizens.
(Music) Announcer: The National Broadcasting Company, in as¬
sociation with the American Forensic Association and the Amer¬
ican Student Foundation, presents “Championship Debate.’’ Our
moderator is Dr. James H. McBath, Professor of Speech at the
University of Southern California and Chairman of the National
Debate Board of the American Forensic Association. (Applause)
Dr. James H. McBath: Should gambling be legalized in all states?
To argue this provocative question. Championship Debate brings
to its platform two great teams from Texas: North Texas State
University in Denton and Baylor University in Waco. This is
their quarter-final round in New York City for the Southern
Championship. Sides were assigned by the American Forensic

1 This television debate is one of the series entitled "Championship Debate” held
over the NBC networks during the academic year 1961-62. The debate was
transcribed from a recording and is published with permission of NBC and
the debaters.

225
226 APPENDIX

Association. Naturally the views expressed aren’t necessarily those

o£ either the schools or the network. In a few minutes each team
will hear the other’s arguments for the first time. But first let’s
meet our debaters. From North Texas State University, on the
affirmative—John Swaney and Anne Hodges. Their opponents
from Baylor University, on the negative—Mike Henke and Shel¬
don Mixson.
The rules for “Championship Debate” provide these students
a balanced opportunity to convince us. Each side presents its
main case, can interrogate the opposition, and then can sum¬
marize its case. Immediately after ^he last speaker has concluded,
we consult our judges for their decision. Our three critics today
are prominent speech directors and debate critics. They are: Jack
Lynch, St. Anselm’s College; Clayton Schug, Pennsylvania State
University; and Wofford Gardner, University of Maine. Now to
launch the affirmative, Anne Hodges speaks for legalized gam¬
bling. Anne.
Anne Hodges: Last year the American people spent fifty billion
dollars on gambling and forty-seven billion of that was spent on
illegal gambling. Therefore, whether we approve or disapprove
of gambling, it’s rather difficult to deny that the American people
want to gamble. So the real question today is not between gam¬
bling and no gambling, but under what conditions gambling is
going to exist. Now, of course, John and I realize that gambling
does create some problems in our society. But those problems
have occurred because gambling has been forced to operate out¬
side of the law. So our case today is going to take the form of
three indictments against illegal gambling.
And the first indictment is that illegal gambling is a major
support of organized crime. The United States Senate Sub-Com¬
mittee on Gambling and Organized Crime last year pointed out
that forty-seven billion dollars last year was gambled illegally.
The profits from illegal gambling went into the pockets of or¬
ganized crime. Yet if we would legalize gambling and cut off that
supply of funds, we would injure organized crime. Attorney Gen¬
eral Robert Kennedy in the April, 1962, issue of the Atlantic
Monthly, tells us that when we reduce the gambler’s income, we
have reduced a major source of revenue for organized crime.
Secondly, we find that illegal gambling leads to the corruption
of public officials. Mr. Goodman A. Sarrison, who is the chairman
of the New York Commission of Investigation testifying before
that Senate Sub-Committee, tells us that illegal gambling cannot
exist without the protection from local law-enforcement officials.
 A NATIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE 227

He further says that one-half of the profits from illegal gambling

are used to buy protection and bribe public officials.
And thirdly, the present law is not consistent with public
morals. Now John and I think that the purpose of law is to re¬
flect social attitudes, not to create them. Even Elliot Ness could
not stop the sale of illegal liquor simply because the American
public wanted to drink. And John and I think that even if Elliot
Ness and all the “Untouchables” were on NBC instead of that
other network, they still couldn’t solve the problem because the
law is inconsistent with American morals. And so it is with gam¬
bling. The American people want to gamble as evidenced by the
fact that they spend so much money doing it. And if they can’t
do it legally they’re going to do it illegally. So in order to remedy
these problems, we proposed that gambling be legalized in all
states.
We would say that all gambling should be allowed in state-
owned and operated establishments under state supervision,
much as the states now own and operate liquor stores through¬
out the country in some particular states. Eor you see, with the
state managing the gambling business, the Aiuerican public is
going to be able to satisfy its desire to gamble without the stigma
of breaking the law and without perpetuating the evils that I
have already discussed with you.
I think we can see that, by legalizing gambling, we are going
to gain three obvious and important advantages. First of all, we
are going to cut off the supply of money which goes from illegal
gambling to organized crime because the state is going to get the
profits from gambling. Secondly, we are going to be able to do
away with corruption of state officials for it would no longer be
necessary to bribe the public officials and the local law-enforce¬
ment officers because illegal gambling will be gone and the states
will be getting the profits. And thirdly, the states can use the
money for education, welfare, and highway construction that they
receive from legalized gambling. Florida now finances scholar¬
ships; New York and New Mexico finance welfare programs and
highway construction. And in all three of these instances the
money comes only from legalized horse racing while millions of
dollars still go down the drain in other forms of illegal gambling.
John and I are certainly in favor of fighting crime, but the
present laws against gambling are forcing many American people
unwittingly to become partners in crime. As long as illegal gam¬
bling exists, a part of every dollar that goes to the bookie is going
into the hands of organized crime. As long as illegal gambling
228 APPENDIX

exists, a part o£ every dollar that goes down the drain is going to
buy protection for that illegal gambling. And as long as gambling
exists, the American public’s respect for the law is diminished.
The American public has proven that it wants to gamble and,
if it can’t do it legally, it’s going to do it illegally. So we say that
the best solution to the entire problem to stop the crime—to do
away with the corruption—is to legalize gambling.
Dr. McBath: Thanks, Anne. (Applause) Baylor’s Sheldon Mixson
now subjects this argument to cross-examination. Sheldon.
Mr. Mixson: Thank you. Dr. McBath. Just a couple of questions,

Anne, if you don’t mind. ^

Miss Hodges: I don’t mind. ' ’
Mr. Mixson: I assume, from your proposition, that you’re going to
have gambling going on in areas where it doesn’t at the present
time?
Miss Hodges: That’s true. All states don’t now allow gambling.
Mr. Mixson: In other words, there will be an increased incidence
of gambling, and necessarily an increased number of participants
in gambling.
Miss Hodges: Gambling will be legalized and if people want to do
it legally or want to gamble they can do it. If it increases, it is
just an indication that people want to do it.
Mr. AIixson: All right, fine. The next question would be this: I
suppose the same officials on the local and state level will be
checking the control of gambling under your program as they do
under the existing laws which outlaw gambling?
Miss Hodges: State officials certainly will be regulating gambling,
but we don’t think that the necessity for corruption and buying
off those officials is going to be necessary because gamblers won’t
need the protection that they now need.
Mr. Mixson: I see. In other words, you believe your program will
eliminate the criminal element from gambling?
Miss Hodges: We certainly think it will. The only way to corrupt
is to corrupt the state government.
Mr. Mixson: All right. You pointed out here that the people seem
to want gambling and the figure you used to substantiate this
point is the total number of or total amount of money that goes
into gambling each year. Do you know how many people are re¬
sponsible for this total income to gambling?
Miss Hodges: Well, Sheldon, the Senate Sub-Committee on Gam¬
bling and Organized Crime pointed out that it was very, very
difficult to determine exactly how many people gamble every
year. But to give you an indication, legally at Aqueduct in one
 A NATIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE 229

day, twenty-six thousand people went out there and gambled.

Think about all the people who do it illegally at the present time.
It’s probably a number that cannot actually be calculated. Mil¬
lions of people do it.
Mr. Mixson: All right, let’s take another example then in this par¬
ticular aspect. Do you think that because people want to do
something this is any reason why the government should permit
them to do something? For instance, your statement would indi¬
cate that you believe that gambling seems to be some sort of urge
that people have, that they can’t fight it and they’re going to
gamble legally or illegally. Well now, using this logic, would you
advocate legalizing all urges that all people have?
Miss Hodges: I certainly would not, but I think that gambling is an
instance in which the public morals reflect the fact that people
want to gamble.
Mr. Mixson: Well, why not? Isn’t the logic the same here? People
want to gamble and they’re going to gamble anyway, so why not
let them go ahead and do it legally. What about robbery? Why
don’t tve say, “people want to rob, they have an urge to rob . . .’’?
Miss Hodges: Because the morals of the society say there aren’t
enough people in the country who want to go out and rob every¬
body . . .
Mr. Mixson: Oh.
Miss Hodges: ... to demand that it be legal.
Mr. Mixson: Well, in other words, if I had an uncontrollable urge
to throw that book at you now, the morals of society would pro¬
hibit my doing it?
Miss Hodges: Good taste would also prohibit you from doing it,
don’t you think?
Mr. Mixson: I see. The next question might be this: Why don’t
we go to President, rather Attorney General Kennedy’s article
here in the Atlantic which you quoted and read this conclusion.
Miss Hodges: I’ve read it.
Mr. Mixsor^: All right. Do you agree with this conclusion that we
don’t need to legalize gambling, merely to make the penalties for
gambling today more stringent to solve your problem?
Miss Hodges: We certainly don’t.
Mr. Mixson: How would this solve your problem?
Miss Hodges: We think that the American people are going to
gamble. If you don’t legalize it, illegal gambling is going to con¬
tinue to exist. Billions of dollars are still going into the hands of
organized crime. Officials are still going to be corrupted. Legalize
it and solve the problem.
230 APPENDIX

Dr. McBath; Thank you very much. Now Sheldon’s colleague,

Mike Henke o£ Baylor, presents the negative side of this issue.
Mike.
Mr. Henke: Thank you. Dr. McBath. You know, as my colleague
and I have been researching this topic, we have been repeatedly
impressed by the unanimity of expert opinion in the area of gam¬
bling. For example, the foremost comprehensive surveys of gam¬
bling in the United States since 1940—that would be the Kefauver
Committee investigation, the investigation by the Massachusetts
Citizens Council, the California Governor’s Commission report,
and the Chicago Crime Commission report have all been unan¬
imous in their conclusions against''legalized gambling. Not only
that, but in many, many states in the United States today—Iowa,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, Montana, Florida, and Louisiana,
to name just a few—present anti-gambling statutes are the results
of long and disastrous experience with legalization.
Why has legalization of gambling proved undesirable? Why
should it not be adopted? 1 think the answer is quite clear. The
legalization of gambling inevitably results in an increase in the
incidence of gambling. Now the lady of the opposition, in answer
to a question that my colleague put to her along these lines, said
if it increases it means the people want it to. She didn’t commit
herself as to whether it would or not. But the point is, and the
fact is, that gambling will increase whether that lady agrees with
this conclusion or not. State sanction is given to the process of
gambling. Promotion increases, slot machines are placed every¬
where, tickets to horse race tracks are distributed on every corner;
gambling is made more accessible and more desirable, and conse¬
quently it increases. As Charles G. Caldwell of Iowa State Univer¬
sity points out in his textbook. Criminology, “History shows that
legalization advertises gambling, makes it more attractive and
convenient, and thus leads inevitably to an increase in it.” So first
of all, gambling is going to increase.
Now this in itself, we would maintain, is not inherently bad;
but what we are inveighing against today is the fact that there’s
also going to be a correlated increase in two evils which are in¬
herent within gambling in a professional and organized manner.
What are those two evils? First, there is harm to the individual;
and second, harm to society. Now it’s inevitable that gambling
exacts its heaviest toll from those who are least able to pay. It is
an axiom in gambling that those individuals in the low and
lower-middle income groups are disproportionally attracted to
gambling. These are the individuals who today are saddled with
 A NATIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE 231

195 billion dollars’ worth of installment indebtedness. These are

the very individuals who can least afford to gamble on their
financial future, and yet they’re going to be most allured by the
affirmative program. That’s the reason I said a few minutes ago
that I was opposed to any government program that preyed on
the weakness of its citizens as a revenue measure. I think harm to
the individual dictates rejection of that affirmative proposition.
But how about this idea of corruption? Well it’s even more im¬
portant, I think, than the harm to the individual and certainly
it’s just as inherent. The United States Guaranty and Trust Com¬
pany of Baltimore has pointed out that as much as 75 per cent of
the 400 million dollars that’s embezzled each year in this country
is directly attributable to gambling indebtedness. In Philadelphia,
in the last seven years, 200 members of the police force have been
fired because of taking bribes from gamblers. Attorney General
Robert Kennedy, in the report that’s been referred to by the lady
of the opposition, has stated that practically every narcotics oper¬
ation in this country is financed by gambling revenue. Now the
question arises, “Will crime and corruption in gambling decrease
as a result of legalization?” I think the answer is obviously no.
The reason—because criminals are attracted to gambling; not be¬
cause it’s illegal today, but because gambling is profitable to
them. And, as a result, legalization is not going to decrease the
profitability of gambling; legalization is not going to decrease the
criminal element in it. You’re going to have the same law en¬
forcement officials under the affirmative proposal that you have
today. If these individuals today are unable to cope with gam¬
bling when it’s illegal, how much more incapable will they, be of
dealing with it under the affirmative proposal of controlling it
because you still have to have some controls whether it’s legal or
not. As Dr. Caldwell states once again, “The legalization of gam¬
bling would not take it out of the hands of criminal elements.”
Past experience demonstrates that legalization has never suc¬
ceeded in doing this. The underworld is interested in gambling,
not because it’s illegal, but because it’s a highly lucrative business
and offers opportunities for getting easy money. So what were
those negative objections then? Harm to the individual and harm
to society.
Now in the last thirty seconds, let me summarize the negative
objections to the affirmative contentions. First, that illegal gam¬
bling finances organized crime; it still would with the affirmative.
Second, that bribery and corruption results; it still would with
the affirmative because there would be bribery and corruption as
232 APPENDIX

regards the control of gambling. Third, that it’s not consistent

with public morals. I pointed out that state after state in the
United States has rejected legalized gambling in spite of the fact
that it had been legalized before.
Dr. McBath: All right. There’s the negative proposal. Coming to
the rostrum now, North Texas State’s John Swaney. John.
Mr. Swaney: Thank you. Dr. McBath. Mike, do you think that we
should eliminate all forms of gambling?
Mr. Henke: All organized, professional forms of gambling, yes.
Mr. Swaney: Well then you don’t think we should eliminate all
forms of gambling. For instance, should we eliminate church
bingos, church raffles, and gambling conducted for other such
charitable purposes?
Mr. Henke: Yes, I do.
Mr. Swaney: You think we should eliminate those forms, too.
Mr. Henke: Yes, I do.
Mr. Swaney: Well now, while your particular church which sup¬
ports your University does not feel that these forms of gambling
should be allowed, isn’t it true that other religious groups do
approve of them and actually practice them and encourage them?
Mr. Henke: Oh, 1 can’t deny that.
Mr. Swaney: Well then apparently you would be trying to force
your religious beliefs on these groups by law. Is that correct?
Mr. Henke: I’m not trying to enforce anything on anybody by
law. I’m merely stating that our opinion as the negative team
in this debate is that gambling has these two evils . . .
Mr. Swaney: I understand that; so then even to the extent of
church bingos and raffles you would force your religious opinion
on these other groups by law. Is that correct?
Mr. Henke: Yes, because I still feel that it harms the individual,
the little man, the individual who can least afford to lose money.
Mr. Swaney: All right. Thank you. Now isn’t it true that illegal
gambling provides great amounts of money for organized crime?
Mr. Henke: Yes, both teams have agreed on that.
Mr. Swaney: That’s right and you want to keep gambling illegal,
don’t you?
Mr. Henke: We want to perhaps enforce more stringent penalties
but certainly not to legalize it.
Mr. Swaney: But you want to keep it illegal?
Mr. Henke: That is correct.
Mr. Swaney: Well then, apparently you are in favor of continu¬
ing the support of organized crime. Is that correct?
Mr. Henke: No, this is not correct. I think Mr. Kennedy, accord-
 A NATIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE 233

ing to the quotation that Anne read in her speech, said that
this revenue for organized crime would decrease as gambling
revenue decreased. If we imposed more stringent penalties,
what better way to get at the decrease in gambling revenue?
Mr. Swaney: Mike, do you think the law has ever been able to
stop any practice which a majority or at least a great percentage
of the American people want to indulge in?
Mr. Henke: Well, now that is a point I contradicted in my speech
also. I don’t believe that a majority of the people want legalized
gambling as illustrated by the vast number of states who have
rejected proposals for legalization.
Mr. Swaney: Prohibition wasn’t very successful, was it? As hard
as the Federal Government tried, it could never completely
stop the illegal sale of liquor, could it?
Mr. Henke: Let me stop right here to show a very basic dichotomy
between the example of liquor and the example of gambling.
Mr. Swaney: Why don’t you let Sheldon show that in his speech?
Mr. Henke: Well, I think it is in answer to your question, if you
don’t mind?
Mr. Swaney: Well, okay.
Mr. Henke: The distinction is simply this. That the legalization
of alcohol tends to drive out the criminal elements because they
can’t compete with legal breweries and distilleries. The legaliza¬
tion of gambling on the other hand tends to entrench the
criminal . . .
Mr. Swaney: Okay, I think we understand the point. Let me ask
you this: Gambling is quite a large-scale operation, isn’t it?
Mr. Henke: Yes it is.
Mr. Swaney: And do you think an operation of that magnitude
can go on without the knowledge of public officials?
Mr. Henke: No, I think that’s obvious from the reports that you’ve
given us.
Mr. Swaney: Then there is quite a serious problem in corruption
and we agree on that, don’t we?
Mr. Henke: Yes, we do.
Mr. Swaney: Isn’t it true that in New York State you can bet
money at a race track, but if you live in another city where
there’s not a track you can’t legally bet on that race. Is that
right?
Mr. Henke: That’s true. And in many states you can’t even bet
at a race track.
Mr. Swaney: Don’t you imagine the average citizen finds it a
little hard to see any logic in a law such as that?
234 APPENDIX

Mr. Henke: Well, the citizens have enacted such laws; I hardly
see how they could propose . . .
Mr. Swaney: And the citizens also provide the bookies with bil¬
lions of dollars every year, too, don’t they?
Dr. McBath: Thank you, gentlemen. Let’s hear the final summa¬
tion for the negative. Sheldon Mixson, Baylor University.
Sheldon.
Mr. Mixson: Thank you. Dr. McBath. One important admission
that Anne made in her question period was that her proposi¬
tion almost inevitably, or if I may use that phrase, would lead
to increased incidences of gambling. You’re going to have more
people gambling under the affirmative proposal than you have
under the present system. And Mike pointed out to you that
this increase is going to be detrimental for basically two reasons.
It will simply aggravate the problems that the affirmative team
has sought to bring to our attention in the present system.
Let’s see how this is going to take place. Anne pointed out we
must reduce gamblers’ income. Illegal gambling supports or¬
ganized crime. Well, you’re not going to be able to get rid of
the criminal element in gambling. Anne said she thought the
affirmative proposition would, but she has not gone back into
history and showed us where legalized gambling anywhere has
gotten rid of the criminal element. Mike did this for you in his
speech. You can’t get the criminal element out of gambling.
Why not? Because gambling is the quickest way to fast money
and fast money, as a matter of fact, always attracts the criminal
element. So by increasing the incidences of gambling and not
being able to get the criminal element out of gambling, you’re
just going to be increasing the revenue that pours into the
underworld treasury—the very evil the affirmative team has
sought to remedy under the present system.
The next idea was that it leads to corruption of officials. She’s
going to be using, under her proposition, the same officials that
we are using today—the same officials that she alleges are cor¬
rupt today. We want to know exactly where the difference is
going to be. If these people are corrupt today with what money
is pouring into gambling, how much more corrupt are they
going to be when you increase the flow of money that’ll be fall¬
ing into the hands of the gamblers who will be controlling the
affirmative proposition?
She says it’s not consistent with the public morals. This is a
very big part, I think, of the affirmative case; but they can’t tell
us how many people in the United States, they can’t even prove
 A NATIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE 235

that a majority of the people in the United States, want legalized

gambling. If we look at the states that have gambling and the
states that have illegalized gambling, we might assume that the
converse was the case. She can’t demonstrate to me that the
majority of the people in this country want it. Maybe all of that
fifty billion dollars is spent by fifty thousand people. It doesn’t
prove anything about how many people in the United States
want legalized gambling.
All right, the point here is this: Mike brought out the idea
that by increasing the incidence of legalized gambling, by put¬
ting gambling in every city and town in the United States or at
least making it legal there, you’re going to make gambling
appeal to people who never thought about spending their lunch
money on it before because it’s going to be right there in front
of them. The temptation will be strong. Mike pointed out to
you that the evil in gambling is this: it appeals to those people
who can least afford it, those people who are looking for a way
out of a financial situation. Those people will be the ones harmed
by the affirmative proposal. The affirmative team in today’s de¬
bate has never controverted this contention.
The general harm to society will be as Anne herself pointed
out. We have corruptness today with fifty billion dollars. What
are we going to do about it? We are going to increase the money
that pours into gambling enterprises. Well the states are going
to check it but the states are already corrupt today, Anne tried
to tell us in her first speech.
The revenue benefits—I think Governor Dewey said that it
was indecent for a state to prey on the weakness of the citizens.
We are not going to call the affirmative team indecent, we are
just going to call them mistaken. I think we have a very definite
reason here for rejecting this affirmative proposal: harm to the
individual, harm to society. If there are problems today, then
let’s just increase the penalties on gambling. Let’s make it so
expensive for a person to gamble; that is, send him to jail if he
does. The people aren’t going to want to do it. The only argu¬
ment which can be given about this is to prove that all, or at
least a substantial portion of the citizens in this country want
gambling. If so, I submit we already have it today. The affirma¬
tive team has offered us no statistics, no reason for change.
Dr. McBath: Thank you, Sheldon, for the negative summation.
Returning now to the platform, John Swaney, North Texas.
John.
Mr. Swaney: Thank you. Dr. McBath. I think the first thing we
236 APPENDIX

need to do is look back at these affirmative need issues and see

what the gentlemen from Baylor have had to say about them.
We told you that gambling today is the major support of or¬
ganized crime, illegal gambling. On that point both teams have
agreed, but the gentlemen have said that legalization of gambling
will provide even more funds for organized crime. Pardon me,
but I cannot see the logic in that negative position because,
under the plan which Anne presented, the state is going to own
and operate all the gambling establishments. In which case, all
the profits from gambling would go directly into the funds of
the state. We can see no method in such a plan that the funds
would be able to be channeled ipito organized crime unless or¬
ganized crime itself controls the state government. And if that’s
the case, we may as well give up on a lot of things. So I think we
can say that this first affirmative contention, that illegal gambling
supports organized crime, has gone undenied.
What about Mr. Kennedy’s proposals for stricter law enforce¬
ment? All we can say is that, throughout the history of the United
States, the strictest law enforcement we could muster has not
been able to stamp out illegal gambling. In fact, forty-seven
billion dollars’ worth of illegal gambling still goes on every year.
We don’t think strict law enforcement is the answer. It hasn’t
been the answer yet. We say, let’s try a new approach.
We told you, secondly, that illegal gambling leads to the
corruption of public officials. The gentlemen said, “Well, that’s
true so there’s no disagreement on that point’’; but then they
told you that under our proposal, the officials could still be
corrupted. Once again, we fail to see the logic. What possible
reason would there be to corrupt the local law enforcement
officers under our plan when the state government will own and
operate the gambling establishments—no gangsters involved here,
no one to bribe the local officials, no reason to bribe the local
officials. So we’ve removed that evil from the present system.
Point No. 3—the laws are inconsistent with public morals.
Well, what did Sheldon have to say? He said, “Well, should we
legalize everything which someone has an urge to do?” No,
I’m afraid he’s missed the point. You see we said the laws should
reflect social attitudes, not create social attitudes. Now he made
the analogy to a law against robbery. Let me point this out: A
law against robbery does reflect social attitude because the over¬
whelming majority of American people are opposed to robbery;
so such a law reflects their attitudes. Laws against gambling do
 A NATIONAL TELEVISION DEBATE 237

not reflect social attitude; they attempt to create social attitudes.

So the analogy is a false one. We don’t think that the gentlemen
have been able to deny that the laws are inconsistent with pub¬
lic morals.
In relation to this point, they said, “Well, how many people
do gamble? The figure fifty billion dollars isn’t really indicative
of how many people actually gamble.” Well, all we can say is
this: fifty billion dollars is indicative of the fact that either a
lot of- people gamble moderately or a few very, very, very rich
people gamble quite a bit. We would say that one indication
of how many people want legalized gambling is that twenty-
four states now do have some form of legalized gambling. Well,
that’s half the states in this country. We think that’s a pretty
good indication.
They said gambling will increase under our plan. We said
that if it does, that’s simply proof that people want to gamble.
So for all the time the gentlemen have taken to prove that
gambling will increase, we think all they have done is prove that
people want it. They said, “Well, that’s harmful to the individ¬
ual.” Well, Mr. John Scarney, an expert on gambling, who
incidentally has appeared on the Jack Paar show several times,
said if they had something where they could play legally it
would cut down every phase of organized crime there is. Mr.
Scarney thinks it would cut down organized crime.
And finally they said gambling is profitable to crime. Why?
Because the gamblers run the illegal establishments. Under our
plan the state would run all gambling establishments. It could
no longer be profitable to crime. We should legalize it. Thank
you.
Dr. McBath: Thank you. Legalized gambling for all American
states—well, there are the arguments pro and con. Ready now
for the verdict of the judges. First, let’s turn to Professor Lynch.
Professor Lynch: I would certainly like to congratulate both
teams on their excellent presentation and clear analysis. I did
think that this was a very close debate. It seems that generally
on logic and evidence that I would have to declare for North
Texas State.
Dr. McBath: All right. Professor Schug.
Professor Schug: Well, I thought, too, that this was a very close
debate, indeed. I thought the North Texas State team did a
very good job in establishing the need; however, I am going to
have to disagree with my good friend Professor Lynch here. I
238 APPENDIX

believe the disadvantages, as presented by the team from Baylor,

outweighed the advantages; so I would cast my vote for the
Baylor team.
Dr. McBath: All right, a split decision, and the crucial one—Pro¬
fessor Gardner.
Professor Gardner: There comes a time when a decision must
be rendered. I would like to say this with regard to the debate
itself. I think both debaters did a fine job, both teams did a
fine job. I’m concerned and impressed with the appeal which
1 think the North Texas team had in terms of the general effect
on the debate as a whole. Consequently, my decision would go
to North Texas State.
Dr. McBath: Thank you. So the decision is two-to-one for North
Texas State University. Coming to the stage now Professor
Bill DeMougeot from North Texas State and Glenn Capp of
Baylor University. Congratulations Bill, and here is the South¬
ern Championship Trophy presented by the American Student
Foundation. And our best wishes to Baylor University for their
very excellent opposition today. To the winning school
“Championship Debate” awards $500, and $250 to the losing
school. Our winners and losers have already won sets of the
Encyclopedia Britannica. Now “Championship Debate” awards
to each student a two-volume set of the Britannica World Dic¬
tionary. And thanks to our critics for their expert judgment.
When George Eliot remarked “blessed is the man who having
nothing to say abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the
fact,” he certainly didn’t have today’s four debaters in mind.
Their arguments were soundly grounded and certainly crisply
presented. And just as important, I think, you could share with
us in New York the high excitement of “Championship Debate.”
 Index

A Attitudes:
of audience, 212-13
Able-man theory, 196-99 toward audience, 195
Actions on platform, 203-4 {see also toward judges, 195-96
Delivery) toward opponents, 194-95
Admitted issues, 85 in research, 75-76
Admitted matter, 93 toward suljject, 193-94
Affirmative: Audience:
contentions, 98-99 attitudes of, 212-13
obligations, 49-50 beliefs of, 119-20
position of, 49 effect on evidence, 119-20
proposition, 60 interests of, 211-12
rights, 46-70 listening, 213
Alternate solution, 45-46 public, 211-13
Alternative syllogism, 145-46 television, 218-19
Ambiguous terms, 61-62 tournament, 213-16
American Forensic Association, 54, 214, Authority:
217 as evidence, 109
American Student Foundation, 217, quotations of, 109
238
Analogy: B
as evidence, 108-9
figurative, 129-30 Background knowledge, 68-69
literal, 129 Baylor University, 225, 238
as reasoning, 128-31 Begging the question, 173-74 {see also
suggestions for use, 108-9 Fallacies)
tests of, 130-31 Benson, Sarah, 168-69
Analysis, 82-101 Blackboard drawings, 205
explained, 82 Bodily action, 201-2
illustrated, 86-88 Brief, 152-66
plan of, 86-88 outline distinguished, 153-54
preliminary steps, 88-100 purpose of, 152-53
purpose of, 82 rules for, 154-64
Antecedent, 143-45 {see also Syllogism) specimen introduction, 160-61
Anxiety, 202-3 Bruner, J. W., 67
Argument, 122-51 {see also Reasoning) Burden of proof, 41-44
Aristotle, 102 application of, 43
Attacks on opposing arguments, 168-69 explained, 41
{see also Rebuttal) on counterplan, 45-46, 51

239
240 INDEX

Burden of proof (cont.) Debate:

requirements of, 42 areas of application, 7-10
rights of, 46-47 in cotirts of law, 8
Burden of rebuttal, 44-46 in educational institutions, 10
explained, 44 in everyday activities, 10
illustrated, 45-46 in legislative assemblies, 9
shifts in, 44 in political campaigns, 9
as conflict-resolving process, 7
C educational, 3-4, 10-11
handbooks of, 75
Caldwell, Charles G., 230, 231
Capp, Glenn, 238 legal, 4, 8
of legalized gambling, 225-38
Catalogue of Public Documents, 74
legislative, 5, 9
Categorical syllogism, 139-43
political, 4, 9
Causal reasoning, 132-35 {see also
Reasoning) 'practice, 16
Cause to effect, 133-35 {see also Reason¬ procedure, 48
ing) proposition, 54-56
public, 211-13
Case;
adapting to television, 217, 220 requirements for, 14-17
specimen, 225-38
constructive, 167
television, 10, 217-20, 225-38
definition, 103
formulation of, 13 tournament, 213-16
prima facie, 42 values of training in, 11-14
proper division, 190-92 Decision making, 11-12
selecting best argtiments, 192-93 Dedtictive reasoning:
selecting best evidence, 192-93 enthymeme, 146-49
Chain of reasoning, 149 inductive distingtiished, 122-23
Chairman of discussion, 33-36 sorites, 149
Champio7iship Debating, 16, 217
syllogism, 138-46
Charting the debate, 183-85 Defense of arguments, 169 {see also Re¬
Charts, 205 buttal)
Circumstantial evidence, 110-11 Definition of terms;
Communicative speech, 189-93 authority, 94
Conceded matter, 93 etymology, 94
Conditional syllogism, 143-45 exemplification, 94
Conferences, 69-70 {see also Discussion) explication, 94-95
Congressional Digest, The, 75
negation, 95
Congressional Record, The, 74
requirements of, 95
Consequent, 143-45 {see also Syllogism) Delivery:
Consistency of evidence, 117-18 able-man theory, 196-99
Constructive case, 167 {see also Case) attitudes, 193-96
Contentions: mannerisms, 205-9
affirmative, 98-99 rhetorical skills, 199-203
issues distinguished, 162 stage conduct, 203-5
negative, 99-100 Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha, 54
Contrasting issties, 98-100 DeMougeot, Bill, 238
Correspondence, 70-71 Diagrams, 205
Counterplan, 45-46, 51 Dilemma, 179
Cross-questions, 218 Discriminating attitude, 77
Discussion:
areas of application, 7-10
D
attitudes of participants, 31-32
Debatable proposition, 59-60 {see also chairman, 33-36
Proposition) explained, 19
 INDEX 241

Discussion (cont.) Fallacies:

leader, 33-36 begging the question, 173-74
outline, 23-24 of deductive reasoning, 138-49
participation in, 30-33 ignoring the question, 170-73
pattern for, 19-22 of inductive reasoning, 122-28
as preparation process, 6, 72 meaning, 170
as problem-solving method, 6 Federal Reserve Bulletin, 75
series for preparation, 26-30 Figurative analogy, 129-30
types, 23-26 Fishbein, Morris, 177
Disjunctive syllogism, 145-46
Distributed term, 140-41 G
E Gardner, Wofford, 226, 238
Effect to cause, 132-33 (see also Reason¬ Generalization, 124-28 {see also Rea¬
soning)
ing)
Eliot, George, 238 General knowledge, 68-69
Emotional proof, 103 Gestures, 201-2
Encyclopedias, 72-73 Governmental documents, 74-75
Enthymeme, 146-49 {see also Reason¬
ing) H
Ethical proof, 103
Hance, Kenneth G., 10-11, 19-20
Ethical standards, 14
Evidence: Handbooks, 75
Hearsay rule, 104
analogy, 108-9
Henke, Mike, 225-38
attacks on, 174-78
History of question, 90-92
characteristics of, 105-9
Hodges, Anne, 225-38
classihcations of, 109-14
Humphrey, C. J., 67
example, 107-8
Hunsinger, Paul, 214
expert opinion, 109, 111-12
Hypothetical syllogism, M3-45
explained, 103
misapplication of, 175-76
statistics, 105-7 I
tests of, 114-20
Ignoring the question, 170-73 {see also
types, 105-9
Fallacies)
Examples:
Imperfect induction, 124
corroboration of, 128
Inaccurate evidence, 176-77
as evidence, 107-8
Inconsistencies, 180
generalization, 124-28
Inductive reasoning:
negative, 127
deductive distinguished, 122-23
number of, 125-26
generalization in, 124-28
as reasoning, 124-28
imperfect, 124
representative, 126-27
perfect, 124
suggestion for use, 107-8
Inference, 122, 124 {see also Reasoning)
tests of, 107-8, 124-28
Informal discussion, 23-24, 27-28
Expert evidence, 109, 111-12
Information Please Almanac, 75
Extraneous matter, 92-93
Inquiring attitude, 75-76
Insufficient evidence, 175
F Intercollegiate Debates, 16
Facial .expression, 208 {see also Deliv¬ Interpretation of proposition, 46-47,
ery) 93-96 {see also Proposition)
Fact propositions, 56 Interviews, 69-70
Factual evidence, 95-109 {see also Evi¬ Irrelevant arguments, 180-81
dence) Irrelevant matter, 93
242 INDEX

Issues: Major term, 139-43 {see also Syllogism)

contentions distinguished, 162 Mannerisms:
contrasted, 98-100 in delivery, 205-9
declaration of, 47 in television debates, 220
new, in reltuttal, 49 Material:
types of, 82-86 handling of, 203-4
recording of, 78-80
J sources of, 68-75
Middle term, 139-43 {see also Syllogism)
Jackson, Robert, 78 Mills, Glen E., 146
Johnson, Lyndon B., 212 Milton, 130, 168
Judges, 195-96 Minor point, refutation of, 169-70
Minor premise, 138-46 {see also Syllo¬
K gism)
Manor term, 139-43 {see also Syllogism)
Kefauver Committee, 230 Misapplied evidence, 175-76
Kennedy, John F., 212 Mixson, Sheldon, 225-38
Kennedy, Robert, 226, 229, 231 Modifications of status quo, 51
Kent, Calvin, 169 Monthly Catalogue, 74
Korzybski, Alfred, 77 Movements on platform, 208 {see also
Kruger, Arthur N., 16 Delivery)

L N
Language, 199-200 National Broadcasting Company, 217
Leading discussion, 33-36 Name calling, 209
Lecture forum, 26, 28-29 Negative:
Lee, Irving J., 77 contentions, 99-100
Library of Congress, 74 examples, 127
Limiting tournaments, 215-16 {see also position of, 50-51
Tournaments) premises, 141-42
Lippmann, Walter, 8 propositions, 60-61
Listening: rights of, 47-48
audience background, 213 New material in rebuttal, 49
in discussion, 31-32 Nichols, Egbert Ray, 16
Literal analogy, 129 North Texas State University, 217, 225,
Loaded words, 209 238
Logic, 122 {see also Reasoning) Notes:
Logical pattern of discussion, 19-22 recording of, 78-80
Logical proof, 103 specimen cards, 80
Logical reasoning, 12-13
use of, 204-5
Lycidas, 130
Lynch, Jack, 226, 237
O
M
OItjective attitude, 31
McBath, James H., 16, 225-38 Omitted matter, 93
McBurney, James H., 10-11, 19-20, 146 Opinion, in evidence, 109
Main contentions, 98-100, 162 {see also Oral argument, 189-210
Contentions) Oral presentation, 13 {see also Delivery)
Main issues, 82-86 {see also Issues) Ordinary evidence, 111-12
Major premise, 138-46 {see also Syllo¬ Outline for discussion, 23-24, 27-28
gism) Oxford University, 217
 INDEX 243

p Q
Panel discussion, 24, 29-30 Qualifications of authority, 115-16
Paradise Lost, 168 Quality of evidence, 116-18
Participating in discussion, 30-33 Quantity of evidence, 118-20
Particular term, 142-43 {see also Syllo¬ Questionnaires, 70-72
gism) Quotations, 109 {see also Authority)
Pattern for discussion, 19-22 (see also
Discussion)
Perfect induction, 124 R
Phelps, Ralph, 67
Philosophy of proposition, 96-98 Rate of speaking, 207-8 (see also De¬
Phi Rho Pi, 54 livery)
Phrasing the proposition, 59-63 Reader’s Guide, 74
Pi Kappa Delta, 54, 169 Real issues, 85-86
Plan for analysis, 86-88 Reasoning:
Poise, 202-3, 208 analogy, 128-31
Policy propositions, 55 causal relation, 132-35
Poole’s Index, 74 deduction, 122-23, 138-49
Posture, 202-3, 208 enthymeme, 146-49
Potential issues, 84-85 explained, 122
Prejudiced terms, 62 fallacies, 170-74
Preliminary steps in analysis, 88-100 generalization in, 124-28
Premises, 138-46 induction, 122-28
Preparations for tournaments, 214-16 logical, 12-13
Presentation, 189-210 sorites, 149
oral, 13 syllogism, 138-46
on television, 219-20 Rebuttal:
Presumption of argument, 42 explained, 167
Prima-facie case, 42 organization, 182-85
Private documents, 74-75 preparation, 181-82
Probability, 117 steps in, 182-83
Problem-solving stages, 5-7 types, 168-70
Procedure in debate, 44-46, 48 Recording notes, 78-80 {see also Notes)
Processes of debate, 102-3 Reductio ad absurdum, 178
Proof, 103 Reference Shelf, 75
Proposition: Refutation:
affirmative resolution, 60 briefing of, 164
ambiguous terms, 61-62 general methods, 170-78
analysis of, 82-101 minor point, 169-70
central idea, 61 pure, 50
characteristics, 56-59 rebuttal distinguished, 167-68
examples, 55-56 special methods, 178-81
interpretation, 46-47, 93-96 types, 168-70
philosophy, 96-98 Representative examples, 126-27 {see
phrasing, 59-63 also Examples)
prejudiced terms, 62 Research:
restricted scope, 63 attitudes in, 75-78
selection of, 54 debate preparation, 72-78
types, 54-56 sources, 72-75
Public debates, 211-13 Residues, 179
Public Law, Nos. 88-246, 74 Rhetorical skills, 199-203
Pure refutation, 50 Romney, George, 94
244 INDEX

Roosevelt, Franklin D.. 3-5 Television debates (cont.)

Rosson, Frank M., 67 time limits, 217-18
Young America Speaks, 217
s Teller, Edward, 94
Tentative attitude, 76
Sarrison, Goodman A., 226 . Tests:
Scarney, John, 237 analogy, 130-31
Schug, Clayton, 226, 237 categorical syllogism, 139-43
Self-assurance, 202-3 cause-to-effect reasoning, 133-35
Significance of subject, 89-90 disjunctive syllogism, 145-46
Sophistic devices, 14 effect-to-cause reasoning, 132-33
Sorites. 149 (see also Reasoning) evidence, 110-11, 114-20
Source, unreliable, 177-78 fallacies, 122-28, 138-49, 170-74
Source book, 73 Toulmin, Stephen E., 102
Southwest Conference Forensic Associ¬ ,''•Tournaments:
ation, 217 learning from, 216
Speech Association of America, 54 limiting participation, 215-16
Spoken evidence. 111 preparation for life, 214-15
Stagefright, 202-3 variety in, 216
Statesman’s Yearbook, 75 Turning the tables, 180
Statistical Abstract of U.S., 74-75 T.V. Championship Debates, 16
Statistics, 105-7 (see also Evidence)
Status quo, 50-51 u
Steps:
in analysis, 88-100 Undistributed term, 140-41 (see also
in discussion, 19-22 Syllogism)
in rebuttal, 182-83 University Debater’s Arinual, 16
Stock issues, 83-84 Unreliable source, 177-78
Storey, Ellis, 177-78
Strife as conflict resolving, 7 V
Subordinate points, 103
Swaney, John, 225-38 Value propositions, 55
Syllogism, 138-46 Voice, 200-201
alternative or disjunctive, 145-46 Volume, 208 (see also Delivery)
categorical, 139-43
conditional or hypothetical, 143-45 W
Symposium discussion, 25-26, 30
Waived matter, 93
Webster’s New International Diction¬
T ary, 94
Weighing attitude, 77-78
Television debates: WEAA-TV, 217
adapting to audience, 218-19 Windes, Russel R., 16
adapting presentation, 219-20 WNBC-TV, 225
adjusting to microphone, 219-20 World Almanac, 75
Championship Debating, 16, 217 Written evidence. 111
cross-questions, 218
Kennedy-Nixon, 10, 16 Y
mannerisms, 220
specimen, 225-38 Yearbooks, 72-73
technical aspects, 220 Young America Speaks, 217
f
1

■t
^r
*

I
I

* '#

/
(continued from front flap)

and refutation to make his arguments

convincing; and how to organize and
brief a proper case of advocacy and to
prepare for rebuttal and refutation.

Finally, there is a section that develops

those principles of presentation that are
applicable to oral argument, such as
attitudes, ethical factors, rhetorical prin¬
ciples, and delivery mannerisms.

The appendix contains a television debate

carried by the National Broadcasting
Company.

Glenn R. Capp, LL.B. Baylor Univer¬

sity, has served as president of Pi Kappa
Delta, national forensic fraternity, and
the Southern Speech Association. In ad¬
dition to some twenty articles in profes¬
sional journals, he is author of How to
Communicate Orally, Famous Speeches
in American History and Practical De¬
bating. At present Professor Capp is
Forensic Director and Chairman of Oral
Communications at Baylor University.

Thelma Robuck Capp, M.A. Northwest¬

ern University, is Associate Professor of
Speech at Baylor University. A former
forensic director, she is co-author (with
Ralph Norvell) of a debate manual on
Post-War Organization of Nations.

Jacket design by Bob Rubin

PRENTICE-HALL, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
268 • Printed in U.S. of America
 WRIGHT Ll^ABY LA

8Lpp
by Glenn R. Capp.
HOW TO COMMUNICATE ORALLY 3 0765 0001 117^
In a thorough and practical treatment of the principles of oral communica¬
tion the author of this book stresses the importance of talking both ac¬
curately and well. In a twofold approach he discusses how to weigh carefully
the validity and accuracy of statements and how to organize and present
ideas clearly and forcibly.

He presents in logical order the necessary components for achieving good

oral communication: (a) aims and goals in speech making; (b) preparation
of the subject and organization of ideas; (c) presentation of ideas through
coordinated use of mind, body, voice, and language; fd) application to vari¬
ous areas—listening, conference, advocacy, and speeches for various situa¬
tions; (e) consideration of oral communication as a two-way process between
speaker and listener, stressing accurate as well as effective use of language
to insure a meeting of the minds.

Published 1961 423 pages

FALLACY: THE COUNTERFEIT OF ARGUMENT

by W. WARD FEARNSIDE, Bahson Institute of Business, and
WILLIAM B. HOLTHER

This book deals with an age-old problem—fallacious reasoning—and it is

an unusually comprehensive treatment of the subject.

It helps promote sound thinking by illustrating specific defects in reasoning.

It names, explains, and illustrates 51 fallacies and shows how to recognize
fallacious argument and how to avoid its use.

The fallacies discussed are divided into three general categories: material,
logical, and psychological. Each fallacy is discussed as a self-contained unit,
ending with an example which is analyzed and commented upon by the
author.

Published 1959 SPECTRUM Papert'^-rk 218 pages $1.95

LOGIC
by WESLEY C. SALMON, Brow ^ -f

This is a brief introductory book in '^2/2Q/on... ^

tation, it is written from the stan. 1322 o
nature, scope, and limitations of logic in
argument forms.

Published 1962 114 pages

PRENTICE-HALL, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey