| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Debating for boys
Author: Foster, William Horton
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Debating for boys" ***
DEBATING FOR BOYS
DEBATING FOR BOYS
BY
WILLIAM HORTON FOSTER
New York
STURGIS & WALTON
COMPANY
1915
_All rights reserved_
Copyright, 1913
BY THE PERRY MASON COMPANY
Copyright, 1913, 1914
BY THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
Copyright, 1915
BY STURGIS & WALTON COMPANY
Set up and electrotyped. Published, August, 1915
PREFACE
The judge, in awful ermine, on the bench; the jury, glowering, in its
box; the prisoner, THE BOOK, in the dock: enter in humility, the attorney
for the defense, THE PREFACE.
“What excuse for existence has the prisoner?” thunders the judge in tones
that make the culprit’s leaves shake.
In cringing deference, the attorney for the defense falters, “None, your
lordship, none, but....”
Such is the scene that many prefaces suggest. This preface, however, is
different—and quite shameless. It says, merely, that the title “Debating
for Boys” carries its own statement of its reason for being. Boys
like to debate; debating will do them good. This volume is a simple,
unpretentious manual designed to help boys to debate efficiently—to get
from the most manly of all sports, and a royal sport it is, all of the
pleasure and profit it has to offer. The book is designed, first of all,
as an aid to the boy himself—in home, club, school, church—and, also, as
an aid to the father, club director, teacher, clergyman, all, in fact,
who are his friends and advisers.
I wish to thank _The Youth’s Companion_ for its courteous permission to
reprint one chapter which originally appeared upon its Boys’ Page; _Boys’
Life_, the Boy Scouts’ magazine, for kind consent to the republication
of much matter which first saw the light of print in its columns; Mr.
Henry Smith Chapman for valuable material upon parliamentary law; and Mr.
Warren Dunham Foster for his general editorial direction of the book.
Acknowledgment is due Mr. Rollo L. Lyman of the University of Chicago,
and Mr. George P. Baker of Harvard, whose methods of teaching
argumentation have become standard.
W. H. F.
Boston, Massachusetts.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I WHY BOYS SHOULD DEBATE 3
II WHAT DEBATE REALLY IS 13
III WHAT TO DEBATE 19
IV GETTING READY 25
V TERMS AND ISSUES 30
VI CLASH OF ARGUMENTS 38
VII EVIDENCE 47
VIII THE BRIEF 56
IX REFUTATION 71
X DELIVERY 79
XI FINAL SUGGESTIONS 83
XII HOW THE FAIRFIELD BOYS ORGANIZED 88
XIII THEIR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE 101
XIV THE FORD HALL TOWN MEETING 116
XV SOURCES OF MATERIAL 134
APPENDIX
A. QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 141
B. HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE 153
C. CONSTITUTION OF THE BOYS’ DEBATING CLUB OF FAIRFIELD 156
D. TABLE OF PARLIAMENTARY RULES 160
E. RULES OF THE FORD TOWN MEETING 164
DEBATING FOR BOYS
CHAPTER I
WHY BOYS SHOULD DEBATE
For two reasons I am going to discuss with you the theories of debating.
In the first place, the debate of the boys’ club, of the school society,
or of the city lyceum, is the same in form and method as the debates in
legislature or Congress. Any lad who is trained to debate, who knows his
subject, who is logical and direct, who is frightened neither at his
own voice nor of his opponent’s ability, will later in life be able to
meet an opponent in the larger halls of the capital. He will find it no
different in Washington than it was in the village school—his audience
will be larger and his judges different but the rules governing his
thought and its expression will be the same.
In the second place, when he is effectively trained in debate, he is also
completely equipped for the more informal thought and discussion which
is his daily habit. When from his study and practice of debating, he
knows something of logic, something of the ordinary rules of evidence,
something of the organization of an argument, he will be impatient and
intolerant of weak and jointless talk, even in informal discussion. Every
one has overheard in crowds talk which has passed for argument but has
been as formless as a jelly-fish—merely talk. It began nowhere and ended
nowhere. So I propose to discuss debating because it will prepare you for
the highest responsibilities which may be placed upon you, while at the
same time it will equip you for the everyday duties of active boyhood and
later manhood.
=Purpose of Debating.=—Remember then that debate is simply the spoken
argument presented formally; what is its purpose?
The answer is, not to beat the other side, but to get at the facts.
Now in some games, although of course it is of prime importance that the
contest be manly and the sport clean, there is a distinct value in the
strife itself and victory is sought for its own sake; the element of
right or wrong does not enter into the question at all. There is no right
or wrong to it. But in debate the purpose is not to win at any cost;
not to confuse the opponent, nor to trick him, but to win by absolute
strength of argument—to present such argument as will show the facts. In
debates the truth is wanted—not necessarily the decision, the victory.
For the purpose and object of debate is to determine upon some course of
action, to arrive at some decision; it is a poor sort of victory which
secures a decision at the expense of facts.
For example, suppose that you are a Boy Scout and that your patrol has
decided upon a hike to Mt. Rainier. The first question to discuss and
settle will be the best route to take. Jack Prentice may know the way
absolutely, but may not be nearly so fluent a talker as Frank Gordon, who
with very little knowledge of the proposed hike, could easily silence
poor Jack in the discussion.
What will be the effect of Frank’s victory, if he gains it? If Jack
is made to look ridiculous in discussion, if he loses his presence of
mind and so stammers over his statements that his fellow Scouts lose
patience and take Frank’s more fluent speech for fact and adopt his
proposed route, what will it all avail _if they take the wrong road_?
Will it not be a hollow victory in the end? And will his victory add to
Frank’s reputation, although his fellows may be very willing to admit
his cleverness? Will not that very cleverness make them all the more
unwilling to trust his future arguments, when they remember this failure?
On the other hand what about Jack? Is our only feeling toward him one
of sympathy? No, he should have trained his powers, he should have
early “found himself” so that he would not fall an easy victim to mere
cleverness. In other words, Frank is responsible for the use he made of
his powers, and Jack is responsible for the use he did not make of his.
If the patrol got caught off the road on the hike, I imagine they would
blame both Frank and Jack about equally.
=Debate Must Lead to Action.=—Now you may not at first see the parallel
between a debate on the best route for a proposed hike and a general
debate on conservation, for example. Both, however, are really governed
by the same rules and their purpose and object is the same. In the
plans for your hike, you proposed to do something, to go somewhere;
if the question of conservation is up for discussion it is with some
definite end in view, not simply as an excuse for general talk about
it. The discussion which does not lead to a definite plan of action is
not truly argument. If after your audience, whether it is your patrol,
your debating club, or later your legislature, has listened to you,
it says “What a fine speech!” you have failed. The audience should be
convinced to the point of action. Demosthenes said to his rival, “When
the Athenians listen to you they say ‘What a fine speech!’ When they
hear me they say, ‘Let’s go fight against Philip.’” So any argument, and
debate, must convince the hearers that the facts are as claimed, that the
deductions based upon these facts are sound and that the course advised
is correct. Finally and supremely, it must lead somewhere; it must have
a definite plan to propose and must lead the hearers to follow that plan.
=Benefits to the Individual.=—If, then, the purpose of debate is to
get at the facts and to determine the proper action to be taken with
reference to those facts, what are the benefits of debate to the debater
himself? They are many and varied.
=Training in Self-Control.=—In the first place, there is the training
in self-control which comes to the debater. Sometimes one can face a
physical emergency with fortitude when he shrinks from a situation which
calls for no physical pluck at all. Only a few years ago a famous Harvard
football player who had been the mainstay of his team in many a scrimmage
actually fainted away when he first attempted to take part in a debate.
When he was revived he was so disgusted with himself that he insisted on
trying again, and he did, after a fashion, go through his part in the
debate. Mortified at his failure, he persisted in as strenuous a course
in his debating class as ever had been imposed upon him by his football
coach. He won, and became one of Harvard’s star debaters. You see, the
physical self-control he had acquired on the gridiron was not available
to him in debate; but it is the skill in debate which is now helping him
in after life—not necessarily his football prowess.
=Training to Meet Emergencies.=—You will learn how to meet emergencies if
you become skillful in debate. Most of us can frame a fair argument if
we can sit quietly down and think it out with no one to bother us. But to
be able to control and command your resources so that they are ready for
quick action—that is a different ability—an ability that work in debating
will give you. If Jack has studied out his question he may be able to
give a very strong argument for it. But suppose Frank is there to ask
Jack questions or to suggest measures contrary to those he is advocating,
Jack is likely to lose in his argument unless he has so prepared himself
that Frank’s counter arguments have already been considered and provided
for. You will see that it is not enough to have arguments—you must have
them ready for use. It is a good deal like a camping equipment; it will
not aid you in the woods if it is packed away at home. This preparedness,
as far as argument is concerned, debating will teach you.
=Knowing—Not Doing.=—You know education is a process of preparing a man
to get the most out of himself and the most out of life. In many cases,
however, a boy _knows_ a great deal but can _do_ but very little. I have
known boys who could tell you all about the various methods of signaling
since Gideon trained his troop of warriors; yet, if you should ask these
boys, they couldn’t actually send the simplest message. They know, but
they can not do. Now the training in meeting emergencies which debating
gives a boy, lays the emphasis on quick decision, but above all on quick
decision that means action.
This training in self-control which practice in debating gives is
invaluable in after life. When the boy, for instance, is after a job, if
he has self-control he will be able to face his possible employer with
courage and to put up the front he is entitled to show. The timid boy,
however, will probably be unable to present his claims in a fashion that
shows their merit. Many other such cases will occur to any of you.
=Debating Forms Habits of Correct Speech.=—Next to its value in training
for self-control, practice in debating is valuable in the formation of
correct habits of speech. I do not mean the “fine writing” we recognize
so easily, which is sometimes beautiful but more often only funny. I mean
that direct English which aims to say certain things in the simplest
fashion and in the fewest words. Never to use a long word when a short
one will express the exact meaning, never to use a foreign word or a word
of foreign derivation when a plain Saxon word will do—a few such rules
as these will soon form a clear clean style, and no drill equals the
debate for the recognition of this style or its opposite, huge bombastic
statement. Haven’t you noticed how much worse a poor sentence sounds
than it looks? It is like comparing cannon balls with toy balloons—they
may look about the same size and may have the same general appearance
but to use them—well, I would rather juggle with toy balloons than with
cannon balls but the cannon balls would surely be the more reliable in an
argument; which do you think would carry the most weight?
You surely recognize a clear exact style when you hear it, and you
surely recognize slovenly careless speech when you hear it. Now you
can’t in debate have a clean clear style if you haven’t a clean cut
incisive argument—if you haven’t thought your subject through. And on
the contrary, your very work thinking your argument out will strengthen
your style and simplify your speech. Matters so ordinary as grammar and
pronunciation will unconsciously correct themselves when you hear your
own voice either gracing or disgracing your thought. Your vocabulary
will be enlarged, your diction clarified, and, on the physical side,
your articulation will be clearer and more distinct; you will learn to
stand squarely on both feet and not wander aimlessly about or sway as if
blown upon by contending breezes. You see, if you think a moment, that
every one of these things, so important to you whether as boy or man, is
drilled into you by practice in debate.
=Debating Means Constructive Thinking.=—In the next place, not only is
practice in debate invaluable in acquiring self-control and correct
habits of speech, but also it teaches you to organize your own powers;
it drills you in constructive thinking. In much of your school work, you
learn and recite the words of others—either of teachers or of textbook
writers. But if a subject for debate is proposed, you must think it out
yourself. For example, if some such question is proposed for your debate
as: “Is the conservation of the timber supply of the United States wise?”
you at once must by your own independent thinking prepare your argument.
Your teacher or other friends will aid you but you must work it out
yourself. You will first ask yourself what you mean and what is meant
generally by “conservation”; you will then ask where and how much the
same policy has been tried in other countries, why it should be tried
here and what results may be reasonably expected to follow the policy
here. You catalogue the reasons for and against the proposed policy and
weigh the moral questions involved, if any. You limit the question within
its proper bounds—in short you build up the structure of your argument
much as you would build a signal tower. You see that your foundations are
properly laid and that every upright and brace is properly placed and
jointed.
=Debaters Can Detect False Reasoning.=—Then when you have found yourself,
when you have acquired mastery of yourself, of your manner and of your
argument, practice in debating has an additional value still greater.
You will learn to recognize sound reasoning wherever you hear it and
will detect the false with equal ease. Without conscious effort on your
part, you will apply to the casual argument as you meet it, to the
public address, to the written article, to the newspaper editorial,
those standards by which you have built up your own argument. It will be
difficult for you to overlook inconsistency and false reasoning, for your
mind will have become accustomed to exact and clear thinking—your habits
of mind will have become standardized, as the factory expert would say.
CHAPTER II
WHAT DEBATE REALLY IS
I have failed in my argument so far unless I have accomplished two
things. First, and most important, I must have convinced you that I am
right as far as I have gone. Second, to have my argument really worth
while, I must have done more—I must have made you want to debate.
For an argument is only half an argument unless it brings you to the
point of doing. In this particular it differs from many other kinds of
speaking—contention for example.
In contention, the contender has very little hope as a rule of changing
his adversary’s mind. He is not arguing; he is simply sticking up for
his point. How much of what passes for argument belongs to this class
of effort! You hear it in the street every day, and on the baseball
diamond—did you ever hear the discussion over a disputed decision by the
umpire? Did you ever hear any _argument_ there? Did Captain Jack, or
Captain Frank, or Captain Chance, or Captain McGraw, ever really think he
could convince any jury, either of players, umpires or spectators, that
he was really right?
=Argument Differs Also From Persuasion.=—There are other forms of mental
effort expressed in spoken word, perfectly legitimate in themselves,
which are not arguments, although generally classed as such. There is a
difference between argument and persuasion.
Can you remember when you were trying to get your friend Bob or perhaps
your whole crowd to follow your suggestion? How you coaxed and urged
and teased. Of course that was many years ago but your argument (!) ran
something like this, didn’t it?
“Oh, I say, Bob, come on down to the creek.”
“Let’s go in swimming!”
“Oh, yes!”
“Let’s!”
“Say, it’s just fun!”
“Oh, never mind getting in that kindling, you can do it after we get
back—sure you can! You’ll have plenty of time, and besides your mother
won’t care very much.”
“Oh, come on!”
“Don’t be a fraid cat!”
“You are a regular sissy! You dassn’t go—you have to stay close home! I
tell you, I just do as I please—my ma lets me do just as I want to. She
knows I would, anyway.”
“Oh, come on, Bob, be a good fellow!”
And so it would run on—not a particle of argument, nothing but appeal to
the emotions, and those not of the loftiest kind.
But is that scene too boyish for you to remember? How about that time
only a little while ago when you were not urging Bob to go down to the
“old swimming hole,” but to a place not quite so harmless as that, the
place where the creek backed up into a pond, muddy and actually shallow
it must be confessed, but none the less better than any marble bath of
emperor or king. Bob didn’t want to play pool with you in that pool-room
your father said was no place for a boy, but you teased him into going.
Your sneers at his desire to keep himself clean and sweet and “mind his
mother” maybe were not quite so obvious as those earlier boyish effusions
but they were none the less appeals to the weaker instincts.
And can you remember that hot day in July away back, when you were only
a youngster you know? How you wanted the worst way to go fishing but Bob
wanted to lie on the ground under the tree and read _Campmates_? How it
just seemed to you as though you simply must go fishing, and yet how
equally determined you were that you would not go alone but that Bob
must go too, book or no book? You can remember how you teased and coaxed
and urged, and finally how you _bribed_ him by offering to give him that
trade on the book he had wanted so long. You carried your point, but was
it argument?
Can’t you remember, too, how you capped your final urgings of Bob only a
few days ago by offering to introduce him to your cousin Nellie who had
come from Fairfield to visit you? You knew Bob admired her greatly and
you imagined that if you couldn’t get Bob to agree to your plan by your
urging and coaxing, you could easily win him over, if you could promise
him the coveted introduction.
No, lad, these scenes are not too boyish. They frame a point for you. The
truth is that, so far as the fact of conviction or persuasion in argument
is concerned, the bribe of the book and of the introduction to Nellie is
on the same plane in the argument as the logic of the offer of money to
the legislator to influence his mind in the debate wherein he engages.
Argument, therefore, is addressed in the first instance to reason alone;
it may or may not be combined with persuasion but the two are absolutely
different. The perfect argument will be so absolutely convincing, its
logic will be so unanswerable that its hearers will be compelled by its
very force to follow its conclusions since they can not escape them.
=Blackhawk’s Appeal.=—Generally, however, to the reasoning of the
argument must be added the persuasion of the appeal to the instincts of
love, duty, patriotism and the like. Now when this appeal is used or
is the essential part of the so-called argument it is outside of true
debate; it falls into a class that in some cases is higher than debate
but nevertheless distinct. So when in our earlier history Blackhawk,
as we say, debated the cause of his Sacs and Foxes, he did not really
argue their case with cold calm reason but appealed to the sentiment of
his hearers, to their sense of patriotism. Pontiac and Osceola never
presented a series of logical reasons why their Indian brothers should
be treated differently, but they did, as did other notable chieftains,
often in passionate oratory, appeal to those emotions which dwell not in
reason but in sentiment. If the questions between the red man and the
white man were debated, reason would say that the red man had failed
to use his heritage to the best advantage. It would argue that he had
kept millions of acres of land in an uncultivated state so that the game
which formed his meat supply could roam undisturbed over hills and plains
which could support in comfort millions of people. It would insist that
a God of bounty and love could never have intended that His gifts should
be so wasted, and His providence so abused. It would show how the very
virtues—if virtues they were—called for by a savage life, hardness,
insensibility to pain and suffering, fierceness, made men more brutal and
savage in their intercourse among themselves. From all these arguments
and from others like them, reason would say that the red man had not
justified his ownership of the soil and that he must yield its control to
the white.
The appeal of the Indian orator, on the other hand, would depict a sylvan
scene of hunting lodge or trapper’s camp. He would picture the primæval
red man, erect, haughty, stern, proud, and possessed of all those virtues
found so plentifully in Cooper’s novels—and so seldom anywhere else. He
would show the simple qualities of the savage brain and the nobler traits
which dwell among uncivilized peoples. He could construct a passionately
moving appeal to the white man to allow this unlettered savage, his red
brother, to remain upon the lands over which his fathers had hunted and
where his tribal lodges had been pitched since “grass grew and water
ran.” The first appeal would be an argument addressed to the hearer’s
logical powers; the second would appeal to the hearer’s sentiment and
emotion.
It must be remembered that often the most awful results follow some forms
of persuasion, some appeals which do not aim at the higher motives but to
passion and prejudice. The hateful story of many a mob shows the effect
of persuasion addressed to the lowest instead of the higher instincts and
emotions, but the persuasion had nothing to do with argument.
CHAPTER III
WHAT TO DEBATE
In the first place remember that you must debate something which is
debatable, something which can be proved. Too many times a question is
framed which could never in the reason of things be decided. For example,
to refer to the Indian again, a question might be stated, “Resolved: that
the treatment of the Indian by the white man has been unjust,” which
could be decided after a reasonable discussion. The arguments, though
general, would be of such a character that a more or less exact weighing
could be had and a verdict taken. But if with the same kindly feeling for
the oppressed and hatred of oppression, a question should be selected,
“Resolved: that the Indian has suffered greater wrongs from the American
government than has the negro,” you see, don’t you, how you could never
arrive at a verdict? One side could only cite instance after instance
where the Indian has suffered, and the other side could retaliate by
exactly the same number of cases of wrongs the negro has suffered, and
the scale would be even. Really a correct verdict could never be reached,
for to be sure and certain, every wrong done to each race would have to
be catalogued and weighed, and only omniscience could hope successfully
to accomplish that result.
Take another illustration: “Resolved: that the works of nature are more
beautiful than the works of art.” To the rainbow of the affirmative
could be contrasted the electric fountain of the negative; to the Rock
of Gibraltar would be offered Saint-Gaudens’ statue of Lincoln, and
so on indefinitely. On the other hand you may so state your question
that although the argument on both sides may consist largely of such a
cataloguing of facts, those facts may so differ in their relations to the
general question that one set will clearly outweigh the other. If you
should suggest as a question, for example, “Resolved: that Amundson is
a greater explorer than Peary,” I should say that the question is not a
good one because of the suggestions I have just made; the debaters would
simply balance the hardships of the Antarctic explorer against the trials
of the Arctic traveler.
Now if the question is changed so that it would read, “Resolved: that
the explorations of Amundson are more valuable to the world than those
of Peary,” I should still say the question is bad, for the value of
one ice field will simply be exchanged for that of another. But if the
name of Stanley were to be substituted in the latter question for that
of Amundson, so that the question would constitute a comparison of the
respective values of arctic and equatorial exploration, it would open up
a clear field for discussion. Whether the products of Africa are more
valuable to the world than those of Greenland, whether the negroes mean
more to the world than the Esquimaux, whether the scientific results are
more valuable in the one case than in the other,—these propositions and
others like them are open to argument and decision.
So, to use another illustration, if the question is, “Resolved: that
a union of England and America would be beneficial to the world’s
progress,” there is room for such clear and explicit reasoning on both
sides that the arguments would be reasons and not simply a catalogue of
unrelated facts.
=Subjects Should Be Properly Limited.=—Another rule valuable in the
selection of a subject is that it should be properly limited so that
too much is not attempted. This is really another way of stating the
proposition that the exact boundaries of the question should be properly
defined. For example, one might be greatly interested in the “Philippine
question” but that as so stated could not be debated. What is the
“Philippine question”? Has it to do with the broad proposition that
the Anglo-Saxon race in general and that composite branch of the race
residing in the United States in particular has had imposed upon it the
police duty commonly regarded as the “White Man’s Burden”? Or is the
question one of comparison between the respective values of life in the
temperate and in the tropic zones?
Some particular branch of the question must be selected and matter
outside of it rigorously put aside. If you should attempt to cover the
whole subject, you could not properly discuss it in a dozen evenings, and
if you should try to debate it in one evening without some restrictions,
there would be such hopeless confusion that clear argument would be
impossible.
Even if you get away from the general character of the subject implied
in a loose statement of the question, you must still define its limits
closely. For example, if your question reads, “Resolved: that the
treatment of the Philippines by the United States has been unjust,” it
sounds as if you had narrowed the question satisfactorily. You have taken
it out of the domain of world civics and brought it home into national
politics. But the question is still too indefinite. You may be talking
about the original conquest of the Islands from the Spaniards, one of
your partners in debate about the treatment of the Islanders themselves
in the later wars, one of your opponents be speaking of the attitude
of the United States toward the Islands in business and everyday life,
and another of your opponents, of the alleged injustice on the part of
the United States in not granting them independence. Any one of these
interpretations would afford ample occupation for a whole evening, but
you see that unless the question is properly restricted you would all be
lost in hopeless confusion.
To take another illustration: We are all discussing the immigration
question, these days. But one reason why there is so much loose thinking
about immigration is that we are talking about different immigrants and
from different angles and points of view. For instance, if we decide
that immigration should be restricted, to what immigration do we refer?
All immigration? Immigrants from southern Europe, from Asia, or from the
Anglo-Saxon or Germanic nations? Or shall the restriction be governed by
a literacy test? If so, what standard of literacy shall be established?
Will the Greeks, such as those who shine our shoes and run our fruit
stands, be shut out because they can not read the thrilling story of “The
Cat saw the Rat” in the English primer, even though they read and enjoy
Homer and Plato in the original? If you decide that the Homer test of
literacy shall be applied, you must still connect that kind of culture
with civic duties in some way before you have a question which properly
belongs to the immigration problem. Otherwise you may wander fruitlessly
among all those tangled mazes of classical learning which have afforded
so many opportunities for talk and so little for debate.
Another illustration of the necessity of proper limitation of your
subject: In considering the desirability of certain kinds of immigration,
you may be discussing points which go only to the question of the
admission of the foreigner to this country, and your opponent may be
discussing matters relating to the treatment of that same foreigner as
a worker in the factories or as a laborer on the big construction jobs
of the country. The first refers to _Federal_ restriction, the second to
the State’s industrial treatment of the foreigner after he gets here. One
member of the team, you see, would be talking about the government and
legislation in Washington; the other about the government and legislation
at Albany or Springfield or Topeka, as the case might be.
CHAPTER IV
GETTING READY
You have been challenged to debate by the Patrol from Readville or by the
Debating Society of Berkeley. What is the next step? You should meet your
opponents as early as possible and arrange the details with them.
Since the challenge set the question, that point is taken care of. The
settlement of terms and issues, which is so important that I shall
discuss it by itself in Chapter V, will provide for many things which
would otherwise bother you much in your actual debate. Your conference
with your friends the enemy will obviate so much haggling about shifting
the burden of proof and defining terms that the ground will be cleared
for real work when you actually get at your debate.
If your purpose is to get at the truth, not simply to win, you will of
course at this preliminary conference seek to find as much common ground
as possible. You want to equalize the contest. You have no desire to
equip one side with a keen sword and a splendid shield and the other with
a clumsy club. You will seek, therefore, so to formulate the point at
issue between you that it will be a comparatively equal task for each
side to find and present its evidence and its arguments.
Don’t try to trap the other side into some unfortunate position which
will prove its undoing. Note the difference: in the actual debate, be
merciless to your opponent’s _argument_, but before the debate and during
it, treat him frankly and generously. Trail down his argument, track it
to its lair, flay it, have no respect or mercy to it, but be sure you are
remorselessly pursuing the _contention_ and not the _contender_.
Don’t hold back information at this conference which may change the whole
plan agreed upon if you introduce it in the debate itself. In other words
be honest and be fair. You are under no obligation to tell the other
side how you propose to handle your case, how you propose to develop
your argument, how you expect to prove it, what you regard as essential
and what subordinate. You must be fair, however, as to what the question
really means.
You should be equally fair and frank with your colleagues. In the first
place be square with them in the division of the work. Take your full
share and do what you agree to do. Don’t leave things until the last
minute and then depend upon hasty cramming to make up the lack of real
work. Know a little something about all the case and all there is to
know about your part of it.
Arrange your time and place and then decide upon the order in which you
will speak. A very common procedure is:
First affirmative 7 minutes
First negative 7 minutes
Second affirmative 7 minutes
Second negative 7 minutes
Third affirmative 7 minutes
Third negative 7 minutes
First negative 5 minutes in rebuttal
First affirmative 5 minutes in rebuttal.
No, a seven minutes’ speech is not very long but longer bursts of
eloquence are likely to be tiresome. It is much better to have a short
snappy debate full of interest and prevented from giving weariness by the
constant change of speakers than to have ponderous proceedings. Moreover,
in the schedule given above, fifty-two minutes is consumed, and that’s
quite a while. Of course the number of contestants may vary and the time
allotted each may be varied also.
Who shall preside? Well, if you have a club of your own, your president
or in his absence, your vice-president, would naturally preside. If you
should desire to pay some person a compliment, someone else may be asked,
provided, of course, it was agreeable to the two officers who are by
the rules of society work, entitled to that honor. If you have no formal
organization, you can select anyone you choose. In doing so, you and your
opponents would select someone who is dignified yet kindly, one who will
not allow any “rough house” or boisterous conduct but who is respected by
and fond of boys and who is, of course, absolutely fair.
Of course you must select your judges, generally three. Do not think,
however, that it is an easy task to judge a debate. Choose no one as
a judge who may have a personal prejudice for or against one of the
speakers. If he is but indifferently or lazily honest, he is likely to
favor his friend. If he is conscientious, he may in his very effort to be
fair, and not lean toward his friend, lean the other way and really be
unfair to him.
Choose as a judge no one who is known to have a prejudice on the question
itself. The harassed judge must never forget that he is deciding on the
merits of the debate, not on the merits of the question. He must weigh
the arguments presented, paying no attention to other arguments, weighty
to him, but left behind in the armory by the warring debater.
Because this task is so onerous and, indeed, so valuable in its training,
it is an excellent plan to have members of your group—society, class or
patrol or whatever it may be—act as judges. The practice in so weighing
arguments and evidence will be invaluable to them when their time to
debate comes around. In formal contests, however, you will call upon
teachers, lawyers, ministers; men who are trained to think clearly and
definitely and whose decision will mean something as fairly standing for
the judgment of your community. For it is to this community judgment your
real debate in life must appeal, and you must learn as soon as possible
to aim at no less a tribunal.
So difficult is judging, that to the Appendix, beginning on page 153, I
have added a chapter designed to be helpful.
CHAPTER V
TERMS AND ISSUES
In getting ready, one of the most important steps is for you and
_your opponents_ to get together and talk over the question and agree
beforehand on just what it covers and what it does not cover. You wish
to avoid all confusion on these points, or at least you should wish to.
Some men—and boys—think it smart to leave the question uncertain and
indefinite so that—as they mistakenly suppose—they may increase their own
chances of success. They feel that if they can only have a wide enough
range in the discussion some of their arguments will probably hit the
point and win their case for them. Too many times, however, the point at
which they are aiming is the decision of the judges and not the logical
and irresistible culmination of the argument.
The difference is like that between shooting with a shot gun and a rifle.
In the first case if only your shot scatter enough you may bring down
your game. In the second case, if _your aim is true_, you are sure to
score a hit. The first case calls for a sense of general direction and
not much more; the second calls for precision, accuracy, and its result
should be inevitable.
=An Understanding With Your Opponents.=—By thus coming to an
understanding with your opponents you will avoid confusion; you will
reduce the proposition to its simplest terms, and you can narrow your
own argument to a few clearly defined channels. You will, however, do
much more than that: you will make the contest worth while by a manly
agreement which will avoid any attempt to obscure the real question. You
might be able so to becloud your opponents that you could possibly fool
them as to your real essential points and so prevent an adequate reply.
If you should succeed in so doing, although you might be able to “put it
over” on your opponents and the judges of the debate, you would not be
fair. Experienced judges, however, would probably detect your purpose and
penalize you for it.
Not only is this determination of the essence of a question absolutely
necessary in preparing for a debate; it prepares you for even more vital
work in later life. Remember what we have said all along, that the
real value of effective debating is its education for the unconscious
exercise in later life of the mental habits thus acquired. So when in
later life if you and those with whom you differ get together and talk
over the _terms_ of a question before you allow yourselves to debate
the _substance_ of that question, you will frequently find there is
no question left for discussion. As you define this and that term, you
will come nearer and nearer together. More times than not, you will find
that you have so much in common, that you have nothing between you for
disagreement. The question will always be simplified; many times it will
disappear altogether.
If, however, someone should urge that you may be losing some of the
educative value of debate by thus avoiding such subtleties and trickeries
as I have just been condemning, let me remind you again, that the real
value of agreement, whether in the debating club or in later and more
real life, is not in _just winning_ but in determining just _what should
be done_. Your purpose to arrive at a correct course of action will
be strengthened, not weakened, by clearing away the unnecessary and
non-essential points at the beginning.
Remember, moreover, that to harmonize differences is as good mental
training as to accentuate them; to eliminate them, as to crystallize
them. To think constructively is a vastly more valuable mental habit
than to think negatively. When you and your opponents think alike,
whether in debate or real life, when you agree upon a certain part of
the question between you, you have cleared the way for at least that
much of constructive thought. Finally, such agreement is necessary to
coöperation, and coöperation is absolutely essential to any action
whether it is a trip to Mount Washington, a campaign against Philip of
Macedon, or the carrying out of a certain policy toward the Philippines.
We must work together or not at all. Some may pull at the load, some may
push, but the load must go in one direction. To get the load anywhere
you must have a common purpose; this simplification of the question will
help you to find it. In debate, after the question has been defined and
limited, you must present your arguments so clearly and conclusively that
your opponent as well as your judges will agree that your course is wise
and will be ready to follow the line of action that your conclusion calls
for. Otherwise your opponents, if they be equally honest and efficient,
in mind and method, have the right to demand the same surrender from you.
So, as the first step in your debate, get together, bar out the matter
decided upon as outside of your debate, and settle the issues clearly.
By the way, that step is the first in a law suit; when the issues are
clearly defined, the actual trial takes very little time. A law suit is
just one form of debate, and your debate must have its issues settled
as clearly. In the Philippine question referred to on page 22 you would
select some one of the four possible subjects and you would state it
something like this, “Resolved: that the United States should grant the
Philippines immediate independence;” now your issue is stated.
=Don’t Try to Do It All Alone.=—Before you begin your own personal work
of preparation, you and your colleagues must meet and apportion the work
among yourselves. Do not think you must cover all the ground yourself,
unless of course, you are alone in the debate. No matter how many
associates you have, however, you must have a broad general view of the
whole subject but each one on your side must select some particular part
of the subject which he alone will present.
=Origin of the Question.=—After these preliminaries are thus arranged
and you start your own work, first analyze your question and find its
starting point, which in any argument lies in the real or alleged
existence of a human need. Certain evils are said to exist. The first
step is to prove or disprove the existence of these evils. If they are
shown to be facts, the next question and the first step in the argument
is to show that a certain remedy will remove the evils.
Let us assume that the general question of conservation is prominent in
the thought of your patrol, if you are a Scout, and you have decided
to discuss it in your debates. Your scout life has kept you so much
in the open and scoutcraft has so much to do with forestry, that the
whole subject is of interest to you. Besides you realize that it is a
question which really affects many public interests, and that its correct
solution means a great deal to the whole country. You will first decide
what branch of that subject you will consider. When you have decided to
consider the conservation of forests alone, for example, you have at once
removed a good deal which would otherwise have rendered your load heavy;
you need not consider water power or coal fields or minerals of any kind
and a host of such matters which under the general topic would have had
an equal claim for attention.
Now that you have limited your question to forests, you first inquire
what is really meant by conservation, why forests should be “conserved,”
why should they be protected? Is there an evil which this form of
conservation will remove? This is the starting point of your argument,
for unless some one is complaining, or ought to complain, there is no
need of discussing the matter at all. You will therefore first find out
if anyone is complaining of evils growing out of the government’s policy
towards its forests, or, if people are not complaining particularly,
will the policy now enforced be likely to produce conditions which will
work hardships and produce complaints? On the other hand, will these
results happen if the present policy of the government is not followed?
You see your argument must start somewhere and this starting point is
found in some need which should be remedied. This is a process very
similar to the work you accomplished when you were going over matters
with your opponents. But it goes more into detail and it is concerned
only with the question as it has finally been decided upon. It is equally
necessary, however, and you cannot be too careful at this point if you
would have the debate a thing of beautiful logic.
=Definition of Terms.=—After you have fixed and stated your starting
point, you next define all doubtful terms. In a sense you thus mark out
the channels for your debate, for your argument will flow steadily and
unhampered if in the beginning you clear away any débris of misunderstood
expressions or doubtful words. For example, if the form of your question
is, “Resolved: that the present policy of the United States government
toward forest conservation should be strengthened,” you would first
define forests, then conservation, then the policy of the United States
toward it, and finally what you mean by “strengthened.” Unless you define
“forests,” for example, you may talk and think of a white pine forest
in Idaho, your opponent may have in mind some cut over forests in Maine
and their reforestration, and your audience and judges have still other
tracts in mind. You may think it makes no difference what kind of forest
is meant, what particular tracts of timber are understood. If so, all
right; only say so in your definition. Make it clear just what you are
talking about, an Idaho or Maine or North Carolina forest or all forests
generally. Your definition of “conservation” will next follow, then your
definition of the policy of the government toward it. This will be found
by considering the actual laws governing forests and forest land and
their enforcement and interpretation by the officials of the government
administering those laws. Finally you will explain and define what you
mean by “strengthen.” You see all such terms clearly defined are a long
step ahead in your argument and, indeed, will often constitute the major
part of the argument.
CHAPTER VI
CLASH OF ARGUMENTS
After you have determined your starting point and defined your terms,
the next step—and an important one—is technically termed “the clash of
arguments.” This phrase means a careful balancing over against each other
of the leading arguments on both sides of the question.
Be sure you have both sides. It is even more important to know the strong
sides of your opponent’s case and to be prepared to meet them than to
know your own. It was frequently remarked of Lincoln in debate that he
summed up his opponent’s case better than the opponent himself did.
Lincoln could not have done so, had he not studied every side of his
case. He put the arguments opposed to his own in their strongest possible
light and prepared an exact answer. So you must do in your debate.
On your question, “Resolved: that the policy of the United States
government toward conservation of forests should be strengthened,” the
clash of arguments would follow some such form as this:
AFFIRMATIVE CONTENTIONS: NEGATIVE CONTENTIONS:
1. _Conservation is necessary_: 1. _Conservation is unnecessary_:
A. Without it the great lumber A. By an unlimited settlement
dealers would obtain upon and barter in timber
control of the timber of tracts, enterprise is
the country and thus encouraged, individuals and
increase the price of communities are financially
timber, and dictate as to benefited.
its use.
B. To secure an adequate B. Actual rainfall has been
rainfall, as a source of largely superseded by
supply for rivers, and for irrigation and other water
its effect on vegetation. control. The relation of
vegetation to rainfall is
uncertain anyway.
C. To insure an adequate C. Lumber may be imported
supply of lumber, without when there is lack in
wasting the growth of this country; the use
timber. of concrete, iron and
the like will supersede
it ultimately anyway.
2. _The present policy of 2. _The present policy of
conservation is insufficient conservation needs no
because_: additional strength because_:
A. The present penalties are A. Its present penalties are
not severe enough to secure oppressive and work
proper respect and hardships upon innocent
obedience. persons.
B. The territory now covered B. So much land is now
by the law is not withdrawn from settlement
sufficient to determine under these laws that
whether it worthy citizens are
should be generally unable to secure
applied. homesteads, and land is
more valuable to the United
States when farmed than
when devoted to timber.
C. The present officials C. These officials are now
charged with the often intolerant and
enforcement of the law have overbearing. To increase
insufficient funds and their authority would
authority and in some cases intensify this and tend
are negligent or corrupt or toward the creation of a
both. permanent official class,
which is opposed to the
spirit of democracy.
For another illustration, let us analyze the question popularly known
as the recall of judicial decisions. We will assume that in the first
place when your society and that rival society from Greenburg, after the
debate was agreed upon, decided to discuss the recall, you got together
to determine the exact question. You decided that you would not discuss
the recall generally, that you did not care to go into the question of
the wisdom of retiring legislators or executive officers before their
term had expired. You were simply interested in the question as far as it
affected judges. Very well.
When you discussed the matter further you found you were all unwilling
to advocate any system which might seem to encourage an attack on
the independence of the judiciary and so you agreed that the question
should concern not the recall of judges but only the recall of judicial
decisions. You felt that while the argument for and against the recall of
judges generally would largely center about the necessity of preserving
the independence of the judge, in the matter of submitting only his
decisions to popular verdict, other considerations could be urged with
equal effectiveness. You further felt that all his decisions should
not thus be subjected to the people’s vote, but only those tending to
construe the constitution, the fundamental law of the land. In this
preliminary meeting you therefore narrowed the question down to a form
something like this: “Resolved: that the decision of any judge affecting
the constitutionality of any civil statute may be reversed by vote of
the electors of the district affected by the statute.” Your clash of
arguments on this question might read as follows:
AFFIRMATIVE CONTENTIONS: NEGATIVE CONTENTIONS:
_It is wise because_ _It is unwise because_
1. The Constitution is the 1. The Constitution itself
expression of the people’s prescribes a method for
will and, in the last resort, its interpretation.
only the people should decide
what that will is or is not.
2. Only the collective wisdom 2. Only a man specially
of the people as a whole trained is competent to
is competent to judge of such judge of such fundamental
fundamentals as principles.
constitutional law.
3. It will cause the average 3. Because the average citizen
citizen to pay greater is not educated for public
attention to the important affairs, it would encourage
questions of public concern, control by the bosses, and
and thereby increase the other manifestations of
dignity of citizenship. demagogy.
4. To know that his action is 4. It will tend to lessen the
likely to be reviewed by the independence of the average
public in an authoritative judge—he will listen to
way, will increase the care every breath of public
and attention the average opinion and hence be unable
judge will give such to form an unbiased judgment
questions. based only on the law of the
case.
5. The method could be easily 5. It burdens the voters
applied, e.g., by the unnecessarily and imposes an
executive submitting the unwarranted expense upon the
question to vote upon a community.
petition signed largely
enough to show general
intent.
6. It presents an orderly 6. It would tend to substitute
method of correcting popular prejudice and clamor
interpretations of the for calm, dispassionate
organic law which are hostile reasoning.
to the moral sense of the
people, and would afford an
outlet for feeling which
might otherwise produce
revolution or civil war;
e.g.: The war between the
states, ’60-65, was largely
the result of the Dred Scott
decision. If a peaceful method
of recalling that decision had
been provided, the civil war
might have been prevented.
7. The public could inform 7. It would be impossible
itself of the facts in each properly to acquaint the
case through the press and public with the facts and
the forums for public arguments necessary to a
discussion now so common. proper understanding of each
case because of the partisan
nature of the public press.
8. While not interfering with 8. Judges are almost invariably
the tenure of office of the taken from the legal
judge, it would increase the profession, a body of men who
respect in which that office by special and constant study
is held, because the very and practice are peculiarly
study of such questions would fitted for the exercise of
convince the public of the this judicial function. It
delicate and arduous nature should be left to lawyers.
of his work.
=Exclusion of Unessential Matter.=—I do not pretend to have stated all
the arguments pro and con on the question before you. I have illustrated
simply to you a useful method of arranging them in your own preparation.
As you balance them one against the other, you will see that some
are important and vitally affect the main question, while others are
comparatively unimportant and may be admitted as true or dismissed as
trivial or entirely unrelated.
Almost every subject will suggest many arguments which must be admitted.
Don’t waste your time in seeking to refute that which you can’t refute
and which is not vital to your argument anyway. Your opponent will have
a decided advantage over you when he shows the weakness of your attempt,
and your main argument will surely suffer. A careful analysis will many
times prevent just that trouble and on the other hand your opponent
may carefully prepare himself to prove some proposition which you are
perfectly willing to admit if you have anticipated his position and are
prepared to show that it does not affect your main case.
=The Vital Issues.=—All these various steps in analysis are essential
to good debating and if you have taken each step, you have now come to
the last—the statement of the special issues. You have seen where the
question originated, you have defined its terms, you have put yourself
in the place of the other man and know about what he will say, you have
excluded from the argument all non-essential matter, and there should
now be left the real heart of the question, the actual proposition you
are to debate. You can be very sure all this preliminary work is most
important—if you have well considered all these steps, you have your
debate half won.
In your introductory statement, you will give enough of your analysis
to show why you present the points you select as essential. You need
not state every step; in fact, in your formal speech, you should not
let the machinery be too much in evidence, but in your preliminary work
you cannot safely omit one step. So far everything has been preliminary
to the argument itself, but you are now ready to build up your actual
constructive argument.
In your presentation of your side of the conservation question, for
instance, you will mass your facts and arguments about the few really
essential points which are left for debate. You will not simply talk
about the propositions. You will remember that each point must be proved.
You will get not simply the opinions of someone else upon the question;
you will get facts. For instance, in the question of the ownership of
timber tracts, a part of the conservation problem, it will not be enough
to cite what some one thinks about it, but get the actual number of acres
owned by corporations. Is that enough? No, show the facts as to the
relation of these corporations to one another, or the fact that there is
no such relationship, as bearing on the fact of an ownership of these
lands by one group. Not opinions, not theories, but _facts_ are what win
debates. After you have established your facts, then show how your facts
prove your case.
=Don’t Prove What Everybody Knows.=—When you are considering the
arrangement and proof, do not waste your time on proof of those facts
which are either self-evident or taken for granted. For example, in
your discussion of conservation you can take it as self-evident that the
policy of the United States government is to aid the people of the United
States. You can also take it for granted that the citizens of the United
States are moved by love of country and love of home. No doubt you could
indulge in some fine writing or fine speaking on these questions, but it
is entirely unnecessary to do so. So you need not take time to prove that
the government is not deliberately concocting a scheme to injure some
of its citizens, nor need you stop to prove that the individual settler
loves his forest home if “preëmpting” in good faith and that he should be
aided. The mere statement of these two facts proves them.
CHAPTER VII
EVIDENCE
After you have marshaled the facts you wish to prove, you must consider
the classes of evidence by which you wish to prove them.
In the first place there is the direct statement of the facts by
witnesses, or the opinions of those witnesses who are qualified to speak
as experts. Then there is circumstantial evidence, which consists of
inferences fairly drawn from facts; in other words reasoning about facts.
Thus if you wish to prove that cutting the forest off the northern part
of the lower peninsula of Michigan has lessened the rainfall in that
State, you could present three classes of testimony. You could bring
forward an old resident who had known Michigan when it was wooded and
when it was stripped of its timber; if from his own personal observation
he could testify that as the timber was cut off the rainfall had
diminished, that would be direct evidence of that fact. If you presented
the statements of a scientist who would testify that when lands were
stripped of their trees, there was less rainfall, his opinions would be
entitled to consideration as proof of the facts just in the proportion
that his observation and experience had been extended and at the same
time exact.
=Circumstantial Evidence.=—If the cutting of the forests in Minnesota
near the head waters of the Mississippi was under discussion, you might
present the testimony of a man who lived on the banks of that river
in Iowa, who had never seen Minnesota, but who could testify that the
volume of water in the river had decreased from year to year in certain
proportion. His testimony would be valuable as tending to establish
your position, if you could also show that the cutting of the timber in
Minnesota had proceeded in the same ratio as the decrease in the river’s
volume. It would then be a fair inference that the two facts were so
connected that one tended to prove the other.
The line, however, between direct and circumstantial evidence is very
faint—one imperceptibly glides into the other. Indeed some experts insist
that there is no such thing as direct evidence. They urge that all proof
consists of deductions which may be so closely related to the fact to be
established that a mere statement conclusively shows the causal relation.
On the other hand this relation can frequently be shown only by the most
delicate fitting together of all the links of circumstance. For example,
suppose the testimony of A is that he saw B point a gun at C, that the
gun was fired, that immediately C fell dead. His testimony would be,
therefore, that B shot C and you, if you were on the jury, would perhaps
feel justified in finding B guilty of murder—there would seem to be no
doubt about it. But after all, his testimony is not direct evidence—even
as simple and apparently as conclusive a statement as his might be
explained away. Suppose, for example, an autopsy showed that C had heart
disease and fell dead from that cause, and that the bullet penetrated
C’s arm only. What to the observer would seem like irrefutable proof
would be dissipated in a moment; it would be shown to be an unwarrantable
deduction from certain circumstances.
Remember, however, that the value of evidence is in this ratio: that
direct evidence of a witness who knows of his own knowledge and
observation in the particular case is more to be trusted than expert
evidence based on general observation, and that both are worth more than
that evidence which is the result of deduction and inference.
=Qualifications of Witnesses.=—In weighing the value of the testimony
offered to prove your facts—testimony is those statements of the witness
which make up his evidence—you must ask him certain questions. If he were
a witness in a law suit, the lawyers would bring out the points you must
determine by four questions. Following their example, you will first ask
“Is he honest or prejudiced?” In the conservation question considered,
you would ask whether he was the agent of a lumber company whose
statements would naturally be influenced by his selfish interest, or a
homesteader who, since his only use for land was for farming purposes,
would likely be as prejudiced the other way, or was he a banker or
merchant who served both classes equally, whose interest lay equally with
each party to the controversy?
You will next ask if his testimony is consistent with known facts. If he
testified that the absence of trees had nothing to do with rainfall and
had cited as proof of that alleged fact that there was a heavy rainfall
in Sahara where there were no trees, you could at once dismiss him as an
impossible witness because his statements as to Sahara were inconsistent
with the known facts.
You should then inquire under what circumstances were the statements
made: were they forced from him, were his relations such that he was a
voluntary and willing witness endeavoring to assist investigation and
find out the facts? If so, his testimony is probably valuable and worthy
of credence.
Then in the last place, if the statements are made as those of an expert,
the value of his testimony is in the exact ratio of his experience in the
particular field discussed. Here is the opportunity for a very common
error in argument. Frank in debating might have urged the opinion of
Professor A or Doctor B, and Jack in his reply urged confidently the
opinions of Judge C or General D as disposing of the evidence of Frank’s
witnesses. But they would simply offset one opinion with another unless
Jack could show that the judge and the general knew more about the
subject matter than the professor and the doctor. Character or standing
or position would avail nothing. In discussing conservation, for example,
the opinion of the most eminent professor in a theological school or
the greatest expert in _running electric cars_ would not be received in
questions of soil moisture or timber culture. It is not the standing of
the man generally; it is his knowledge of the subject discussed, which
makes his opinions acceptable as evidence. The evidence of a farmer or
hunter or trapper, although unable to read or write, might outweigh that
of the so-called expert.
=Generalizations.=—Next, in weighing circumstantial evidence, you will
observe that there are three common forms in which it appears. There is
first the generalization—very frequently the shape an expert’s opinion
takes. If he says that timber tracts are worth so many dollars an acre
as timber and so many dollars an acre as farms, his opinion is valuable
or not depending upon what the basis of his judgment is. If it develops
that he has observed many hundreds of such tracts of land, and that these
different tracts lay in many different places, you safely conclude that
his testimony, although a generalization, is sound because it is based
upon wide observation. If he has inspected but very few such tracts, you
conclude that his generalization is unsound, and worthless in helping you
prove the facts.
Do not hesitate to apply the probe to the qualifications of your
opponent’s expert, but be equally sure you establish the right of your
own witness to speak as such. For example, I remember a case where the
question involved was whether dehorning cattle was cruel within the
meaning of a statute forbidding cruelty to animals. One side brought
forward as expert professional witnesses certain surgeons eminent in
their profession. They testified that the horn of the cow contained just
under the hard bony shell a thin membranous structure, the extension of
the periosteum, which was very sensitive to pain. They testified that
they had known of cases where the shell of the horn had been removed
by accident and this membrane exposed, whereupon the animals had given
every manifestation of suffering excruciating pain. They argued from the
sensitiveness of the periosteum, through these few instances of accident,
to the deduction that dehorning cows, that is, sawing the horn off at
right angles to this membrane, must also be extremely painful and hence
cruel.
Opposed to these expert opinions of these surgeons based upon these few
cases, were the opinions of farmers who did not pretend to have the
scientific knowledge of the surgeons but who _had dehorned many cows_.
They testified that they had seen but slight evidences of pain, that the
animals had shown annoyance rather than distress, and had generally at
once gone to eating. The farmers had no titles or university degrees; the
experts had both, and supposedly in the very field of the debate—for that
was what it was, although in a court of law. The superior qualifications
of the plain unlettered farmers made their evidence of much greater value
as expert testimony than the deductions of the expert gentlemen from the
city.
Suppose you are discussing the adoption of a law prohibiting child labor.
You can quote with confidence the opinion of a social worker whose daily
duties keep her among operatives in mills. By her daily observation she
is in a position to know the evil effects of labor on immature bodies and
minds. So is the doctor or the teacher who sees these children daily. On
the other hand, the farmer, who, although honest in his deduction from
the results of his own labor, is not qualified because he himself worked
as a boy on a farm to speak understandingly of the effects of child labor
in mills or factories. He must confine his testimony to the effect of
child labor on the farm. Nor is the woman who knows nothing of labor on
farm or in factory qualified to speak at all, sentimentally aroused as
she may be, unless she can show observation of conditions herself or the
intelligent study of the well founded opinions of others.
=Cause and Effect.=—Then again there is in circumstantial evidence the
inference you draw from the relation of cause and effect. To use a very
familiar example: Suppose you pass a piece of ground where to your
knowledge there stood but a very few weeks before a heavy growth of
timber and observe that the trees are gone. If you see piles of freshly
sawed lumber, you can argue that the trees have been cut by man; if on
the other hand you see bent and torn trees, you can as surely reason
that a cyclone has visited that neighborhood. In each case you argue
from effect back to cause. This seems very simple, but is often a very
treacherous argument, for the alleged cause may be entirely inadequate or
may be so involved with other unrecognized causes that the deduction you
make is not warranted. You must examine the connection very carefully and
make sure that it is a CAUSAL relation and not a CASUAL one.
=Argument from Resemblance.=—Then there is the argument from resemblance,
which is simply another form of causal relationship. The argument, for
example, would run that conservation must surely be a good thing for
the United States because it was a good thing for New Zealand. That
conclusion is sound if the conditions in the two countries are the same,
but not otherwise; and it is upon this rock of difference in conditions
that arguments from resemblance so often split. Watch them. The same
rule may not apply to reforestration in Idaho as in Maine, for instance,
because conditions are dissimilar in many respects.
If you carefully study these forms of argument, and can estimate the
value of opinions and circumstantial evidence, you will not only be able
to build up a bomb proof argument of your own but you will be able to
detect fallacies in your opponent’s discussion. When you have mastered
the one branch of the case you are equipped to meet the other, for the
two are identical.
CHAPTER VIII
THE BRIEF
Suppose you have decided to debate one phase of the child labor problem,
and your question reads something like this: “Resolved: that no children
below the age of sixteen years should be allowed to work in factories.”
You see the question omits all discussion of child labor on the farm,
for instance, or in the street trades, or in any occupation except those
within doors under factory conditions. You will see, also, that before
you begin your actual analysis, you and your opponents must agree on what
you mean by “factories”—just what kind of manufacturing establishments
you have in mind. Otherwise you would be compelled to define them more
carefully in the question itself as you stated it.
For two reasons, you need the “brief” at this stage of your analysis. To
discuss the least important one first—you should inform your critical
friend or teacher as to just what your argument is. You must tell him
what are the bones of the skeleton, indicate their arrangement, and
show them to him without the beautiful covering of flesh and skin to be
given them by your charming diction and eloquence. The bones may not be
properly articulated at all—what, when clothed with the flesh and muscle
of your finished debate, may seem like a strong right arm adequately
equipped with biceps and all the rest of the blow delivering agencies
may not be properly joined at the shoulder and hence fail utterly, when
the test comes. So let your friendly critic—your specialist in this kind
of anatomy—see just what you have and how your various arguments hang
together.
But more important than to satisfy your critic is it carefully to
formulate your argument for your own benefit in thinking through your
proposition. As you think about your question, various considerations
will suggest themselves to you. Some you will recognize as arguments of
first rank—as indispensable to your case. Others will take a subordinate
place; still others serve as mere illustrations or arguments from
resemblance. Finally, however, your logical sequence will emerge, and you
will have a structure which will be logical throughout, with every part
fitting into every other part and pointing to an irresistible conclusion.
The name given to it well defines this formulation of your argument. It
is your argument but in _brief_. Every essential to your full argument
must be there. But take other warning from that name. In form don’t let
it be too brief. It is not enough to sprinkle hints over the page, hints
which may be fairly intelligible to you but be meaningless to another.
Remember that critic of yours who will look over your brief. Don’t make
it superficial or arrange your arguments in CASUAL instead of CAUSAL
sequence. Besides, you may find in practice that a word which to-day,
as you put it down on paper, hot from your thinking machine, means
everything to you and is the key word to a weighty argument, to-morrow or
next week will have lost its cunning and mean anything or nothing to you.
So not only for the benefit of your critic but especially for the
value of the exercise to yourself, reduce your argument to definite
formal organization. You will be paid in the long run. You may have
such a command of yourself and your thinking that you can carry all
this organization in your head without any brief—but most of us can’t.
Moreover, you will find that putting these arguments down in black and
white before you and then arranging them in causal logical sequence
will aid your thinking immensely. Thoughts which were dim and misty,
which were without form and substance, will fall into order and assume a
relation to the whole subject unseen before.
You will also find that by a simple system of symbols you will aid
this clarifying process. Propositions of equal dignity and rank will
be introduced by equivalent symbols and thus their relationship
automatically indicated. No, of course not—it is not _necessary_ to go
through this process. You may get through many debates without using any
of these aids—mechanical, if you please. But they are useful and have
been used by hundreds of debaters. Don’t you think it is a little foolish
to insist on swimming the river and demonstrating your power in that way,
when there is available a very comfortable bridge that hundreds have used
to their great convenience?
One other observation about the form of this “brief.” It should be so
arranged that, using the words “for” or “because” to introduce your
arguments, you will have a complete clause, with subject and predicate.
You will note that clauses occur in the brief given below. I have
connected them with their proper prepositions.
Subdivision I gives us: “Resolved: that no children below the age of
sixteen should be allowed to work in factories, for such labor is
unnecessary, for there is an ample supply of adult labor entirely
adequate to the demands of factory work.”
II. 1. A. gives us this sentence: “Resolved: that no children below the
age of sixteen should be allowed to work in factories, for such labor
injures the child’s health, for confinement within the building, under
the conditions of factory employment, checks the growth of the child and
promotes many diseases.” So II. 1. B. gives a second sentence like the
one last quoted except that its last portion differs as the subordinate
argument differs. That reads: “Resolved: that no children below the age
of sixteen should be allowed to work in factories, for such labor injures
the child’s health, for normal physical development demands out-of-doors
activity and freedom from the strain of factory work.”
Let me hint, too, that frequently after you have arranged what seems to
be a perfect logical argument, if from under each head you remove the
proof and connect the various sequences so that you form one sentence,
you will find that it is not logical and must be arranged all over again.
Speaking of proof—in your proof under each subdivision you must set down
the facts you expect to use to support your contentions. For example,
under II. 2. A. b. it would not be sufficient to say in your brief
“instances” or “illustrations” but:
“The report of Massachusetts Board of Education says: ‘The fact
that 41.3 per cent. of those employed in the textile industry
[speaking of a group out of school six years] receive less than
$8 a week accounts, in large part, for the idleness among boys
from eighteen to twenty-one years of age. There is no system of
training in the mill which fits those on low paid, unskilled
work, for the skilled work of the mill. Only 21 per cent. of
the textile workers who have been in the business six years
earn $10 or more, and a negligible percentage of those who work
in candy factories earn this amount. Only 21 per cent. of the
shoe workers earn less than $10 a week at six years out....
Monotonous work, especially that which requires great speed and
uses up nervous energy, should not be done for any long period
by young people under eighteen years of age, and the years up
to this time should be spent in physical and mental upbuilding
in preparation for the years of industrial life to come.’”
“A recent investigation of the Federal Bureau of Labor declares
of a certain number of children under sixteen years who left
school to work, that 90 per cent. entered industries in which
the wages of adults were $10 a week or less. A vocational
survey in New York exhibits in one group one hundred and one
boys between fourteen and sixteen years and an analysis of
the work they are doing. In only five cases was there any
opportunity for them to advance or improve; ninety-six were in
dead end occupations.”
“One woman, in Georgia, thirty-four years of age, but looking
fifty, told me she had gone to the mill when she was nine
years of age, and had been there ever since. She hated the
very thought of working in the mill and from all appearances
was ready for the scrap heap. She said when she was nine years
old nothing could have kept her out of the mill and for two or
three years after that she said she always listened for the
whistle to blow so that she could go to work and it never blew
too early for her. She said she wished she could get now where
she could never hear the whistle blow. She makes about ninety
cents per day when she works.”
“The boys [in Beverly, Massachusetts, where vocational
education is provided] come from the common schools. Reports
show that they are sons of clerks, shopkeepers, shoemakers,
tailors, chauffeurs, laborers, machinists and other workmen.
A boy’s earning capacity in Beverly is liberally estimated at
$6 a week, which capitalized on a 5 per cent. a year basis
represents a working capital value of $6,000 a year. The wage
earning capacity of boys, after two and a half or three years
of this public schooling, is $15 to $18 a week. Capitalized on
a 5 per cent. basis, this shows the marvelous increase from
$6,000 to $15,000 to $18,000 a year working capital.
“But the boy here is only on the threshold. Another set of
figures is interesting. Professor James M. Dodge, president of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in his notable
and elaborate formula, finds that the average untrained worker
in this country reaches his maximum of earning at twenty-three
years of age, the average then being $15 a week. The future
of the untrained beyond this becomes precarious. They are in
‘blind alleys’ and ‘no-thoroughfare’ work. Only 5 per cent.
rise above the level, 35 per cent. remain in employ, 20 per
cent. leave the work of their own accord, and 40 per cent. are
dismissed. Here at seventeen and a half years or eighteen,
the vocationally educated pupil of the Beverly school has a
capitalized value of $15,000 to $18,000.”
I will now illustrate what I have said by briefing the question before
us. Such a brief would read something like this:
Resolved: that no children below the age of sixteen should be
allowed to work in factories.
I. It is unnecessary, for
There is an ample supply of adult labor entirely adequate to
the demands of factory work.
II. Such labor injures the child, for
1. It is injurious to his health, for
A. Confinement within the building, under the conditions of
factory employment, checks the growth of the child and promotes
many diseases.
B. Normal physical development demands out-of-doors activity
and freedom from the strain of factory work.
2. It is injurious to his mind and education, for
A. The child needs the years just before sixteen for
a. general culture
b. specific vocational training.
B. The monotony and excessive strain of work in factories
tends to
a. impair the mental powers, particularly those of young
children
b. render them indifferent to subjects of general interest
and educational value.
3. It impairs the efficiency of the child, for
A. During the years when he should be absorbing knowledge which
would prepare him for life, he is prevented from doing so, and,
when of adult age, finds himself
a. without that suppleness of fingers which has been assumed
to be the warrant for employing him, and thus, too old and too
large longer to do child’s work; and
b. with neither education nor training to do the work of an
adult.
III. Such labor injures the State, for
1. Children who are forced to work under factory conditions are
undeveloped physically and mentally and
A. Do not make good citizens
B. Cannot afterward be the parents of good citizens
C. Are prematurely aged, and “scrapped” at an early age, thus
imposing a burden of support upon the State.
2. Adult laborers, with their dependents, whose welfare is
necessary to that of the State, suffer hardship, because
A. The use of child labor, obviously a substitute for adult
labor, will
a. deprive adults of work, or
b. force their wages down to those of children.
3. It creates an idle class, which is always a menace to the
State, because it
A. Throws the child out of employment because of inefficiency
when he becomes an adult.
B. Throws the adult out of employment because of the
competition of child labor.
Is the ground covered? Is it logical? Is any step taken for granted?
Remember each position must be supported by proof, and your brief must
set out the evidence you expect to use in your argument. The nature of
that proof may vary, however. For example, suppose you were proving
proposition II. 1. A., which properly set out at length would read: “No
child below the age of sixteen should be allowed to work in a factory,
for such labor injures the child’s health because confinement within the
building under the conditions of factory employment checks the growth of
the child and promotes many diseases.”
That proposition might be proved in a number of ways. (Remember now what
we discussed in the chapter on evidence and read that chapter over again
in connection with this discussion.) You could prove it first by the
testimony of those who are familiar with children so employed; second, by
statistics of mortality and morbidity among children so employed; third,
by testimony of experts—like physicians—as to probable results of such
employment because of probable effect of conditions named upon bodily
organs and their functions.
Here are some specific facts testified to in a legislative hearing on the
question of child labor in mills—factories. They are all admissible as
testimony from the first class of witnesses (those familiar with children
so employed) under the principles laid down in the chapter on evidence.
A French boy of fifteen was asked if he preferred ten hours to
eight hours. “Oh no, ten hours is too long; it seems as though
I never would see the afternoon go by.” The mill work showed
its effect upon his pale, drawn face. He was tired out by it.
A pretty little French girl, fourteen years old, who had worked
in the mill a few months at two or three dollars a week, had
good reasons for her dislike of mill work. Getting up at 5.30
for a ten-hour day, standing nearly all the time, watching the
threads so closely that her head ached, she was frequently
sick. She had been replaced by an adult on September first,
and since that time had been at home doing housework. Her
health had improved greatly in the ten weeks, and when the
investigators saw her, she had good color and got chance enough
to play so that she was, as her mother said, much better off
than in the mill.
A heavy-eyed, dull looking boy of fifteen was sent back to
school as a result of the new law. He preferred to work, but he
had not succeeded in securing an eight-hour job. He happened to
live near the place in which the investigator stayed and there
was good opportunity to watch the effect of the law on him from
week to week. At the end of a month he had become noticeably
lively and bright.
Robert Hunter tells us of a vagrant he once knew who “had
for years—from the day he was eleven until the day he was
sixteen—made two movements of his hands each second, or
23,760,000 mechanical movements each year, and was at the time
I knew him,” says Hunter, “at the age of thirty-five, broken
down, drunken and diseased, but he still remembered this
period of slavery sufficiently well to tell me that he had
‘paid up’ for all the sins he had ever committed ‘by those five
years in hell.’”
“As State Factory Inspector of Alabama, my attention has been
called very forcibly to the child labor conditions in that
State, and, as a vast majority of the child laborers are in
the cotton mills and textile manufactories, I will confine my
remarks to the cotton mill children.
“The health of the mill operatives is what one would expect. It
varies in different mills. In certain localities the hookworm
is pictured on the faces of nearly all the children. Red blood
is conspicuous by its absence. The trained eye of the inspector
is often unable to tell whether the age of a weazened,
dried-up, anæmic specimen of the _genus homo_ is twelve or
eighteen.”
You can see how then each proposition of your argument must be supported
by adequate evidence. I don’t intend to carry the illustrations further.
The amount of evidence you produce will be governed largely by where
the burden of proof lies. That is rather a mysterious expression and
often debaters spend a great deal of energy in trying to shift or
dodge something they are not quite sure about, but they are sure it is
something awful. It is really a very simple thing—its meaning is only
that he who asserts must prove. If I say a certain thing is so, I must
prove it. I cannot expect or ask you to prove that it is not so. Do you
see the point? If you say it is 444 miles from Pecatonica to Readville,
you must prove it is just 444 miles. You must bring up a surveyor or a
table of distances of recognized authority or show in some authoritative
way that you are correct. If you have made the definite statement you
must prove it in a way equally definite—it’s no concern of mine to show
that it is 445 miles or only five miles.
You will notice that this brief contains two classes of arguments—one
which seems to anticipate possible contentions of the other side and the
other which brings forward positive and direct contentions. The first
class can best be catalogued as rebuttal and refutation and will be
considered in the next chapter.
Some arguments, however, although of the nature of refutation of possible
positions of your opponents may often be well introduced in the beginning
of your main argument. For example, Proposition I: “Child labor is
unnecessary for there is an ample supply of adult labor entirely adequate
to the demands of factory work” is practically an answer to a possible
argument of your opponent that child labor is necessary because some
mills could not run without it. Suppose he had prepared himself with
an elaborate argument to prove his position and you had knowingly or
unknowingly anticipated his effort and established the opposite, he would
find himself in a very awkward position. He would talk to an audience—or
judge—already convinced by your arguments, or he would be compelled at
least to destroy the force of your arguments before he could hope to
implant his own in their place.
I only refer to this class of argument to show how your brief will
contain the full body of your argument so that you will have all your
tools ready and sharpened for your use. When you actually get to work,
you may not use all of them after all. But if you find your opponent
presents a tough, knotty problem for you to saw, your implement is ready.
If it is only a pine lath of course a very different tool may be ample.
But you will be ready and as you grow experienced in debate your facility
will be shown in the ease with which you select now this, now that tool,
or discard both of them.
CHAPTER IX
REFUTATION
Not only will your careful analysis of the question formulate your own
argument, but it will prepare you to refute that of your opponent. Put
just as much care into this part of your preparation as into any other.
State to yourself his probable points just as strongly and clearly as
you can. If you can put his case better than he, when you come to your
refutation, so much the better, provided you are equipped to answer
adequately. Of course you can’t spend time enough to answer every point
he has made—make up your mind which are the essential ones and strike at
them. This selection will be comparatively simple if you have properly
analyzed your question in the first place, but will be impossible if you
have slighted that part of your work.
Do not be misled, however, into thinking that refutation itself is
easy or of slight importance. It is neither. It calls for the exercise
of all of your skill in selecting the essentials and ignoring the
non-essentials. The young debater, moreover, is often impaled upon one or
the other horn of the dilemma—too much or too little. If you see no side
of the case but your own, your beautifully constructed argument may fall
to pieces when your opponent, perhaps using some unpretentious fact which
you, in your innocence, had entirely overlooked, knocks out the keystone
of your arch of logic and your structure falls to ruin. On the other
hand, you may demolish one after the other of your opponent’s positions
and yet present no counter claims for your own side of the case. If you
prove your opponent to be all wrong, you do not thereby prove yourself
all right. You must establish your own position and not content yourself
merely with destroying that of your enemy—you must be constructive as
well as destructive.
Here again the analogy between debate and the later debate of life runs
close and sure. The man who in the activity of his group—whether his
lodge, his club, his society, his church, his city, or his State—has
nothing but criticism to offer is of but little value. It is easy to say
“you can’t, you can’t.” Such a statement is as valueless as it is easy.
One most important tactical reason for a constructive argument of your
own is that you can never tell whether you have destroyed all of the
enemy’s bridges. One forgotten approach may turn the position you fancied
was impregnable into a trap from which there is no escape. You must
remember further that in debate the question is as a rule a comparative
one only; neither side is wholly in the right. For example when the case
as stated lay between Peary and Amundson, or between Peary and Stanley,
if you content yourself with disproving the claims of Amundson or Stanley
_without establishing the rights of Peary_, you might so discredit the
whole argument that to the mind of your judges the fame of some unnamed
third person like Livingstone, or Du Chaillu or Kane or even Dr. Cook
might intervene to give the decision to your opponent.
The skillful debater will, therefore, develop his campaign along two
parallel lines; he will demolish the defenses of his enemy with one
battery of arguments while he is advancing his own position with another
arm of the service marching under the flag labeled Q. E. D.
The place of refutation in your argument, although essential, cannot be
dictated. It will depend largely upon the course the debate takes. I can
make certain useful suggestions, however.
Obviously you cannot refute until there is something to refute. If your
audience—and your judges—is entirely impartial and unprejudiced, if you
do not have to combat a preconceived position, you can probably safely
content yourself with advancing your own position and leave the rebuttal
of your opponent’s arguments until later. But if you are presenting some
novel proposition or some unpopular idea which cannot be entertained
unless certain hostile ideas are cleared away, you will win better
attention if you demolish the fundamental ideas upon which the old theory
rests before you present your constructive argument.
=Rebuttal.=—In rebuttal—which is simply refutation in action—you can
readily give to your whole debate, or at least your side of it, a unity
which might otherwise be lacking. You relate your work to the work of
your comrades and to that of your opponents. You select his strong
points; you minimize his weak ones. You shape his position into that form
which best suits your views while at the same time you are advancing
to your own attack. But to carry the military figure a little further,
while you must therefore be prepared with a thorough knowledge of your
opponent’s defenses, of his equipment of arguments, and, if possible,
of facts, while you should have almost a foreknowledge of his probable
lines of approach, you must always be capable of a quick shifting of
your own position as he in turn varies his attack upon you. For be sure
he will not be content to stand up and be fired at—you must be alert
and resourceful and ready to meet any change of front on his part. The
skillful debater will not be content unless he is prepared to meet any
attack which may be made upon him.
Be sure, however, to have yourself so well in hand that your refutation
will be as well organized as your constructive argument. More than
that, you should not allow any acute break to appear between the two.
What happened in a recent college debate in the East is an excellent
demonstration of what should not be done. Neither the audience nor the
judges had been told what was coming, and all were surprised when four
minutes after each speaker began (he had twelve minutes in all) a bell
rang. Instantly over the face of the speaker, as one of the judges told
me, came a sort of “Thank Heaven” expression, and he forthwith swung
off into a well-prepared argument on the constructive side of the case.
Evidently each had been told to rebut for four minutes and then argue. To
be sure that he would know where to stop the one and begin the other, the
bell signal was arranged. The effect was ludicrous in the extreme.
There are four special kinds of rebuttal which you can use.
=Reductio ad Absurdum.=—If, for illustration, your opponent, in debating
the question of child labor, insists that there is a certain nimbleness
and quickness of the fingers in children which is necessary to the
performance of certain industrial processes, you can well answer that if
that is true of children of from fourteen to sixteen it is obviously more
true of the age twelve to fourteen and so children of that age should
be employed. If this deduction follows, you can argue, then it must be
equally true of age ten to twelve and so on even to younger ages yet.
If your opponent should question the soundness of this deduction, you
could still further confound him by replying that when the employment of
children of those ages was under discussion, _those identical arguments
were advanced in its support_.
=Enforcing the Consequences.=—If, for example, in discussing
conservation, if your opponent insists that a free and unrestricted
cutting of timber should be allowed, you can show the result of such
complete liberty, if carried to its logical results—the denuding of the
United States of all its timber. It is not necessary, in urging either
this form of rebuttal nor the one which has just preceded it, that the
result be probable. It is enough for the result to be possible.
=The Dilemma.=—In this method of refutation you show your opponent
has only two arguments to advance, that neither of them is true and
that therefore his case falls unproved. No better illustration of the
effectiveness of this method can be given than a reference to the
historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. You will remember that Douglas declared
he believed both in squatter sovereignty and in the Dred Scott decision.
The one said that the people of any territory had the right to decide
for themselves whether they would or would not exclude slavery, while
the Dred Scott decision meant that a slaveholder could recover his slave
in any territory into which he might escape. You see the two positions
are logically inconsistent. When, therefore, Lincoln asked Douglas as
he did in these debates, this question, “Can the people of a territory,
prior to the formation of a state constitution, in any lawful way exclude
slavery?” Douglas was compelled to face a perfect dilemma. If he answered
“yes” he would repudiate the Dred Scott decision—he wanted the support
of the South. If he answered “no,” he would repudiate the doctrine of
squatter sovereignty and offend the North. In endeavoring to meet the
difficulty, he maintained that while a territory could not exclude
slavery it could legally enact such unfriendly legislation that it would
be impossible for slavery to remain. Lincoln practically had Douglas
defeated before the judges of that debate—the American people—when he
showed the absurdity of Douglas’ attempted escape from his dilemma.
Lincoln showed that in effect Douglas said that slavery could lawfully be
excluded from a place where it had a lawful right to be. The debate—and
this famous “dilemma” was the spectacular part of it—made Lincoln
president.
=Residues.=—This method is simply an enlargement of the difficulties of
the dilemma. When more than two possibilities are presented and you
demolish one after the other of them your hope is that nothing may be
left of his case—that the residuum may be zero.
=Analyze Your Opponent’s Case.=—As your opponent is speaking, note his
points with care. Apply to them the principles we have discussed in
earlier chapters.
Is his reasoning based upon premises which you can disprove?
Has he ignored the real issue?
Are his alleged causes merely coincidences, or are there other
contributing causes which lessen the force of his conclusion?
Is his observation of facts faulty and are his generalizations unsound
and based upon insufficient and unfair instances?
Apply these tests to his arguments and you will render your task of
refutation easier. But in your refutation, be sure you refute. Don’t
think for a minute that either heat or violence or sarcasm is a good
answer. Neither can the testimony of one witness be rebutted by that of
another unless the latter’s knowledge of the matter is shown to be the
greater. And the strength of refutation lies in the skill with which you
make your audience believe your witnesses are more worthy of belief than
those of your opponent, provided always that is the fact.
CHAPTER X
DELIVERY
Let your speech have form and body. When you have prepared your brief,
you have indeed articulated a skeleton which may be beautiful in its
logical symmetry although not as yet clothed in flesh and blood. But do
not destroy that beauty by losing, when you begin to speak, all your
sense of form and arrangement. Do not let your spoken argument be simply
unrelated chunks of thought. Keep your transitions in thought clear. I
do not mean that you should parade each step consciously before your
audience and label each section neatly and appropriately. Let your
argument all travel forward to a climactic end. “Many speakers approach
the end of their work as if it were a dreaded leap into oblivion, and,
after trying again and again to close, end abruptly or trail off in less
and less audible sentences till the gavel falls.”
As to your method of delivery, as to how to learn to speak, the best
advice I can give you is to learn to speak by speaking. Don’t try to
force your voice or your gestures; let them both be easy and natural. The
human voice is capable of wonderful things; its tones may be rich and
mellow or harsh and rasping. Learn to listen to your own voice as to that
of another.
=Breathing.=—The secret of successful public speaking is to use your
voice from the diaphragm up, not from the throat. By that statement, I
mean that you should do your talking with a column of vibrating air the
base of which rests upon the muscles at the base of the lungs. You must,
then, breathe deeply, filling the lower portion of the lungs. Let the
great muscles of the diaphragm push forth your voice; do not try to crowd
it out by using those of the upper part of the chest. Hold your chest
motionless. The skillful speaker can fill a vast auditorium with a rich
resonant voice—and, all the time, keep the upper chest muscles inactive,
the upper parts of the chest motionless.
For the speaker’s chest to rise and fall, for him to squeeze his chest
together as he might squeeze an orange, may show emotion, but it doesn’t
show good sense. If you use the muscles of the throat and neck, you will
soon injure your voice; to speak effectively, you must let the lower part
of the lungs do the work. It will, if it is given half a chance.
These directions may seem to call for a difficult feat of internal
gymnastics. They don’t. Correct breathing is easier than the other sort!
You will be surprised to find vocal powers which you never realized
existed before. You will also be chagrined to find, I fear, that you
occasionally use tones which rasp and grate, which strain the muscles,
parch the throat and distress generally not only the speaker but alas!
the hearer as well. Cultivate those tones which are flexible and resonant
and discard those which grate and strain. Use your singing tones and
don’t be afraid to open your mouth and let your voice have a chance.
But don’t get monotonous in your work. You will find, in practice, many
rich mellow tones of many keys and pitches. Just because one sounds good
to you—and it may be everything you think it is—don’t use it to the
point of monotony. I heard a lady read some charming verse of her own
composition the other evening. The poems were in every way pleasing—they
were much above the ordinary. But she pitched her voice in one key and
one tone all the way through the verse, her comment, her introduction,
everything, all in the same tone from beginning to end! The effect was
marred. There was no break in the smooth voice from start to finish. As
one of her hearers remarked: “I could stand those canary bird tones in
the verses but she should have given us a rest in the rest of it.”
As to your gestures and your bearing on the platform, the same rule
applies; be easy and natural. Remember that after all, speaking is little
more than talking. If you can assist your public speech by gestures which
help your meaning, emphasizing certain points or, as it were, marking
off certain phrases, why, gesture. But don’t wave your arms for the mere
sake of doing so. As one teacher of debating said “You may do anything
on the platform you would do anywhere else in the company of ladies
and gentlemen.” You must of course so conduct yourself physically that
you will not distract the attention of your audience from what you are
saying; you wish to help your thought, not hinder it.
But always be yourself—be natural. It is better to be a real William
Smith or even a real Bill Smith than an imitation Daniel Webster. Study
Webster and Calhoun and Root and Bryan. Get all the illustrations and aid
you can from their methods in debate; but remember after all you must be
yourself. When you were created the mold was thrown away. No two natures
are alike, no two persons have the same powers. You can’t be someone else
if you want to be.
CHAPTER XI
FINAL SUGGESTIONS
The way to learn to debate is by actual practice in debate. The way to
learn to speak is by trying to speak. Never miss a proper opportunity of
speaking. Don’t make yourself disliked, of course, but try every chance
you get, and listen to every debate or speech you can and apply to every
argument you hear or read the tests which show whether they are real
or false. Before you really know it, you will prove every proposition
presented to you and that without any conscious effort.
One excellent form of practice is in audibly talking a thing out to
yourself. Haven’t you noticed many times you have had a thought which
seemed decidedly clear and worth while to yourself but which seemed misty
and inconclusive when you tried to tell your friend about it? You know
some say that a thought is not entitled to cataloguing as a thought until
it has been expressed in words; that until that time it may have within
it the germ of an idea but it is not really a _thought_ until it has been
clothed in an appropriate dress of language. However that may be, you
certainly want to express your thoughts clearly and directly; you wish
to convince your hearers of the soundness of your position.
Again, many boys who can write clearly and beautifully are likely to
become slangy and colloquial when they talk. If you practice clothing
your thoughts in appropriate audible language you will easily detect
this trouble and it will soon become offensive to you. So, for both of
these reasons, don’t be afraid to talk to yourself. Never mind if you are
overheard and pronounced queer—it’s all in the day’s work.
In the next place, remember that all argument is really plain
exposition—that is, you are simply setting forth the facts and “applying
to them an explanation; a theory or a policy better or more rational,
more thorough or more for your personal advantage.” The rules which I
have given you will aid you in thus setting forth the facts, and in
making your audience see your proposed solution of those facts.
But as I said before, the way to learn to debate is to debate. The rest
of this book is made up of practical suggestions which will help you
and your crowd to organize and conduct debates and debating societies.
Go to it, but go to it as a real thing, a thing worth while and not a
mere game. Take yourselves seriously and apply to your informal talks
and discussions the rules I have been outlining for formal debates. I
don’t want you to be stilted or stiff, nor yet self-conscious prigs,
but I want you to realize that your life now, in your club or society
or patrol, is but a cross-section of what your later life will be. The
same rules govern your mental discipline now as will then. The lessons
you learn now you will not have to learn then and, what is of far more
consequence, if you now look after your training a little, you won’t have
a lot of things to unlearn then. I have two suggestions, however, which
apply with equal force to both times—now and later.
If you are not successful in your argument, what shall you do? If the
judges in the debate decide against you, what next? If your opponent
instead of yourself has succeeded in rousing your hearers to the point of
action, shall you sulk in your tent like Achilles or shall you turn in
and help? By all means the latter, unless there is some moral principle
involved. In active life, men are too willing to feel absolved from
all responsibility unless their own special programme is adopted. They
will often admit that the other course of action is all right as far as
it goes, only because it does not go far enough they decline to have
anything to do with it.
Don’t make this mistake yourself. If your patrol decides to go to Mount
Washington when you wanted to go to the Thousand Islands, never mind; go
anyway. If you wanted the age limit against child labor fixed at sixteen
and your opponent is successful in making it fifteen, why remember
fifteen is better than fourteen anyway. If you wanted forest reserves of
twenty million acres established by law, and your opponent succeeded in
convincing the judges that ten millions was about right, that’s better
than no conservation at all. Or for example if you believe that nation
wide prohibition of the liquor traffic is the ultimate solution of that
problem, you should not therefore decline to have anything to do with
state prohibition or even local option. They are all steps in the right
direction, don’t you see? Take anything you can get. The step in the
right direction is the right step, whether it is a short step or a long
step.
Finally, remember that while these suggestions are designed to aid you
win your debate, in the nature of things, there can only be one correct
position on any question. One side only can be right, and if your side
is not right it should not win. But it is equally true if both sides are
careful in their analysis of the question, and in their discussion of it,
it is much more likely that the actual facts will be discovered and a
correct solution of the difficulties found. You must therefore remember
that it is your task to do the best you can so to present your side of
the case that every argument to be brought forward on your side will have
its just weight. But do not think that because you have a certain side of
an argument to present you must always thereafter take that side of the
case. In other words don’t be afraid of changing your mind. Give the best
work you are capable of in preparing and presenting your arguments and
then sit in judgment yourself upon yourself. Be your own severest critic,
and be manly enough to abide by the result.
CHAPTER XII
HOW THE FAIRFIELD BOYS ORGANIZED
I knew several of the boys at Fairfield, and because I was much
interested in debating generally, I was delighted when Jack Mason asked
me if I would like to go with him to a meeting called to discuss the
organization of a debating club. Jack was a fine lad about seventeen
years old; he was an enthusiastic ball player and delighted in outdoor
sports. His particular chum, Frank Lawrence, was a different lad. He
found his chief interest in books and reading, although he was by no
means a “dig” or a recluse. However, the two boys made a fine team, and
each supplied what the other may have lacked.
Frank was really the leader in the movement to organize the club. He
had been reading several volumes of orations and had been impressed by
the force and vigor of the great speakers. Like all boys who amount to
anything, he wanted to try his hand, and naturally he didn’t want to
do it alone. He took the matter up with Jack and, while Jack at first
laughed at the idea, Frank finally brought him round to see it was a good
thing. The result was that fifteen or twenty of the boys came together
to talk things over.
When I arrived I found just a crowd of ordinary boys, no better or no
worse than average lads in a community. They all wanted to do something;
they were not satisfied with waiting for something to happen; they wanted
to make something happen. With that spirit in them, they speedily got
down to work and before I realized it they had organized their club.
Some of the boys were Scouts and naturally preferred to have that
organization connected in some way with the club. Jack, I think, approved
this idea, but Frank pointed out that although many of them were Scouts
and all of them had friends who were Scouts, this really was not a scout
organization and they might wish to take into the club boys who possibly
did not believe in the scout organization, and might thus be prevented
from joining. Charlie Taylor suggested that it be called “The Debating
Club of the Epworth League.” Charlie was a Methodist and belonged to the
Epworth League. George Perkins, however, who was an ardent member of the
Christian Endeavor Society, objected, and of course when the proposal was
put that way, Charlie at once saw that it was not fair. The boys finally
agreed that the only thing they had in common, as far as the organization
of the club was concerned, was first, that they were boys, and second,
that they wanted to debate. Therefore, they decided to call it by a name
which would, by its very simplicity, avoid any misunderstanding and at
the same time properly characterize the object of the club. They decided
therefore to call the club “The Boys’ Debating Club of Fairfield.”
When they came formally to state the purpose of their organization, after
some discussion they agreed upon this preamble: “We, the undersigned,
appreciating the advantages to be derived from practice in debate, hereby
organize ourselves into a club for that purpose and agree to be governed
by the following constitution:”
Frank wished to have more in this preamble and urged that they write
it so that it would state that they would be benefited by drill
in discussion, in composition, in declamation, in elocution, in
parliamentary practice; in fact, in many other ways growing out of their
meeting as a club, but Henry Jordan, a quiet, unassuming member, asked
if all that really was not included in the word “debate.” They said, “Of
course,” and so the short preamble stood.
The first few articles were adopted without much discussion, as they all
thought substantially alike on those points.
The question of a short term of office called forth much discussion. My
friend Jack is decidedly businesslike and he could see no real reason,
he said, for going through the fuss and bother of so many elections. “If
a man makes a good president,” he said, “why do we want to put him out
of office after he has been working ten weeks and has just got the run
of things? Besides, he would scarcely have time to show what he could do
in ten weeks.” Frank replied: “Suppose he doesn’t make a good president;
even these ten weeks would be a pretty long time, wouldn’t it?” Jack
grumbled a good deal and insisted that the boys would put in most of
their time electioneering for office. The boys laughed him down on this
point, but Henry Jordan convinced them all when he said: “If practice is
what we are after in this club, the more the offices are passed around
the more practice we will all get.” They decided to fill vacancies by
election at any meeting of the club, although some of the boys thought
that it would be simpler to have the president appoint some boy to fill
out the unexpired portion of the office, if a vacancy should occur.
There was a good deal of discussion of the duties of the various
officers. Henry Jordan thought it would be enough if the constitution
simply set out the ordinary rules governing similar bodies. Ralph
Parsons—the boys called him “Tubby”—suggested, quite ingenuously I
thought, that he supposed the various officers would have so much work
to do that they would not be expected to take part in the debates. The
thought in his mind was clear to all. The boys evidently knew him. “No,
indeed,” announced Jack, “the president and all the rest of the officers
take part in the debates when their time comes.” “O, well!” sighed
“Tubby.”
Frank made a suggestion at this point which I thought was very good.
“There are other debating clubs,” he said, “we ought to get acquainted
with. There are societies for doing other kinds of work which is worth
while. There is the Epworth League, and the Christian Endeavor Society,
and the Boy Scouts, and the High School literary society, and the Girls’
Library Club, and lots of organizations which are just as good as ours.
I think it would be great to get together with them just as much as we
can—have joint programmes and all that sort of thing, you know. It might
be good for them, and I know it would be fine for us.”
“Splendid!” I could not help exclaiming.
“I move that it be one of the duties of the President to see these clubs
and carry out this idea,” said George Perkins. This motion was carried
enthusiastically. After more discussion the enumeration of the other
duties of the officers was left to a committee.
One office was created for which I suppose I am responsible. The boys
felt pretty “cocky” and Jack said something about the good work they were
going to do in their club. They had asked me before to take part in
their discussion and I ventured to ask: “How will you know whether your
work is good or not?”
“Well,” Charlie Taylor replied, “when we have a debate with that Onarga
bunch and lick them good and plenty, I guess they’ll know we are doing
good work.”
“Well, we may not find judges who will stand for ‘lick them good and
plenty’ arguments,” interrupted Frank. “That kind of talk won’t go in a
dignified debating club.”
“Anyway,” I replied, “suppose you don’t know what kind of work you are
doing until the result of some debate contest tells you. Isn’t it quite a
while to wait?”
“I tell you what, boys,” I continued. “I know folks say there is a great
deal of education in learning through our mistakes, and of course there
is. But there is also a lot of energy wasted in doing things the wrong
way. We would look well, wouldn’t we, if we insisted in finding out for
ourselves every fact in geography or physics when we have available the
accumulated experience of centuries. So don’t try to do it all alone,
boys. Get some older men who have gone through the mill themselves and
get them to act as your critics and advisers. You will save a lot of time
and get along much better.”
This advice seemed good, and they adopted the following section: “The
President shall appoint at each session of the club a Critic, whose duty
it shall be to criticize the conduct of the meeting and of the individual
members in all respects and to render to the club such other help in
advice and counsel as may seem wise to him. Such Critic shall, when
possible, be appointed from the honorary members of the club.”
When they came to the question of membership there was a hot debate.
There was an almost even division on the question of admitting the girls.
There was no nonsense about the boys; they were not rough or boorish on
the one hand, nor “sissified” on the other. One faction contended stoutly
that it would be a good thing to have the girls with them. They urged
the difference in the minds of boys and girls and felt that any question
would be better understood if they had both points of view about it.
Jack led the opposition to having the girls join. He said:
“You fellows all know my sister Polly.” (There was a chorus of assent and
several side glances at Frank, who looked carefully out of the window.)
“You know Polly is great. She is as good a fellow as any of you here.”
Here he glared pugnaciously about, but as no one seemed to disagree with
him in the least he continued.
“I would as lief chum with Polly as not—but not in this club. I think
we would have better times and do more business if we were alone. We
could easily enough have social nights in the club once in a while. We
can always get the girls and have a good time together outside, but I
believe we ought to keep the club out of it. I wish they would organize
a debating club of their own. It would be great sport to have a joint
debate.”
The antis won, and the word “boy” used in the provision on membership.
Only two other points concerning membership made much discussion—how many
votes were necessary to get a boy in and how many votes were necessary to
get him out after he was in.
Will Morrissey had not talked much yet, but he grew eloquent when he
urged that one vote should be enough to keep a boy out. “Why,” he said,
“if we are going to do good work here we must be careful who we have in.
If we have united action we must be a band of brothers. We must not have
in here anyone who is obnoxious to anyone else.”
Pietro Frontenelli was an Italian lad who had completely won the hearts
of the rest of the boys since he had been in Fairfield. He was supposed
to be a socialist at least, quite likely an anarchist, possibly a
Camorrist, but altogether a most likable fellow. The boys indifferently
called him “Pete” or “Nellie” for short; he admitted himself that his
whole name made quite a mouthful.
“Pete” thought it made little difference whether we all thought alike
or not. “Of course,” he said, “we want to thresh out the questions we
have up for discussion and get at what seems to be the correct answer.
But it’s a sure shot we will be more likely to get at that result if we
approach it from as many angles as we can. I would like to see members
elected by a majority vote.”
George Perkins thought that provision would be too liberal and finally
the boys compromised on allowing election if no more than three votes
were cast against the candidate.
They decided to follow the same rule in the election of honorary members.
Right here I broke in again. “Boys,” I said, “let me repeat, don’t try
to do it all alone. Get your older friends in. Get your big brothers,
your fathers, your teachers, the fathers of the other boys, even if their
sons don’t belong. It is a good thing to have a lot of them with you as
honorary members. Of course they are busy men. There will not be many of
them out any one night, but you ought to have some outsiders and advisers
here every night.”
“I don’t know about that,” said “Tubby.” “If we have folks like that
here, we won’t feel free and easy. We will be on dress parade all the
time.”
“That’s just how we should be,” said Charlie Taylor. “If we don’t take
ourselves seriously, no one else will.”
“That’s the way to talk,” chimed in Jimmy Francis. “We don’t want any
‘rough house’ or bear dances or anything like that. We want to do
business in this club of ours.”
“Now, look here, fellows,” said “Tubby.” “Who said anything about rough
house or anything like it? I don’t want that any more than you do.”
Jimmy assured him that they all knew that he wasn’t standing for anything
like “rough house.”
“But it’s going to be awful hard work to keep braced up all the time,” he
sighed to himself. “I won’t dare even to slide down in my chair. O well!”
When it came to considering the conduct of members within the society
and methods of discipline, the boys were decidedly at sea. They wanted
to maintain the dignity of the club and yet they wanted to be fair to
everyone. “But,” as Frank Lawrence put it, “what rule shall we follow in
passing upon the guilt of members? What standards shall we follow? What
is a crime and what is not a crime?”
That was the question. What should be regarded as conduct unbecoming a
member of the club? It was finally decided that no one code of rules
could answer such a question, but that each case should stand on its own
merits. Consequently the section was worded like this: “Any member who
is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the club may, at any regular
meeting, be suspended or expelled at the discretion of the club. But
the charge against such member shall be signed by one of the officers
of the club or at least three members, shall definitely state the facts
constituting the alleged offense, shall lie on the table one week, and
shall require a two-thirds vote of the members present for its adoption.”
In arranging for their programmes the boys felt that they should allow
some latitude for joint sessions with other clubs. Consequently they
instructed their committee who had the drafting of the rules in charge
to give a place for such things on the order of business. While they
were organizing a debating club, they said, they didn’t want to shut out
anything else they might want to do.
How should they provide the necessary funds? Since Sam Levi’s father was
a banker, he was regarded by all the boys as an authority on finance.
He talked quite at length on bonds, debentures, income taxes, and just
dues, and when it was all over the boys seemed to be quite clear that if
they ever decided to build a club house they might want to sell bonds,
but until that time they would simply levy dues on all members equally.
They really did not need much money. The School Board had told them they
could use the school assembly room for their meetings. Their incidental
expense would not amount to much, and they thought ten cents per member,
besides an initiation fee of twenty-five cents, would take care of it.
One point did cause some discussion. Suppose a boy didn’t pay his dues;
what then? Jack as usual was for drastic action. He wanted such a boy
“fired” right off. Sam suggested that a penalty of ten per cent. per
month on the past due fees would keep the boys up to the mark. “If they
have to pay eleven cents instead of ten if they are behind a month,” said
he, “or twelve cents if they are back two months, they will look out.”
It struck the boys as good finance until Jimmy Francis suggested rather
timidly: “If a fellow is hard up and couldn’t get his money together just
right it would rather hurt to pay the extra cent or two.”
The boys quickly saw the other side. Jimmy was the son of a widow.
Everyone respected him, for, although he didn’t pity himself the least
bit, he was always looking out for odd jobs to help out. All the lads
knew he would have to find one more job to take care of his dues. His
mother had to count every penny as it was.
They finally decided not to impose any penalty for non-payment of dues.
As Frank pointed out, they felt that “if any fellow is mean enough to
quit on his dues because there is no penalty tacked on, that’s conduct
unbecoming a member of the club and we can ‘fire’ him.”
After they had taken care of a few miscellaneous provisions, they found
they had a good working organization. I agreed with them, and in the
appendix, beginning on page 156, you will find their constitution in
full. In the next chapter I am going to tell you about the rules of order
they adopted. They appointed a committee to draft them and I helped with
the work. We talked the rules over a good deal both in this committee
and afterward in the first two or three meetings. They were good enough
to make me Critic several times and most of the help I gave them was in
parliamentary practice. I have given you the rules, together with the
running discussion we had on them. Possibly the reasons given for the
rules will help you, as they seemed to help them.
CHAPTER XIII
THEIR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Knowledge of parliamentary law is, at some time or other, useful to
almost every member of an American community, yet few ever get more than
a confused and mistaken idea of its principles.
Absolute equality of rights and privileges among the members of an
assembly, the right to a full and free debate of every proposition
offered, the rule of the majority, and the limitation of consideration to
one thing at a time, are the cardinal principles upon which the rules of
order rest. To enforce them, a chairman or moderator must be chosen. He
always speaks of himself as “the chair.”
All the proceedings of an organized assembly, whatever its purpose or
composition, are founded upon the motion, which is really the form in
which action is proposed. Besides the main or principal motion, which is
the proposition in its original and simple form, there are subsidiary,
incidental, and privileged motions. They will be explained later.
A member who wishes to make a motion must rise in his place, and address
the chair—“Mr. Chairman” or “Mr. President,” as the case may be. He is
not to speak further until the chair has “recognized” him by pronouncing
his name.
Having been recognized, he proceeds to make his motion after this form:
“I move that this society attend in a body the Fourth of July exercises
at Riverside Park.”
In Congress, motions are not, as a rule, seconded; but in most voluntary
organizations, the chairman—except in matters of routine business—waits,
before stating the question, until some one says, “I second the motion.”
That, a member can do without rising. If no one offers to second the
motion, the chairman need not state the motion at all, and often refuses
to do so.
As soon as a motion has been seconded, however, the presiding officer
repeats it verbatim, as it was made. If the motion is long and
complicated, he may call for it in writing; and it is always a good plan
for one who intends to propose a motion of importance to write it out
before he rises to offer it.
Until a motion has been seconded, the maker may withdraw it. Until it
has been stated by the chair, he may withdraw it with the consent of
the seconder; but after it has been stated, it can be withdrawn only by
formal vote of the meeting.
The question having been stated, the chairman goes on to say, “Are you
ready for the question?” That opens the floor to debate. If no one offers
to speak, the chairman calls for the vote:
“All in favor of the motion will say, ‘Aye,’ all opposed, ‘No.’ The ayes”
(or noes) “have it, and the motion is carried” (or is lost, as the case
may be).
In case of doubt, the chair may order the ayes and noes to rise in turn,
and remain standing until they are counted. And if any member does not
agree with the chair’s decision of the vote by voice, he may “doubt” it.
Then a rising vote must be taken.
In most cases, however, there will be debate. The chairman will then
recognize the first member to rise, who may speak as long as the rules
of the particular body permit. The maker of a motion has, by custom, the
first opportunity to speak to it, if he wishes to do so, and usually,
also, the right to close the debate with another speech.
While a member is speaking, no other member is allowed to stand, unless
the speaker, on being appealed to, permits an interruption for the
purpose of asking a question or making a correction. But a speaker who is
using discourteous or improper language may be “called to order,” as will
be explained later.
A member has no right to remain standing while another is speaking, with
the idea of preëmpting the next recognition from the chairman; the chair
should not recognize a member unless he rose after the preceding speaker
had finished. When a member has once spoken to a motion, he has no right
to take the floor again, as long as any other member wishes to be heard,
except to make one of the subsidiary, incidental, or privileged motions
above referred to.
Those motions all supersede the consideration of the main motion. When
a subsidiary motion is made, the main motion is laid aside until the
subsidiary has been acted upon. When one of the incidental motions is
made, the main motion or any subsidiary motions must be laid aside until
the incidental motion is disposed of. The privileged motions displace
any of the others from consideration. _Only one thing at a time_ may be
before the “house.”
A. The SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS, all concerned with perfecting or advancing the
disposition of a main motion, are these:
(=a=) =Amendment.=—Any main motion is open to amendment, and any
amendment is open to further amendment. The amendment may be by adding
words or phrases, by eliminating words or phrases, or by the substitution
of certain words for some in the original motion. Any number of
amendments may be offered; only one at a time can be considered. When an
amendment to an amendment is offered, it displaces the amendment from
consideration, just as the first amendment displaced the original motion.
An amendment ought not to be offered in a negative form; it is a good
plan, when that is done, to amend it at once to a positive form, so
that there shall be no misunderstanding when it comes to a vote. It is
confusing when the vote “Aye” means not to do a certain thing, and the
vote “No” means to do it.
The amendment must also conform to the subject-matter of the main
motion. The chairman must rule “out of order” an amendment that tries to
introduce an entirely different subject. The question on an amendment is
put just as it is on a main motion, but the chairman should be careful to
repeat the whole motion, _with the proposed amendment_, so that all may
understand what they are voting on.
(=b=) =Indefinite Postponement.=—At any time when the main motion
alone is before the assembly, a motion to postpone its consideration
indefinitely is in order. This motion is open to debate, and if carried,
makes any further discussion of the main motion impossible at that
session; and at a later session it can be brought in only as “new
business,” as if it had never been proposed before.
(=c=) =To Commit.=—At any time when a motion or an amendment is under
discussion, a motion to refer to a committee may be made. In most
legislative bodies this is the immediate fate of almost every motion of
importance; in clubs and similar organizations, matters that require
investigation and special information are properly referred to a
committee. The motion is debatable and open to amendment—usually as to
the number of the committee, or the time when a report shall be made.
If the reference is to a special, and not a “standing” committee, the
chairman, when the choice is left to him, often appoints the member who
proposed the reference, chairman, although he need not do so unless he
chooses.
When a committee has prepared and presented its report, the
chairman moves its adoption—if it makes any specific proposition or
recommendation. Reports which merely state facts or “report progress” are
“accepted,” not “adopted.” A committee, after making its final report,
is _ipso facto_ discharged. But a formal motion to discharge a committee
may be made and entertained at its own request, or in case of a partial
report or unsatisfactory performance of its duties.
Sometimes committees disagree, and majority and minority reports are
presented. In such a case the first motion to be made is usually for the
adoption of the majority report. Then an amendment to substitute for
it the minority report often follows, and after debate, the vote comes
on the question of substitution. If that fails, the vote recurs on the
adoption of the majority report.
(=d=) =Postponement.=—A motion to postpone consideration to a definite
time is in order while any of the motions already described are under
discussion. It is debatable, but the chairman should not let the debate
extend beyond the proper time of postponement. If carried, the main
motion cannot again be considered before the specified time, except
by a two-thirds vote. But when that time has arrived, if a certain
hour was named, the postponed motion takes precedence of any other
business, except the privileged questions later to be described. If
the postponement was to a certain day only, the motion comes up when
“unfinished business” is reached.
Any of the motions already named will yield to a motion for
(=e=) =The Previous Question.=—That, if carried, closes all debate,
and puts the matter at once to a vote. It is in order only when there
has been a fair amount of discussion. It is not itself debatable, and
requires a two-thirds vote to pass. If amendments are pending when the
previous question is ordered, they must be voted on one after another;
then the main motion must be put, without further debate. But a member
may, if he please, move the previous question on an amendment only—in
which case the main motion will still be open to debate.
Finally, a motion
(=f=) =To Lay on the Table= takes precedence of any of the other motions
enumerated. It is not debatable. Its effect is to postpone action on
a motion, but it permits the reintroduction of the motion at any time
during that or the next following session. Its proper use is to lay
aside a motion until further information can be obtained, or until a
more favorable time for its consideration; but since the enemies of a
motion, if they are strong enough to lay a motion on the table, are often
strong enough to prevent its being taken from the table, this motion
often serves to suppress a question without actually voting it down. A
motion to take a motion from the table is in order at any time when other
business is not before the house, during the same or the next following
session.
B. The INCIDENTAL MOTIONS are seven in number, and are of equal
parliamentary standing. That is to say, any of them may be introduced
while the main or a subsidiary motion is pending, but no one of them
takes precedence over any other; no second incidental motion may be
offered while one is under consideration. All of them, save only the
appeal from the decision of the chair, are peremptory motions, and not
debatable. They are as follows:
(=a=) =Suspension of the Rules.=—This is a motion to suspend the
operation of the rules of order that the particular body has adopted,
in order to permit the consideration of some pressing matter out of its
usual place. By-laws may not thus be suspended, and the rules of order
may be suspended only by a two-thirds vote. Nor can the motion, if voted
down, be renewed while the same question is under consideration; the
chairman must rule it “out of order” if the attempt is made. The motion
should be made in this form: “Mr. Chairman, I move the suspension of the
rules for the consideration of the question—” which should then be stated
in full.
(=b=) =Withdrawing a Motion.=—When a motion is fairly before the house,
the mover may withdraw it only by rising and moving its withdrawal. No
one but the maker of the original motion can move to withdraw. There can
be no debate, and a majority vote permits the withdrawal.
(=c=) =Dividing a Motion.=—If a motion contains two or more distinct
propositions, it is sometimes convenient to divide it, and vote
separately on each proposition, especially if one seems likely to
encounter more opposition than the others. The motion is not debatable.
(=d=) =To Read Papers.=—This is a motion to have the pending motion read
again for the information and guidance of members, or to have other
material read which seems likely to help in the intelligent consideration
of the question. When such a motion is made, the chairman usually says,
“If there is no objection, the paper” (or the motion) “will be read.” If
any one objects, the motion must be put to vote. A majority vote carries
it.
(=e=) =Objection to Consideration.=—Sometimes silly or needless motions
are made, or motions which are likely to stir up ill feeling. Objection
to the consideration of such business may be made by any member as soon
as the motion has been stated by the chair. No second is needed, no
debate is allowed, and a two-thirds vote is required. The proceeding is
often a useful one, but it requires quick wit to employ it; for as soon
as debate has actually begun, the objection is out of order. In such a
case the indefinite postponement already described is the best way of
suppressing the troublesome motion.
It should be noted that when the objection is put to vote, all those who
are in _favor of considering the question_ are asked to vote “Aye”; those
who oppose its consideration and sustain the objection are asked to vote
“No.”
(=f=) =Points of Order.=—The chairman is, of course, in constant charge
of the meeting, enforcing the rules of order and the principles of
parliamentary law, and calling to order members whose language is unduly
violent or discourteous. If he fails to perform any of these duties,
it is proper for a member to “rise to a point of order,” and call the
chair’s attention to the infraction of the rules.
Thus if a member moves to commit a motion while the assembly is debating
on the proposal to postpone it to a definite time, a member may say:
“Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.”
The Chair: “State your point.”
“The motion to refer to a committee is not in order until the motion to
postpone has been voted on.”
“The point is well taken; the motion to refer to a committee is out of
order.”
Or the chair may decide the point “not well taken.” In that case, the
member who made it may, if he please:
(=g=) =Appeal.=—The appeal requires a second, and when made, is sometimes
open to debate. The question is put in the form:
“Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?” The ayes, therefore, vote
for the chair, and the noes in favor of the appeal. A tie vote sustains
the chair.
When an appeal has been sustained, the chair must act in accordance with
it, even though he knows he is violating the rules in doing so. He is the
servant of the house, and must take his instructions from it.
A member may also object to the language used by another member, and call
him to order. A member thus called to order must at once take his seat
until the chair has ruled on the point. If the decision is against him,
he may resume speaking only after offering an apology, and the assembly
may, if it please, deny him the right to speak further.
C. The PRIVILEGED QUESTIONS are few in number, but they displace all the
motions already described, and also have certain relative values among
themselves.
(=a=) =Orders of the Day.=—A society sometimes fixes a certain order of
business to be carried out at a particular time at each meeting; this
is the general order. When, at a previous meeting, a question has been
postponed to a particular hour of a succeeding meeting, that question
becomes a special order for that day.
When the proper time arrives, the chair may call the attention of the
meeting to the fact, or a member may rise and “call for the order of the
day.” Whatever business is pending must at once be suspended. Once before
the meeting, the question may be again postponed if the house so votes,
in which case the suspended business is resumed. Otherwise the order
passes to a decision in the regular way. The order of the day must be
called for at the proper time; if forgotten or neglected then, it loses
its privilege, and can be taken up only as unfinished business later.
When it is called for, the meeting may vote not to take it up. That means
that it prefers to dispose first of the business already before it. But
as soon as that is done with, the order of the day _must_ be taken up
next.
(=b=) =Questions of Privilege.=—These are matters affecting the rights,
dignity, or reputation of individual members or of the whole assembly,
and any business may be interrupted to state them. A member who feels
that his right to debate is infringed by the chair or by other members,
who feels that his character is assailed or his views misrepresented,
may “rise to a question of privilege.” Also unsatisfactory conditions of
light or ventilation, unseemly behavior of members or visitors, charges
against the official conduct of officers of the body, and so forth, are
suitable matters for questions of privilege. The chair need not entertain
the question if he thinks it of insufficient importance, but his decision
is subject to appeal. If the question is put as a motion, it is like any
motion subject to amendment, commitment, postponement, and so forth. All
such questions are debatable.
(=c=) =Recess.=—The motion to take a recess outranks all motions already
enumerated. It cannot be amended or debated.
(=d=) =Adjournment.=—A motion to adjourn outranks all others, and may
be made at any time except while a member is speaking, while voting is
going on, or while the chair is stating a question. It is not debatable,
and may be renewed if lost. But if repeated motions to adjourn are made
simply to obstruct business, the chair may finally refuse to entertain
them. A special form of this motion of still greater privilege is that
fixing the time and place of adjournment.
When adjournment has been carried in a body that is meeting in continuous
session, day after day, the business left unfinished comes up at once on
reassembling, unless displaced by the order of the day. When a body has
only a weekly or a monthly meeting, such business would be considered
when unfinished business was reached in the regular order.
D. There are a few other motions which do not fall under any of the heads
named. For example:
(a) A motion may be made to limit the length of time which each speaker
may occupy, or which the entire debate may occupy, or to extend the time
already decided upon, or to fix the hour when the debate shall close and
a vote be taken. These are undebatable, but may be amended, and require a
two-thirds vote to pass.
(b) After a motion has been adopted or defeated, a motion to “reconsider”
is in order, either during that meeting or the next one. _It must be
made by one who voted on the prevailing side_, whether affirmative or
negative. If it is carried, the question is again before the house for
debate and amendment, just as it stood when the vote passing or defeating
it was taken. The motion to reconsider is in order at any time, even
while other business is under consideration. When so made, however, the
fact is entered on the minutes, and the motion waits until the pending
business is disposed of.
(c) When the time has expired during which reconsideration may be moved,
a motion to rescind action already taken may be made. This may be made
when no other matter is pending, and is fully debatable.
(d) Although it is a general rule that a motion once voted down can be
taken up only through a motion to reconsider, most motions, except main
motions and amendments, may be renewed if the status of the business
before the house has been changed in the meantime. For example, a motion
to lay a question on the table is made and voted down. Then a motion to
postpone it to a certain time is made. The motion to lay on the table
may now be renewed, although it could not be renewed after the motion
to postpone was defeated, since in that case the status of the question
would again be what it was when the first motion to lay on the table was
defeated.
(e) Parliamentary inquiries are allowable at any time, when a member is
not speaking. They are questions addressed to the chair concerning the
propriety of motions that the questioner wishes to offer if they would be
in order, the meaning of rules or decisions, and the like.
=Order of Business.=—This may well be different for different bodies, but
the following is a useful form:
Meeting called to order.
Minutes of last meeting read and approved.
Communications from other bodies or persons.
Reports of any officers which are due.
Reports from standing or special committees.
Unfinished business.
New business.
Literary or other programme, if any.
Adjournment.
CHAPTER XIV
THE FORD HALL TOWN MEETING
The Ford Hall Town Meeting is a school of democracy at work; it is a
school of applied brotherhood. That statement may sound like an attempt
at fine writing but I want to show you that applied to the Town Meeting
it is justified. I want to show you also that after you have carried on a
debating club for a few years, the Town Meeting is a good graduate school
for the further development of the art of debate. You will remember that
throughout this book I have insisted that the real purpose of debate is
to get worth while things done. To a peculiar degree, the Ford Hall Town
Meeting does enable debate to get worth while things done.
I said it was a school of democracy at work; but what is democracy?
You have learned that there are three kinds of states, monarchies,
aristocracies and democracies. You all believe, moreover, that in this
age of the world, the first two are outgrown and that the democratic
state is the only one that should exist nowadays. If I should ask you
to define a democratic state you would immediately answer that the
democratic state is one based upon democracy. If I should then ask
you to define democracy, you would hesitate long. I have tried many
definitions before I found one which was satisfactory. How does this
strike you?
“Democracy is the equality of opportunity for self-expression.” I think
that statement covers it all. You see, for instance, the opportunity to
the slave was not equal to that of the free man. The child of twelve who
works in the factory all day has no equality of opportunity with other
children. The man who is willing to work but can’t find a job, has no
equality of opportunity. To the slave, the child, and the jobless man,
democracy means nothing.
We all believe that God intended every child to have his chance. Somehow,
though, things have become twisted and warped. Because we believe,
however, that after a while things will be right, we keep on trying to
help make our democracy the common property of all of us. We try to keep
these children out of the factory and get them into school. We try to get
a job for this man who wants work, or, better yet, so arrange things that
there will be plenty of jobs for him and for his friends. After Jimmy
Francis’ mother has lost Jimmy’s father by death and she is left without
means, we want our democratic state to say: “Oh! Mrs. Francis, what a
loss! We are truly sorry for Jimmy and for you. To show that we are, we
have arranged so you will have a few dollars a week, enough to help take
care of Jimmy, so you won’t be anxious and worried about his bringing up.”
You see many a widowed mother hasn’t had her equal chance to bring up her
boy as she wanted to. Democracy didn’t exist as far as she was concerned.
Her Jimmy began to live in the streets, then in the pool-rooms, then in
the saloons. He wasn’t a good boy any more; he knew all about vice and
crime. He knew all about reform schools and jails and possibly State
prisons. Her Jimmy was lost to democracy.
But was it Jimmy’s fault? Or his mother’s? Did he have his chance? Was
the State really democratic to him?
You see there are many questions which will tax all our thinking powers
properly to answer. Really, however, the kind of a state which gives
every boy his opportunity to make the most of himself, is just like one
great family. You know in the family, Jimmy has a chance equal to that
of Bob, and Bill and Frank share alike in everything. Why? Because they
are brothers. Don’t you see then that democracy is but another name for
brotherhood? If all men are brothers, if they really _are_ brothers,
and mean brotherhood when they say brotherhood, most of our perplexing
questions would settle themselves right off.
The idea seems very simple; it is simple. Its working out, however, is
not so simple.
How shall we put at work this idea of democracy? That’s not so simple,
and men everywhere are studying how best to bring into action this simple
principle of democracy, brotherhood. One of the best of the schools
working out this idea is the Ford Hall Town Meeting. I want to show you
just what it is doing, and how its example affects you.
Really to understand the Town Meeting you must know something about the
“Ford Hall Idea,” for the Town Meeting is but its latest development.
Like many other ideas, this one centers about one man. I don’t mean
that this man _discovered_ it. No. The Idea was as old as time. Hebrew
prophets taught it. David sang it. Jesus lived it. Paul preached it. This
man made a new application of the old vision. He was, eight years ago, an
ordinary business man, who was more and more grieved at the way people
went on misunderstanding one another. Class was clashing with class. Men
didn’t know what other men thought, and because they didn’t know, they
doubted; because they doubted, they feared. And, the worst, men evidently
didn’t care to find out what other men thought. They seemed to hunt for
points of differences instead of points upon which they could agree.
This was the situation that George W. Coleman saw.
He began to wonder what he could do to bring men together. He felt sure
that if they could only _know_ each other, they would find so many points
where they did agree that they would forget those upon which they did
not agree. If that much progress proved impossible, he thought that at
least they would see the real merit on both sides, see the sincerity of
each other, and make a working agreement which would put tolerance in the
place of hate.
Mr. Coleman was at that time president of the Boston Baptist Social Union
to which Daniel Sharp Ford had left a building on Beacon Hill, Boston,
and an income to be used “to soften the inevitable conflict between
capital and labor in Boston.” Mr. Ford was the owner of _The Youth’s
Companion_. “There is my chance,” said Mr. Coleman. “What can better
carry out the spirit of Mr. Ford’s will than a Sunday night service
where the Jew and the Baptist, the Methodist and the Socialist, the
Congregationalist and the Catholic, the Churched and the Unchurched, can
get together and discuss the vital things of life, and _learn to know
each other_.”
The Social Union agreed, and now for seven winters every Sunday night
has seen twelve hundred earnest men and women gathered in Ford Hall to
listen to one who has a message and is not afraid to let the other man
talk back. The speaker speaks, and then the listeners ask questions. They
have the right to talk out in meeting, you see, and understand the great
difference between being talked at and being talked with. At the Ford
Hall Meetings, speaker and audience talk with each other.
Of course, much of the success of Ford Hall has come from the choice
of the subjects of the addresses. No one would think, for example, of
discussing the Alsace-Lorraine affair, interesting as it all is to the
student of history, and fitting as it would be for the Debating Club. Nor
would a speaker at Ford Hall discuss the authorship of the book of Amos,
for example, important as is such a question for a theological school.
But the teachings of Amos on the questions of land ownership, the points
of similarity between Amos and Henry George—that’s different, you see. It
is right that we should know whether Cook or Peary discovered the North
Pole, but that problem does not affect the life of the man who lives
in the congested city slum. He would go right on living just the same
whether there was a North Pole or wasn’t. The racial differences between
the Slavs and the Yankees suggest interesting questions, but they assume
a different importance when they are related to the immigration of those
Slavs to America. In the first instance, the Ford Hall audience would be
but politely interested; in the second discussion they would be vitally
concerned.
If we can group these questions under one class, then, we should say Ford
Hall Folks, as they have come to call themselves, are concerned in Social
Civics. The Idea, then, that Mr. Coleman had, was that if a place could
be provided where men and women of all races and beliefs and creeds and
of no creeds could get together to discuss together Social Civics—that
is, those questions which vitally concern the common life of all—that
they would learn to know each other, to understand each other, to respect
each other’s point of view. In short they would become neighbors instead
of enemies.
And the idea worked! They have not lost their independence. Oh, no! They
think just as intensely as they ever did. But they realize that the other
man is doing the same thing too.
In the Ford Hall audiences, are men of all faiths and of none, of all
economic and political creeds. Most of them are workers with their hands.
Most of them are poor, many extremely so. Many of them have fled the
terrors of oppression and massacre, and, in too many cases, when they
arrived in America they found misunderstanding and even brutality, little
less than that which they escaped overseas. So when they did find Ford
Hall, the place where brotherhood is preached and, better yet, where it
is lived, you can see that liberty, justice, equality and freedom, came
to mean something to them.
I am telling you these things in such detail for I want you to realize
that democracy and brotherhood are very real things; they touch our lives
closely and intimately. If you have been fortunate enough to have escaped
the miseries so many of these brothers of ours have had to endure, you
ought to feel an added sense of responsibility for the maintenance of the
democracy they believe in.
In the Ford Hall meetings, then, we have a group of people with a passion
for brotherhood trying to find the ground common to all their beliefs.
But these meetings were only discussing the _theories_ of democracy. How
should the theory be converted into practice? The answer is The Town
Meeting.
All the Ford Hall Folks are enthusiastically democratic. They said: “We
all want to _do_ something. What shall we do? What _can_ we do? What are
people who think as we do, doing now? Have we laws which would do what we
want done, if they were enforced? If they are not enforced, why aren’t
they? Is it because of remediable defect in the law, or is it because the
people need further education?”
You see how different the abstract idea may be from the measure necessary
to carry it into practice? For example, during the winter of 1914 we all
agreed that the man who wants work and is starving because he can’t get
it ought to have his chance, _ought to have work_. One speaker at a Ford
Hall meeting discussed: “The Right to Work.” He was eloquent, logical,
forceful; his hearers again received the message of democracy, that every
man had the right to self expression in terms of his industrial life—had
a right to a job. But there could be no discussion of _how he was going
to get that job_. The next Thursday night, however, a bill was introduced
in the Town Meeting providing that the State should engage in active work
in reforesting and reclaiming waste land, thereby providing work for the
unemployed. Do you see the difference? Do you see how the Town Meeting
supplements and carries into definite expression the Ford Hall Idea? The
Sunday night speaker discussed the theory of the rights of the jobless
man. The Town Meeting sought to put that theory into practice the next
Thursday night. That’s the Town Meeting angle of the Ford Hall Idea.
I hope I have made clear to you the reasons for organizing the Town
Meeting. We all felt that there was plenty of talk lying around loose,
good talk, full of good ideas and worth while. But if that talk could
be translated into workable measures, into specific plans for doing
things, we would be taking a distinct step ahead. So the Town Meeting was
organized.
The Town Meeting, in form, is a group of men and women who are organized
to discuss such measures as would be introduced into a real town meeting,
a city council or a state legislature, to relieve social ills. The
ordinance or bill, as the case may be, is not a mere declaration of a
theory, but a definite programme for carrying some theory of betterment
into action. We confined the sphere of its discussions to matters arising
within a State, and not the nation, because we wished, for the sake
of simplicity, to avoid the complications of inherent and delegated
sovereignty. We assumed, therefore, that the Town Meeting could legislate
on all matters _except_ those belonging to the National or Federal
government.
In Town Meeting citizenship, there are no distinctions of sex, race,
creed, or position or rank of any kind. The suggestion of an age limit
was voted down after a lad in knee trousers had made an impassioned plea
for a chance to supplement the work of the schools. Young and old, rich
and poor, foreigner and native, join in a citizenship whose sole test is
service. We believe in each other, in the Town Meeting. We trust each
other. Take, for instance, the single matter of taxes. Of course we need
money to pay our bills. Therefore we arranged our budget and levied our
appropriation to meet it _but imposed no taxes_. Our citizens know that
we must have money; they know our needs, and every meeting envelopes
like this are passed around:
SEASON OF 1914
FORD HALL TOWN MEETING
_Income Tax_
Put Your Weekly Tax in this ENVELOPE
Minimum Tax 5 cents per Meeting
SUGGESTED SCHEDULE
Income $ 9 weekly or less 5 cts.
Income $12 weekly or less 6 cts.
Income $15 weekly or less 7 cts.
Income $18 weekly or less 8 cts.
Income $21 weekly or less 9 cts.
Income $24 weekly or less 10 cts.
Income $27 weekly or less 12 cts.
Income $30 weekly or less 15 cts.
Income more than $30 weekly 25 cts.
Every citizen may well give as much as she/he can afford
without regard to schedule.
In the future it will be clearly seen that the citizen who
gives most generously in time and money to the public welfare,
will get most in honor and happiness.
Noblesse oblige
_Assessors_:
MRS. WILLIAM HORTON FOSTER, Treasurer
JACOB S. LONDON
GEORGE BREWSTER GALLUP
The citizen determines how much he should pay, how much he can pay,
inserts that much, seals his envelope and hands it to the treasurer. No
mark of any kind is placed upon the envelope and no one but the citizen
knows the amount he has paid. The question is one between himself and his
honor.
The organization is called the Town Meeting because we wished to
emphasize the absolute and fundamental democracy of the group. You
remember how in the town meetings of New England the citizens came
together every year and decided what the town should do and should not
do. As community life became more complicated, however, the town meeting
proved inadequate. The various towns, therefore, appointed delegates to
discuss together the questions of large concern while the town meetings
cared for purely local matters. Furthermore, as cities increased in
importance and in the variety of their business, city councils often took
the place of town meetings. So we soon had the three legislative bodies,
the town meeting, the city council, and the legislature.
Out of this increasing perplexity of modern conditions has arisen the
need of a more highly organized legislative system. Now men cannot get
together and offhand decide what should or should not be done. Men, even
of the highest motives, can’t legislate intelligently upon questions that
they have not studied. Hence the committee system of Congress and the
various legislatures has grown up.
Under this system, committees are appointed, from the members, to which
are referred the various questions which come before the legislative
bodies. For instance, if a bill which sought to regulate the employment
of boys in factories were presented to a state legislature, it would
probably be referred to the Committee on Labor, or perhaps to the
Committee on Industries. If in that State there were many questions about
child labor, it might have a special committee on child labor alone. But
whatever the committee might be, there would be some one committee to
which would be referred every bill affecting the labor of children in
factories. This committee would be in a position to discuss all these
measures more intelligently and study them more carefully than could be
done in the legislature itself. It would invite before it people who
knew the subject thoroughly and would then report its conclusions to the
legislature, perhaps together with its information carefully organized.
The Ford Hall Town Meeting is organized, like a legislature, with a
series of committees to which are referred the various questions which
come before it. The Calendar of the Town Meeting on a recent date will
indicate clearly what kind of measures we are considering and what
committees have them in charge.
When you look at the Calendar you will notice that there are “orders” on
the list, and “bills.” In other Calendars “resolves” appeared also. What
is the difference? Generally speaking, the bill is a measure introduced
into the legislature, an order (ordinance) is a measure introduced into a
city council, and a resolve (resolution) is a measure introduced into a
town meeting. Yes, I mean to say we introduce them all indiscriminately,
but we don’t mix them up. You may have a perfectly good idea for helping
solve a problem but many a time you don’t know whether it is something
the State should take up or whether it belongs to the city or possibly to
the town. So in the Town Meeting the citizen must make up his mind where
his proposed measure belongs. That’s part of his drill.
Look at the Calendar again. See the practical nature of the measures
introduced. The history of Order No. 1 illustrates a valuable feature
of the Town Meeting. The order directed the City of Boston to expend
$50,000 on a model municipal lodging house. That winter the question of
unemployment and the care of the unemployed was very much before us in
Boston and in other parts of the country. It is easy to say: “Yes, we
will have a model municipal lodging house” and order one built. But in
regular routine I, as Moderator, referred this order to the Committee on
City Planning. (You know it is the duty of the Moderator to refer every
measure when it is introduced, to what, in his judgment, is the proper
committee.) The chairman of this committee didn’t render a perfunctory
report on the bill but started his committee at work studying municipal
lodging houses everywhere. The members of the committee asked themselves:
“What constitutes a _model_ lodging house?” and then set themselves to
find out. They have been studying such institutions at home and abroad.
They are accumulating such a mass of information upon the questions
involved that when they do bring in a report it will be supported by
evidence which will command attention. Such a report will be a very much
worth while document; it will be a sociological study worthy of any civic
body.
NUMBER SUBJECT REFERRED TO REPORTED
COMMITTEE ON
=========================================================================
Order #1 municipal lodging house. city planning. In committee.
Bill #5 to investigate unemployment. labor. unfavorably.
On order of day.
Bill #6 individual license act. liquor laws. In committee.
Bill #7 to give effect to Declaration judiciary. unfavorably.
of Independence. On order of day.
Bill #8 lights in tenement houses. housing. In committee.
Bill #10 occupancy of cellars and housing. In committee.
basements.
Bill #16 sale of liquors by druggists liquor laws. favorably.
and apothecaries. On order of day.
Bill #18 removal of hats by ladies. rules and In committee.
courtesies,
jointly.
Bill #19 “tin plate law,” introduced On order of day.
by committee on publicity.
Order #6 condemning Ward 8 municipal municipal In committee.
building. affairs.
Bill #21 publication of weekly by judiciary. unfavorably.
Massachusetts towns. Recommitted.
Bill #22 recreation evening in education and In committee.
public schools. play and
recreation
jointly.
Bill #23 open air concerts. play and In committee.
recreation.
Bill #24 insurance commission. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #25 State recreation board. play and In committee.
recreation.
Bill #29 system to pay public debts. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #30 summer outings. courtesies. In committee.
Bill #31 American and other flags. labor. In committee.
Bill #32 coöperation with transportation. In committee.
Postmaster-General.
Bill #33 straw vote on equal suffrage. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #34 children as actors. play and In committee.
recreation.
Bill #35 equal suffrage. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #37 investigating department labor. In committee.
stores.
Bill #38 abolishing capital punishment. judiciary. In committee.
Bill #39 removing Charles Street Jail. municipal In committee.
affairs.
Bill #40 investigating Wayfarer’s Lodge. city planning. In committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next on the Calendar, Bill No. 5, concerned the notice which must be
given before discharge of employés. Now notice. The great majority of
the citizens of the Town Meeting are workers with their hands—laborers,
and sympathetic with labor; yet they defeated that bill, because it was
unfair and impractical.
The Town Meeting takes itself very seriously, and so must you when you
organize one. It doesn’t for a moment think it is just playing at life.
It studies these questions and then seeks to translate its decisions into
civic action. For example, after deciding that a certain policy was for
the best interest of the city, it memorialized the city to that end. The
city authorities heard our arguments, and the matter is now laid over
awaiting the settlement of certain questions upon which our question
depends. As far as this point is concerned it makes no difference what
the city eventually does with our memorial. The point is that the city
takes us as seriously as we take ourselves.
Have I told you enough to give you the spirit and genius of the Ford
Hall Town Meeting? You can see how it gives training in parliamentary
practice and debate. You see how it educates in the finer graces of club
life and intercourse. You can see how its committee activities can weld
workers together. You can see how its investigations of city conditions
are truly educational, how they train the citizens for usefulness to the
state.
Have I justified the insertion of this description of the Ford Hall Town
Meeting in a book on Debating for Boys?
I have told you about it because all your debating and all your clubs
won’t be worth much to you unless you catch the same spirit of applied
democracy, of brotherhood—the spirit that has gripped the Ford Hall
Folks. Truly they were baptized with a passion for it. They found it here
after great suffering and trial. You boys can govern your lives by the
same spirit; you can fill your lives with the same service.
So after you have tried yourselves out in the regular debating clubs,
organize a Town Meeting, or do it now if you feel the kindling of the
idea strongly enough. Everything I have said about debating applies to
the work of the Town Meeting as well as that of the debating society. And
even more than that of the club is the work of the Town Meeting related
to real life, preparation for which is the aim of this book.
CHAPTER XV
SOURCES OF MATERIAL
How can you obtain the necessary information for your debate? Where can
you get your evidence? How will you proceed to obtain the facts upon
which your debate will win or lose?
In part these questions have been answered by the chapter on evidence.
Let me advise you to read it over again carefully.
The first persons to consult are the other members of your own family.
Their experience in public affairs you will find in many cases to be
much larger than you have thought. How many times, for instance, do your
neighbors or perhaps the township supervisor drop in upon your father to
talk with him in the evening about matters of public policy? How many
times does the school teacher, on her way home from work, stop to pass
a word with your grandfather who was a member of legislature back in
Connecticut long before the family moved West?
Obviously the next best source of information is your teacher. In almost
all cases you will find that your school instructors are very glad to
help you, not only by telling you what they themselves know but by
referring you to easily available sources of information. Do not hesitate
to ask specific questions of your teachers. It is well, of course, to
request in general their advice and counsel but you can well supplement
this general appeal for help by specific questions the answer to which
will solve troublesome problems as they come up. Be sure to ask your
teachers for lists of available books and advice as to the best magazine
articles to consult.
Next go to the librarian in your own home town. She will be glad to
tell you the best books and magazine articles upon the subject of your
debate. In case her own information is scant you might well advise her to
communicate with the Division of Bibliography of the Library of Congress
at Washington. This Division issues memoranda, type-written lists and
printed lists, giving references upon all topics of current interest.
Private individuals can purchase these lists from the Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. In case you have
no library within reaching distance the list will be lent to you. In that
case you should address the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D.C.
There is an immense amount of literature to be obtained from the
various branches of the Government, and there is hardly a subject
which a boy might be called upon to debate, upon which he could not
obtain enlightenment by applying to the proper Government officer. The
difficulty is to know who is the proper person to address in a particular
case. Probably the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, would be the first one to whom to apply. He has Government
publications for sale, and is in a position to give information about
the publications issued by any branch of the Government. He also
furnishes classified lists on various subjects. These will give an idea
of what bureaus handle the different subjects. With such information a
boy can then apply directly to the right bureau. Most, if not all, of
the Departments issue lists of their publications. The Congressional
Directory contains a list of the Government offices, with a statement of
their functions. The Department of Agriculture issues a Monthly List of
Publications, which is sent regularly to all who ask to have it so sent.
It also issues from time to time a list giving titles of all the Farmers’
Bulletins available.
Your own Congressman will be glad to answer specific questions. Of course
all debaters—boys who are good enough citizens to be interested in
current topics—know the name of their representative in Congress.
You will find also that the colleges in your own State will be very
glad to help you all they can. Let me urge you particularly to make
full use of the Agricultural College and State University of your own
Commonwealth. The Agricultural College has at command a vast fund of
questions all relating to life—social and economic as well as scientific
and historical. Probably in this day, your State University has an
extension division which has special facilities for giving you definite
and accurate advice upon any topic. It may be that your State is one of
the progressive ones which have a system of “traveling libraries”—packets
of books which are shipped to persons who have special interest in
special topics. Really one of the first studies for you when you are
securing evidence is to become thoroughly acquainted with the facilities
of your State institutions of higher education. By all means, however,
include the other colleges which may be in your vicinity. Professors
and other members of the departments of sociology, political science,
political economy, history and similar departments will be particularly
ready to give help.
Of almost equal value with the official documents are the writings of
interested men in magazines and newspapers. These articles will not only
contain many facts but will be both stimulating and suggestive to the
debater in opening to him new lines of thought upon the subject. Poole’s
Index, The Cumulative Index, The Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature
are catalogues of the articles appearing in general periodicals. Some one
of them is sure to be found in your library.
Almost every subject now prominently before the public has based upon it
a society of some kind or other which generally issues publications upon
the subject, or, at any rate, has available facts and arguments of value
to the debater. The Society for the Prevention of This, the Society for
the Promotion of That, the Society for the Study of This Other Matter,
are full of value and interesting information. Write to them if your
subject falls within their respective fields.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE
The following questions are given as suggestions for your work in debate.
Many of them are purposely left loose in their statement in order
that the club may adapt the subject to local conditions. For example,
a question is given: “Resolved: That the State should prohibit the
employment in factories of all children under sixteen years of age.”
Obviously the word “factories” does not include all the places where the
labor of children is harmful and should be prohibited. If the question
sought to name all such places, however, it would be cumbersome. I
suggest, therefore, that if you should desire to discuss the question
of child labor, you should substitute for “factories” the particular
industry you are interested in; like, for instance, cotton mills, oyster
canneries, button factories.
Make your questions, when you can, local in their interest. You will be
more interested in the affairs of Fairfield than in those of a city in
Patagonia. Your school will interest you more than the schools of the
other States. Besides, as I tried to show you all the way through the
book, the _application_ of your work in debating is what really counts
and using local questions freely will help tie up debate with life. Study
your local problems and debate them. Formulate your own questions; mine
are only suggestive.
Resolved:
That the State should prohibit the employment in factories of all
children under sixteen years of age.
That the abolition of child labor would be beneficial to manufacturers.
That child labor is a menace to future prosperity.
That child labor tends to lower adult wages.
That eight hours should be a day’s work for minors under eighteen
employed in factories.
That factory efficiency is not conducive to the best interests of the
working class.
That coöperation in trading offers relief to the high cost of living.
That labor organizations promote the best interests of workingmen.
That an eight-hour working day should be adopted within the United States
by law.
That the contract system of employing convict labor ought to be abolished.
That in times of depression municipalities should provide work for the
unemployed.
That the provisions of State child labor laws should be extended to
canneries.
That wages of women should not be lower than those of men performing the
same service in the same occupation.
That governments should grant old age pensions.
That the increase of machinery is disadvantageous to the working classes.
That the factory system has been a benefit to the working classes.
That the boycott is a legitimate weapon of labor.
That trade unions are justified in restricting the number of persons
allowed to learn a trade.
That members of trade unions are justified in refusing to work with
non-union men.
That no girl under twenty-one should be allowed to engage in any street
trade or occupation.
That no boy under sixteen should be allowed to engage in any street trade
or occupation.
That no boy under twenty-one should be allowed to engage in any street
trade or occupation between the hours of seven P. M. and seven A. M.
That strikes are never justifiable.
That compulsory arbitration is wise and feasible.
That free public employment agencies should be established by the State.
That the State should allow no employer to pay a wage lower than the
minimum required to maintain the employé in decent living.
That the State should establish chattel loan institutions in every city
of over ten thousand population.
That the increase of wages to employés of the Ford Automobile Company was
premature and unjust to other manufacturing concerns.
That the increase of wages to employés of the Ford Automobile Company was
injurious to the employés themselves.
That compulsory arbitration will solve difficulties between employer and
employés.
That the miners were justified in their 1913-1914 strike at the
Calumet-Hecla mines.
That the public school course should include trade education.
That cultural education is of more value to the average individual than
industrial education.
That the regulation of conduct in high schools should rest in the hands
of the students.
That coöperation between the public schools and factories affords the
best means of imparting industrial education.
That any city in the United States having over two million inhabitants
should be organized as a State.
That the moving picture theater offers wholesome amusement to the people.
That the moving picture theater offers valuable educational possibilities.
That coeducation in colleges is desirable.
That inter-collegiate football promotes the best interests of colleges.
That college athletics, as now conducted, are not beneficial to the
majority of the students.
That the State should provide for education for all vocations.
That college degrees should be required for entrance to professional
schools.
That students should have a part in college government.
That college education unfits a man for business life.
That small colleges are preferable to large ones.
That the teaching of Latin and Greek in our public schools is not
justifiable.
That the function of education is to prepare the student for life and not
primarily to prepare him to make a living.
That the novel dealing with current events has more educational value
than the historical novel.
That school boards should furnish students lunches at cost.
That school boards should furnish lunches free to pupils unable to pay.
That one daily school session is preferable to two.
That high schools should be in session six days a week and eleven months
a year, with the entire course thereby shortened to three years.
That the elementary school should teach each pupil the technique of a
trade.
That the elementary school should teach each pupil who wishes such
instruction the technique of a trade.
That the secondary school should teach each pupil the technique of a
trade.
That the secondary school should teach each pupil who wishes such
instruction the technique of a trade.
That socialism is more of a promise than a menace to society.
That the doctrines of syndicalism and of the I. W. W. are identical.
That the doctrines of the I. W. W. are sound and justifiable in practice.
That the efforts of the Russian nihilists are entitled to the sympathy of
a free people.
That socialism is the best solution of American labor problems.
That the doctrines of socialism are inconsistent with those of
Christianity.
That socialism contains within its doctrines all the essential elements
of a sufficient religion.
That the present social unrest is due to removable causes.
That socialism is the latest development of coöperation and brotherhood.
That a belief in socialism is inconsistent with a belief in organized
religion.
That the principles of anarchism are hostile to real progress.
That deeds of violence amounting to the taking of life are a necessary
corollary to the teachings of anarchism.
That socialism is a logical deduction from the doctrines of anarchism.
That the trust is a legitimate development of industrial coöperation and
contains within itself the roots of the doctrines of socialism.
That the retention of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany is justifiable.
That colonies are serviceable to the mother country.
That public hospitals should introduce home treatment of their discharged
patients to prevent the return of disease.
That interlocking directorates of corporations are inimical to the best
interests of the United States.
That the position of the English Government with reference to Ulster in
1914 was justifiable.
That Zionism will restore to the Jews a national life in Palestine.
That public opinion is the controlling factor in life.
That the moral character of the American people is deteriorating.
That home rule should be granted to Ireland.
That the victory of Japan over Russia in 1904-05 was for the interest of
civilization.
That heredity has more influence upon character than environment.
That the Massachusetts Bay Colony was justified in banishing Anne
Hutchinson.
That climate has an influence on national character.
That vegetarianism is conducive to health, strength and longevity.
That poverty rather than riches tends to develop character.
That the parcels post system should be more extensively adopted in the
United States.
That as women are largely the buyers for the family they are largely
responsible for the misleading advertisements so common in the public
press.
That vivisection should be prohibited by law.
That the mind of the Caucasian race is naturally superior to that of the
African.
That social progress has been greater abroad than in the United States.
That poverty is more of an opportunity than an obstacle in the
development of character.
That the element of personal sympathy is of greater value in charitable
work than organization or system.
That no one can do effective work in administering charitable relief who
has not been trained in the approved and scientific methods of such work.
That Shakespeare’s representations of common people were unjust to the
England of his day.
That aeroplanes are more practical both in commerce and in war than
dirigible balloons.
That boys’ clubs organized in connection with rural life are of greater
value to society than city boys’ clubs.
That credit unions are essential to the development of rural life.
That the Balkan states were justified in demanding in 1913 the withdrawal
of Turkey from Europe.
That the great powers were justified in depriving the Balkan states of
some of the fruits of their victories in the war in 1913.
That art galleries and museums are not essential to civic development.
That concrete will supersede all other building materials.
That the rural social center is an effective method of promoting rural
development.
That the Raiffeisen system should be introduced into the United States.
That the rural telephone has injured rural social life.
That it was the duty of United States to intervene in the internal
affairs of Mexico in 1914 and restore peace.
That President Wilson was justified in not recognizing Huerta.
That President Wilson was justified in seizing Vera Cruz in 1914.
That Canada should be annexed to the United States.
That further annexation of territory is not for the best interests of the
American people.
That the United States should annex Cuba.
That the United States should annex Mexico.
That the United States should permanently retain the Philippines.
That the United States should ultimately grant the Philippines
independence.
That the Monroe doctrine should be abandoned by the United States.
That the Panama Canal should be fortified.
That the immigration of Hindus into the United States should not be
allowed.
That immigration into the United States should be further restricted.
That the character of the American people has been improved by the
immigration it has received from Europe.
That a property qualification should be a requirement for the admission
of immigrants.
That the Chinese Exclusion Act is just.
That the Chinese Exclusion Act should include the Japanese.
That the Federal government owes both a moral and a legal duty to protect
any alien in this country.
That the Federal government should demand from each State full
protection in all their treaty rights of aliens within such States.
That the State should teach the immigrant the English language at the
very earliest opportunity.
That the Federal government ought to control national elections.
That the United States government ought to interfere to protect the
southern negro in the exercise of his suffrage.
That the suffrage should be taken from the negroes in the southern States.
That woman suffrage is desirable.
That a property qualification for suffrage would be desirable.
That voting should be made compulsory.
That the standing army of the United States should be increased.
That there should be an educational test as a qualification of voting.
That the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States has been justified.
That party allegiance is preferable to independent action in politics.
That moral questions have no place in party politics.
That all nominations for office should be made by direct primaries.
That election of members of Congress from a State at large is preferable
to election from districts within such State.
That the cabinet system of government as practiced in England is
preferable to the Congressional system as practiced in the United States.
That the members of the President’s cabinet should have seats and the
right to speak in Congress.
That the present tendency in the United States toward centralization in
government should be resisted.
That States should be represented in the Senate in proportion to their
population.
That the electoral system of presidential elections should be abolished.
That the president should be elected for a period of seven years and be
ineligible to reëlection.
That a representative should vote according to the wishes of his
constituency.
That the initiative and referendum should be adopted in the United States.
That the recall should be adopted in the United States.
That a decision of any judge on the constitutionality of any civil
question should be subject to revision by a popular vote, when properly
safeguarded.
That the amount of wealth transferable by inheritance should be limited
by law.
That corporal punishment is not justifiable.
That capital punishment should be abolished.
That no conviction for crime should be based upon circumstantial evidence
alone.
That Switzerland has a better form of government than the United States.
That no alien should be allowed to own real estate in this country.
That the length of imprisonment as a punishment for crime should be
determined by a special commission and not by the sentencing judge or
jury.
That all corporations should operate under Federal charter and control.
That the community and not the individuals are responsible if many boys
“go wrong.”
That large department stores are beneficial to the people.
That city mail order houses are beneficial to the villages from which
their goods are purchased.
That judges should be appointed and not elected by popular vote.
That the legislature of Pennsylvania should erect a statue to Robert E.
Lee upon the battlefield of Gettysburg.
That State financial aid should be extended to workmen desiring homes of
their own.
That increase in the average size of American farms is for the best
interests of the nation.
That the decrease of population living upon the land is for the best
interests of agriculture and of the nation.
That State or government aid, in the form of direct loan or guarantee of
bonds should be extended to aid the drainage of land which thereby will
be made suitable for agriculture.
That hard roads should be built at county expense.
That the United States government and the government of each State should
bear equally the cost of improvement of trunk highways, provided the work
be done under Federal direction.
That for this community, main county roads should be paved with gravel
instead of brick.
That for this community, main county roads should be macadamized instead
of surfaced with the “sand-clay” process.
That the jury system should be abolished.
That no immigrant should be admitted to the United States unless he can
read and write his own language to an extent equivalent to the standards
maintained in the average sixth grade of schools in the United States.
That the building and maintenance of a large navy is necessary to the
safety of the United States.
That the time is now ripe for the disarmament of all nations.
That the time has now come when the policy of protection should be
abandoned by the United States.
That a high protective tariff raises wages.
That the United States should establish a system of shipping subsidies.
That a protective tariff benefits farmers.
That trusts are the result of a protective tariff.
That combinations among railroads cheapen rates.
That the trust is a legitimate development of industrial coöperation and
should be encouraged.
That an income tax is desirable.
That a single tax based upon land values would be preferable to the
present system.
That church property should be taxed.
That the entire cost of public improvements should be assessed against
the property benefited.
That one-half of the cost of public improvements should be assessed
against the property benefited.
That cities should be permitted the use of the principle of excess
condemnation.
That cities should grant new industries five years’ freedom from taxation.
That the railroads of the United States should be owned and operated by
the Federal government.
That all telegraph lines in the United States should be owned and
controlled by the Federal government.
That all public utilities should be owned and operated by the
municipalities wherein they are located.
That State prohibition is preferable to high license as a method of
dealing with intemperance.
That local option is preferable to State prohibition as a method of
dealing with intemperance.
That the prohibition, by amendment to the Federal constitution, of
the manufacture, sale, importation, exportation, transportation of
intoxicating liquors presents the most effective solution of the liquor
question.
That “treating” is a great source of intemperance and should be
prohibited.
That it is a more efficient method to remove the temptation to drink
intoxicating liquors than to teach the individual to fight and overcome
the appetite for such drink.
That alcohol is a legitimate article of diet and its use should, properly
safeguarded, be allowed.
That municipal misrule in American cities is due to the indifference of
the so-called better classes.
That municipal misrule in American cities is due to foreign immigration.
That the commission plan of city government should be generally adopted
in the United States.
That the commission plan of government should be adopted by States.
That the growth of cities should be governed by some well organized plan.
That the commission form of city government is more advantageous than the
city manager plan.
That the city needs for its service and life stronger and more
intelligent men than does the country.
That school houses should be utilized at least sixteen hours out of every
twenty-four in civic functions when not required for school purposes.
That a detached house is more conducive to proper family life than a
suite in an apartment building.
That organized play is essential to a proper development of boy life.
That a city should provide municipal dance halls and similar
opportunities for recreation.
That congested cities should furnish the capital for model garden suburbs.
That, to relieve urban congestion, model garden suburbs are preferable to
model tenements.
That the church should provide amusements.
That charity organization societies are effective.
That the church has not performed its full duty toward the laboring man.
That church unity would develop a higher type of Christianity.
That the conservation of the church as the form of organized religion is
essential to real progress.
That secret fraternities in high schools should not be permitted.
That the Federal control of natural resources should be further
strengthened and extended.
That the control of natural resources within States should be left to
States and not assumed by the Federal government.
APPENDIX B
HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE
The judges of a debate have no easy task to perform. They must be, of
course, unprejudiced as between the speakers, but they must also be
unprejudiced as to the subject. They must not forget that they are to
decide on the merits of the debate, not on the merits of the question.
They must consider the arguments and evidence offered. They must set
off this contention against that. They must give proper weight to the
respective merits of matter and form. They must neither be stupefied
by dull figures which may yet be pertinent, nor, on the other hand, be
hypnotized by brilliant rhetoric which may be but effervescent after all.
They must sift, analyze, weigh, decide. It is a task but little easier
than that of the debaters themselves.
It is the office of the judges, whether one or more, and whether
outsiders or members of the club, to represent the sober second thought
of the audience addressed and not to represent the immediately popular
view. An audience is rarely judicial in its temper. It is generally
partisan—often intensely so. Although there are always two sides to a
question, there are seldom two popular sides. The unfortunate debater who
by contract or by lot is called upon to defend the unpopular side has
a heavier task than his opponent. The judges must, therefore, not only
refuse to allow themselves to be influenced by the hostile attitude such
a speaker has to overcome but, on the other hand, they are justified in
giving him proper credit for the way in which he either overcomes this
hostility or at least partially neutralizes it.
Because the judges do represent the critical impartial attitude, they
should frown upon any attempt improperly to influence a decision.
Organized cheering should be discouraged. It is not the business of
the judges to teach etiquette or courtesy. I should, however, if I were
acting as a judge, penalize the side the supporters of which deliberately
seek to embarrass the opposing side.
The judge must, therefore, be fair and impartial. He must judge the
debate and not the question. But what weight shall he give to matter
and manner respectively? Obviously the manner of the speaker has a more
immediate appeal than the subject matter. However, a debate is not a
declamation contest. It is a presentation of arguments for or against a
proposition so arranged and related that they move to an irresistible
conclusion. Certainly then, what the debater says is of more importance
than how he says it. It would be impossible to define the relative
importance of the two divisions of the subject, but seventy-five per
cent. and twenty-five per cent. may be taken as a fair average.
It would be impossible to give a set of rules by which a debater should
be rated. Of course, no judge will attempt critical “scoring” as does the
judge of a poultry show. He should, however, pay particular attention
to the same points I have emphasized through this book. He will observe
whether each member of the team shows a general knowledge of the question
and whether he shows evidence of having done his own work. He will note
also whether the important issues are selected for discussion and whether
those issues are clearly defined and the line of argument indicated in
the early portion of the speech. It is unfair for any debater to content
himself with refutation—general denials and objections—and bring up his
constructive arguments toward the end of the debate when there is little
time left to the other side. That may be a clever trick, but it is not
honest debating, and a judge should reward it with a penalty.
Then, too, the judge should watch the structure of the argument. Is it
well related? Is each part properly joined to every other part? Are its
various divisions properly indicated? Are the generalizations sound? Are
the statements of evidence facts or guesses? And are these facts simply
reiterative or are they carefully selected because of their significance
and the credibility of their authors? Does the debater show weakness in
his case by contenting himself with pointing out many objections to his
opponent’s position with no counter position of his own? These are some
of the questions the judge will ask himself.
Then he will consider the debater’s bearing on the platform. He will
not expect a presence like that of Webster or of Beecher, but he will
expect that erectness, vigor and dignity which go with a consciousness of
worthy effort. He will not expect the ease of long practice, but he has
a right to expect courtesy to the audience and opponents and, of course,
no conceit in personal bearing. He will look for simplicity in style and
gesture. He will listen for a voice musical but strong and responsive to
the emotion of the speaker.
Finally, if the judge can find in the debater that earnestness, that
conviction, that complete identification of himself with his subject it
will be clear that he has mastered the matter and made it his own. This
mastery cannot be put on or off like a garment, but if the judge sees it,
he can mark that debater, as far as the essential elements of debating
are concerned, 100+.
APPENDIX C
CONSTITUTION OF THE BOYS’ DEBATING CLUB OF FAIRFIELD
PREAMBLE.
We, the undersigned, appreciating the advantages to be derived from
practice in debate, hereby organize ourselves into a club for that
purpose and agree to be governed by the following Constitution.
ARTICLE I.
NAME.
This society shall be called The Boys’ Debating Club of Fairfield.
ARTICLE II.
OFFICERS.
The officers of the club shall be a President, Vice-President, Secretary,
and Treasurer, who shall be elected by ballot and shall hold office for
ten weeks, or until their successors are elected. Any vacancy in office
shall be filled by election at the meeting when the vacancy is made known.
ARTICLE III.
DUTIES OF OFFICERS.
_President._
Section 1. The duty of the President shall be to preside at all meetings
of the Club; enforce a due observance of the Constitution and Rules of
Order; and perform all the duties required of him by the Constitution.
He shall also visit, when practicable, clubs and societies of similar
general purposes, cultivate fraternal relations with them, and, when
possible, arrange with them joint programmes.
_Vice-President._
Section 2. The duty of the Vice-President shall be to perform all the
duties of the President in the absence of that officer.
_Secretary._
Section 3. The duty of the Secretary shall be to take minutes of all
meetings of the Club; call the roll, noting members that are absent;
attend to the correspondence of the club not otherwise provided for, and
perform such other duties pertaining to his office as may be required of
him by the club.
_Treasurer._
Section 4. It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to take charge of all
money belonging to the club; to collect all fines and taxes imposed or
assessed by the club; to pay the orders of the Secretary, indorsed by the
President; to keep an accurate account of all receipts and expenditures
of the club, in books kept for that purpose and, at the last regular
meeting in his term of office, to make a report of the same and to
produce vouchers for all expenditures during his term of office, which
shall be received and filed by the Secretary; and when his successor is
qualified he shall turn over to him all books, moneys and other property
in his possession belonging to the Club.
ARTICLE IV.
CRITIC.
The President shall appoint at each session of the club a Critic, whose
duty it shall be to criticise the conduct of the meeting and of the
individual members in all respects, and to render to the Club such other
help in advice and counsel as may seem wise to him. The Critic shall when
possible be appointed from the honorary members of the Club.
ARTICLE V.
MEMBERSHIP.
Section 1. Any boy residing in Fairfield may become a member of this
club, by election at any regular meeting.
Section 2. Proposals for membership shall be made in writing. The name
shall be submitted to the Committee on Membership, hereinafter provided
for, which shall, at the next regular meeting, report to the society
the general standing and eligibility of the candidate. The vote on the
candidate shall be by ballot. If not more than three votes appear against
him, he shall be declared elected, and on signing the Constitution,
taking the oath of membership, and paying the initiation fee of
twenty-five cents he shall be announced by the President as an active
member of the Club.
Section 3. Any person may become an honorary member of the society by
election at any regular meeting, provided three votes do not appear
against him. He shall be entitled to all the privileges of an active
member, excepting voting and holding office. He shall not be subject to
any initiation fee.
Section 4. Any member who is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of
the Club may, at any regular meeting, be suspended or expelled at the
discretion of the Club. But the charge against such member shall be
signed by one of the officers of the Club or by at least three members,
shall definitely state the facts constituting the alleged offense and
shall lie on the table for one week after the offending member has been
notified of the charge. No member shall be convicted of the offense
charged unless two-thirds of the members present vote for such conviction.
ARTICLE VI.
COMMITTEES.
Section 1. The President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and the
Chairman of the Membership Committee shall together constitute the
Executive Committee, who shall be vested with all the powers of the club
during the intervals between the sessions thereof.
Section 2. The President, at the first meeting of his term, shall appoint
a committee of five whose duty it shall be to investigate and report on
all proposals for membership. This committee shall hold office throughout
the year.
Section 3. At the first meeting of his term, the President shall appoint
two persons who, together with himself, shall act as the Programme
Committee, whose duty it shall be to formulate the programmes, including
the selection of questions for debate, and report the same to the Club
at least two weeks before the date of the programme. The committee shall
have full power to place active members, including the officers of the
Club, on the programme as it may see fit. The Club may at any time
modify or change completely any programme in the meeting at which it is
reported. The Programme Committee shall hold office until one week after
the regular election of the officers.
ARTICLE VII.
MEETINGS.
Regular meetings of the Club shall be held on Friday evening of each week
at eight o’clock. Special meetings may be called by the President at any
time.
ARTICLE VIII.
DUES.
Each member of the Club shall pay an initiation fee of twenty-five cents
when he is elected to membership and a monthly fee of ten cents on the
first day of every month.
ARTICLE IX.
This constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of all the members
present at any regular meeting of the Club, provided one week’s previous
notice of the proposed amendment shall have been given.
APPENDIX D
TABLE OF PARLIAMENTARY RULES
In the following table, the principal questions arising in parliamentary
practice are noted. The table should serve at once as an index and
summary. The motions are arranged alphabetically; the order of priority
is indicated by Roman numerals.
Each can supersede one of lower rank. None, except to amend, can
supersede one of higher order. The references (e.g.—C.d.) are to the
paragraphs in the chapter on Parliamentary Procedure, page 101, where the
rules are discussed.
A motion to
I. Adjourn leaves the main question first in
order at the next meeting, cannot be
(C.d.) amended, debated, laid on the table,
postponed, reconsidered, or
renewed.[1]
XII. Amend can be amended (not an amendment
to an amendment), can be committed
(A.a.) (takes with it the principal
motion), is debatable if the
main question is, can be laid on
the table (in which case it carries
with it to the table the entire
subject), can be postponed (in
which case the main question is
also postponed), is subject to
previous question, can be
reconsidered but cannot be renewed.[2]
IV. Appeal from decision suspends action on main question,
of chair on cannot be amended, committed,
Question of Order debated,[3] postponed or renewed;
it may be laid on the table (which
(B.f.g.) action sustains the chair) or
reconsidered.
XI. Commit, refer, or commits main question and all
recommit subsidiary to it; can be amended,
debated, laid on the table (carrying
(A.c.) the entire subject with it),
reconsidered or renewed, opens
main question to debate, is subject
to previous question but cannot
be committed or postponed.[4]
VII. Lay on the table, tables the main question, and all
take from the table, subsidiary questions with it; cannot
be amended, committed, debated,
(A.f.) postponed; a negative vote
cannot be reconsidered, but an
affirmative vote can; it can be
renewed.[5]
III. Orders of the Day cannot be amended, committed,
debated, laid on the table, postponed,
(C.a.) is not subject to previous
question, cannot be renewed, but
can be reconsidered.[6]
X. To postpone to cannot be committed or postponed;
certain time does not open the main
question to debate; can be
(A.d.) amended or debated as to time
only; is subject to previous question
which does not thereby apply
to the main question; can be laid
on the table, reconsidered or renewed.
XII. To postpone indefinitely removes main question for session;
cannot be amended; can be
(A.b.) committed, debated—as can the
main question—laid on the table,
postponed, reconsidered or renewed;
is subject to the previous
question without affecting the main
question.[7]
IX. Previous Question compels immediate vote on main
question;[8] cannot be amended,
(A.e.) committed, debated, or postponed;
it can be laid on the table (carrying
to the table the entire subject),
reconsidered or renewed.[9]
XIV. Principal Motion can be amended, committed, debated,
laid on the table, postponed,
is subject to previous
question, can be reconsidered or
renewed.
II. Question of Privilege suspends action on main question;
a motion concerning it can be
amended, committed, debated, laid
(C.b.) on the table, postponed, reconsidered
or renewed, is subject to
previous question.
VII. To reconsider cannot be amended, committed,
postponed, or reconsidered; it is
(D.b.) debatable if the main question is,
and opens the main question to
debate if carried; it can be laid
on the table without tabling the
main question; it can be renewed
and is subject to the previous
question, which, however, affects
only reconsideration.[10]
VI. To suspend a rule has no effect on the main question;
it can be amended, committed,
(B.a.) debated, laid on the table,
postponed, reconsidered or renewed;
it is subject to the previous
question.[11]
V. To withdraw motion cannot be amended, committed,
debated, postponed; it can be
(B.b.) reconsidered or renewed.
[1] A quorum is not necessary to adjournment.
[2] A motion to amend is not in order after the previous question, to
postpone or to lay on the table, has been ordered.
[3] The appellant and the chair may state the respective ground for
appeal and decision.
[4] A motion to commit cannot be made after the previous question has
been ordered.
[5] Motions once tabled must be removed by motion to take from table.
[6] An affirmative vote on the Orders of the Day removes the main
question from consideration; a negative vote dispenses with the business
set for special time.
[7] To postpone indefinitely yields to all subsidiary questions except to
amend.
[8] When the previous question is moved on an amendment and adopted,
debate is closed on the amendment only.
[9] The previous question applies only to debatable questions.
[10] It must be made by one voting on prevailing side on main question.
A motion to reconsider can be applied to every other question except to
adjourn and to suspend rules, and affirmative vote to lay on the table.
[11] It cannot suspend the constitution or by-laws.
APPENDIX E
RULES OF THE FORD HALL TOWN MEETING
JURISDICTION.
1. The Ford Hall Town Meeting has all the legislative powers possessed
by any legislative body within and including the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Every bill introduced into said Town Meeting shall begin
with language appropriate to the body which is supposed to be considering
the same.
MEMBERSHIP.
2. No test of race, creed, sex, or property shall be applied in
determining citizenship in the Ford Hall Town Meeting. Any person signing
the roll and subscribing to the following declaration shall thereupon be
regarded as a citizen.
DECLARATION.
3. I do solemnly declare that I will strive to advance the common good
and the Commonwealth of Ford Hall by all means in my power.
OFFICERS.
4. The elective officers of the Town Meeting shall be a Moderator, Clerk,
and a Sergeant-at-Arms who shall be elected by Preferential Ballot at the
second regular meeting of each season. A majority of all the votes cast
shall be necessary to a choice.
5. The Moderator may appoint a citizen to perform the duties of the chair
for such period during his term of office as he may elect.
6. In case of a vacancy in the office of Moderator, or in case the
Moderator or the citizen named by him in accordance with the preceding
rule, is absent at the hour to which the Town Meeting stands adjourned,
the Clerk shall call the Town Meeting to order and shall proceed until
the Moderator appear or a temporary or a regular moderator be elected
which shall be the first business in order.
The Moderator is ex-officio member of all committees.
CLERK.
7. The Clerk may appoint such assistants as he may desire and shall
A. Keep the record of the proceedings of the Town Meeting.
B. Enter at large in the Journal every question of order with
the decision thereon.
C. Prepare and cause to be listed on one sheet for reference
a calendar of matters for consideration at the next session
of the Town Meeting. Such list shall be regarded as the Order
of the Day for the consideration of the Town Meeting at its
next session and the matters noted thereon shall be considered
in their due order unless otherwise specially voted by the
Town Meeting. Any objection to the calendar shall be made and
disposed of before the Town Meeting votes to proceed to the
consideration of the Orders of the Day.
D. Prepare and cause to be listed on one sheet a list of
matters lying on the table.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
8. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall be responsible for the preservation of the
order and decorum of the Town Meeting. He may select such assistants,
doorkeepers, and other officers as he may deem necessary. He shall
execute the orders of the Moderator or the Town Meeting and shall have
the custody of the property of the Town Meeting other than the records
properly in the custody of the clerk.
COMMITTEES.
9. The following standing committees shall be elected by ballot from the
citizens of the Town Meeting:
A. A Committee on Rules, to consist of six members and the
Moderator of the Town Meeting, who shall be ex-officio chairman
of said committee.
B. A Committee on Education, to consist of seven members.
C. A Committee on Housing, to consist of seven members.
D. A Committee on Health, to consist of five members.
E. A Committee on Play and Recreation, to consist of five
members.
F. A Committee on Labor, to consist of seven members.
G. A Committee on Judiciary, to consist of five members.
H. A Committee on Transportation, to consist of five members.
I. A Committee on Mercantile Affairs, to consist of five
members.
J. A Committee on Courtesies, to consist of five members.
K. A Committee on Liquor Laws, to consist of five members.
L. A Committee on Budget and Appropriations, to consist of
seven members.
M. A Committee on Municipal Affairs, to consist of five members.
N. A Committee on City Planning, to consist of seven members.
O. A Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, to consist of
seven members.
All of said committees shall be nominated by a nominating committee
consisting of seven citizens elected by the Town Meeting. The Moderator
of the Town Meeting shall designate one member of each of said committees
to act as chairman thereof.
10. The Moderator shall appoint a committee of five to be known as the
Committee on Ways and Means, who shall prepare for the consideration of
the Committee on Budget and Appropriations an estimate of the probable
expense of the Town Meeting for the current season. When such estimate
has been considered and ordered by the said Committee on Budget and
Appropriations, the said Ways and Means Committee shall extend the taxes
necessary to meet said budget over the Town Meeting and appoint all
officers necessary to collect, care for and disburse the same in orderly
and regular fashion.
11. Before said Committee on Budget and Appropriations shall finally
appropriate any sum for the support of the Town Meeting in its various
functions it shall report its estimate to the full Town Meeting, and no
such report shall be adopted unless approved by a vote of two-thirds of
the members present at a regular Town Meeting.
12. All measures intended for presentation by any citizen shall be
presented to the Clerk on paper furnished by the Clerk. The Clerk shall
read all measures by title and the Moderator shall then refer them to
their appropriate committees, before the order of the day has been
considered at each Town Meeting. They shall be given a consecutive number
by the Clerk and shall thereafter be referred to by number, title and by
the name of the citizen introducing the same. The committees to whom said
measures are referred shall consider the same as promptly as may be and
may in said consideration call before them the original sponsor of such
measure or any citizen who is in favor of or opposed to said measure.
In addition thereto said committees may, if they shall so elect, call
before them any person, whether a citizen of the Town Meeting or not,
whose evidence or arguments might, in their judgment, be valuable to the
committee or to the Town Meeting in their deliberations on the particular
measure under consideration.
Said committees shall, as speedily as possible, report to the Town
Meeting, their conclusions upon the matters referred to them, giving in
concise form the reasons upon which said conclusions are based.
PETITIONS AND REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
13. Petitions, memorials, remonstrances and papers of a like nature, and
reports of committees shall be presented before the Town Meeting proceeds
to the consideration of the Order of the Day, and the Moderator shall
call for such papers.
PAPERS ADDRESSED TO THE TOWN MEETING NOT PETITIONS.
Papers addressed to the Town Meeting, other than petitions, memorials
and remonstrances, may be presented by the Moderator, or by a citizen in
his place, and shall be read, unless it is specifically ordered that the
reading be dispensed with.
14. No bill shall be acted upon by the Town Meeting until it has been
reported by the committee to which it has been referred: provided,
however, that the Moderator may call upon any committee to report a bill
before it, if in his judgment said report is unduly delayed. No bill
shall be put to a final vote without having been read three several times.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
15. Bills favorably reported to the Town Meeting by committees, and bills
the question of the rejection of which is negatived, shall be placed in
the Orders for the next session, and, if they have been read but once,
shall go to a second reading without question. Resolutions reported in
the Town Meeting by committees shall, after they are read, be placed in
the Orders of the Day for the next session.
16. Reports of committees not by bill or resolve shall be placed in the
Orders of the next session after that on which they are made to the
Town Meeting; _provided_, that the report of a committee asking to be
discharged from the further consideration of a subject and recommending
that it be referred to another committee, shall be immediately considered.
17. Bills ordered to a third reading shall be placed in the Orders of the
next session for such reading.
18. After entering upon the consideration of the Orders of the Day,
the Town Meeting shall proceed with them in regular course as follows:
Matters not giving rise to a motion or debate shall be first disposed of
in the order in which they stand in the calendar; after which the matters
that were passed over shall be considered in like order and disposed of.
19. When the Town Meeting does not finish the consideration of the Orders
of the Day, those which had not been acted upon shall be the Orders of
the next and each succeeding day until disposed of, and shall be entered
in the calendar, without change in their order, to precede matters added
under rules 15 and 16 and 17. The unfinished business in which the Town
Meeting was engaged at the time of adjournment shall have the preference
in the Orders of the next day, after motions to reconsider.
SPECIAL RULES AFFECTING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS.
20. No matter which has been duly placed in the Orders of the Day shall
be discharged therefrom, or considered out of the regular course. This
rule shall not be rescinded, or revoked or suspended except by a vote of
four-fifths of the members present and voting thereon.
21. If, under the operation of the previous question, or otherwise, an
amendment is made at the second, or third reading of a bill substantially
changing the greater part of such bill, the question shall not be put
forthwith on ordering the bill to a third reading, but the bill, as
amended, shall be placed in the Orders of the next session after that on
which the amendment is made, and shall then be open to further amendment
before such question is put. In like manner, when, under the operation
of the previous question or otherwise, an amendment is made in any
proposition of such a nature as to change its character, as from a bill
to an order, or the like, the proposition as amended shall be placed in
the Orders of the next session after that on which the amendment was made.
RECONSIDERATION.
22. When a motion for reconsideration is decided, that decision shall not
be reconsidered, and no question shall be twice reconsidered; nor shall
any vote be reconsidered upon either of the following motions:
to adjourn,
to lay on the table,
to take from the table; or,
for the previous question.
23. Debate on motions to reconsider shall be limited to twenty minutes,
and no citizen shall occupy more than five minutes; but on a motion to
reconsider a vote upon any subsidiary or incidental question, debate
shall be limited to ten minutes, and no citizen shall occupy more than
three minutes.
RULES OF DEBATE.
24. No citizen shall speak more than once to the prevention of those who
have not spoken and desire to speak on the same question.
25. No citizen shall speak more than five minutes upon any measure.
26. The proponent of any measure may speak for ten minutes.
27. Upon unanimous consent of all voting citizens present, any speaker
may have the privilege of such further time as the said voting citizens
present may designate.
28. Every motion shall be reduced to writing, if the Moderator so directs.
29. When a question is before the Town Meeting, until it is disposed of,
the Moderator shall receive no motion that does not relate to the same,
except the motion to adjourn, or some other motion that has precedence
either by express rule of the Town Meeting or because it is privileged in
its nature; and he shall receive no motion relating to the same, except:
to lay on the table,
for the previous question,
to close the debate at a specified time,
to postpone to a time certain,
to commit (or recommit),
to amend,
which several motions shall have precedence in the order in which they
are arranged in this rule.
PREVIOUS QUESTION.
30. All questions of order arising after a motion is made for the
previous question shall be decided without debate, excepting on appeal;
and on such appeal, no citizen shall speak except the appellant and the
Moderator.
31. The adoption of the previous question shall put an end to all debate
and bring the Town Meeting to a direct vote upon pending amendments, if
any, in their regular order, and then upon the main question.
MOTION TO COMMIT.
32. When a motion is made to commit, and different committees are
proposed, the question shall be taken in the following order:
a standing committee of the Town Meeting,
a select committee of the Town Meeting,
and a subject may be recommitted to the same committee or to another
committee at the pleasure of the Town Meeting.
MOTION TO AMEND.
33. A motion to amend an amendment may be received; but no amendment in
the third degree shall be allowed.
ENACTING CLAUSE.
34. A motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill shall only be
received when the bill is before the Town Meeting for enactment.
PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE.
35. Cushing’s Manual shall govern the Town Meeting in all cases to which
they are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with these
rules.
DEBATE ON MOTIONS FOR THE SUSPENSION OF RULES.
36. Debate upon a motion for the suspension of any of the rules shall be
limited to fifteen minutes, and no citizen shall occupy more than three
minutes.
37. Unless otherwise stated a majority vote of those present shall decide
any question.
SUSPENSIONS, AMENDMENT AND REPEAL.
38. Nothing in these rules shall be dispensed with, altered or repealed,
unless two-thirds of the citizens present consent thereto; but this rule
and rule twenty-one shall not be suspended, unless by unanimous consent
of the citizens present.
APPENDIX F
SOURCES OF MATERIAL
How can you obtain the necessary information for your debate? Where can
you get your evidence? How will you proceed to obtain the facts upon
which your debate will win or lose?
In part these questions have been answered by the chapter on evidence.
Let me advise you to read it over again carefully.
The first persons to consult are the other members of your own family.
Their experience in public affairs you will find in many cases to be
much larger than you have thought. How many times, for instance, do your
neighbors or perhaps the township supervisor drop in upon your father to
talk with him in the evening about matters of public policy? How many
times does the school teacher, on her way home from work, stop to pass a
word with your grandfather who was a member of the legislature back in
Connecticut long before the family moved West?
Obviously the next best source of information is your teacher. In almost
all cases you will find that your school instructors are very glad to
help you, not only by telling you what they themselves know but by
referring you to easily available sources of information. Do not hesitate
to ask specific questions of your teachers. It is well, of course, to
request in general their advice and counsel but you can well supplement
this general appeal for help by specific questions the answer to which
will solve troublesome problems as they come up. Be sure to ask your
teachers for lists of available books and advice as to the best magazine
articles to consult.
Next go to the librarian in your own home town. She will be glad to
tell you the best books and magazine articles upon the subject of your
debate. In case her own information is scant you might well advise her to
communicate with the Division of Bibliography of the Library of Congress
at Washington. This division issues memoranda, type-written lists and
printed lists, giving references upon all topics of current interest.
Private individuals can purchase these lists from the Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. In case you have
no library within reaching distance the list will be lent to you. In that
case you should address the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C.
There is an immense amount of literature to be obtained from the
various branches of the Government, and there is hardly a subject
which a boy might be called upon to debate, upon which he could not
obtain enlightenment by applying to the proper Government officer. The
difficulty is to know who is the proper person to address in a particular
case. Probably the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, would be the first one to whom to apply. He has Government
publications for sale, and is in a position to give information about
the publications issued by any branch of the Government. He also
furnishes classified lists on various subjects. These will give an idea
of what bureaus handle the different subjects. With such information a
boy can then apply directly to the right bureau. Most, if not all, of
the Departments issue lists of their publications. The Congressional
Directory contains a list of the Government offices, with a statement of
their functions. The Department of Agriculture issues a Monthly List of
Publications, which is sent regularly to all who ask to have it so sent.
It also issues from time to time a list giving titles of all the Farmers’
Bulletins available.
Your own Congressman will be glad to answer specific questions. Of course
all debaters—boys who are good enough citizens to be interested in
current topics—know the name of their representative in Congress.
You will find also that the colleges in your own State will be very
glad to help you all they can. Let me urge you particularly to make
full use of the Agricultural College and State University of your own
Commonwealth. The Agricultural College has at command a vast fund of
questions all relating to life—social and economic as well as scientific
and historical. Probably in this day, your State University has an
extension division which has special facilities for giving you definite
and accurate advice upon any topic. It may be that your State is one of
the progressive ones which have a system of “traveling libraries”—packets
of books which are shipped to persons who have special interest in
special topics. Really one of the first studies for you when you are
securing evidence is to become thoroughly acquainted with the facilities
of your State institutions of higher education. By all means, however,
include the other colleges which may be in your vicinity. Professors
and other members of the departments of sociology, political science,
political economy, history and similar departments will be particularly
ready to give help.
Of almost equal value with the official documents are the writings of
interested men in magazines and newspapers. These articles will not only
contain many facts but will be both stimulating and suggestive to the
debater in opening to him new lines of thought upon the subject. Poole’s
Index, The Cumulative Index, The Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature
are catalogues of the articles appearing in general periodicals. Some one
of them is sure to be found in your library.
Almost every subject now prominently before the public has based upon it
a society of some kind or other which generally issues publications upon
the subject, or, at any rate, has available facts and arguments of value
to the debater. The Society for the Prevention of This, the Society for
the Promotion of That, the Society for the Study of This Other Matter,
are full of value and interesting information. Write to them if your
subject falls within their respective fields.
THE END
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Debating for boys" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.