III. THE ORGANIZATION





Title page



Organizing Written Argument.—It is not until after we have thus brought together and tested our arguments that we come to the question of organizing and presenting them. Let us assume, then, that we are to prepare a written defence of our position, such as we should read to an audience which we desired to convince; we shall see later how we may modify our procedure to adapt our material to the formal conditions of oral debate.

i. Introduction.—First comes the introduction. It should clear the way for the discussion to follow. The subject will probably need explaining, so as to show exactly what is the point, or what are the points, at issue. It may be necessary to run briefly over some of the cir¬cumstances that have led up to the situation as it now stands. Or we may wish to warn the reader against certain natural misconceptions that might prejudice him against our side. Finally it may be, and gener¬ally is, highly desirable to outline our plan of attack, that the reader may the more readily follow our reason¬ing as a whole, not as a series of random arguments.

2. Body.—What that plan shall be, only the sub¬ject-matter, of course, can determine. Yet there are

several well-defined methods of procedure that sug¬gest themselves on purely logical grounds. ’ One method is to distinguish the positive arguments from the negative, and to present them separately. Thus, in supporting Haneck, we might naturally show the desirable qualities that he possesses, and then the undesirable qualities that others may have but he has not. Or, if we were arguing in favor of separate high schools for girls and boys, we might urge the disadvantages of coeducation in the high school, before going on to enumerate the advantages of the other system.

Some questions offer a limited number of possi¬ble solutions, of which we choose to accept one. Naturally, if we are able to show that of a given problem there are only three solutions to choose from, and that two of them have weighty disadvan¬tages, we are in a good position to urge the desira¬bility of the third solution. To illustrate, we will say that we are arguing in favor of a certain radical change in the examination system. We show that there are three solutions of the examination problem, and only three: to continue the system as it is, to abol¬ish it altogether, or to modify it substantially with a view to correcting its faults. We shall be more sure of a sympathetic hearing for our reforms if we have first convinced our reader that nothing is to be hoped from an attempt to solve the problem in either ot the first two ways.



Yet another method of organizing a subject is

to distinguish between the several points of view from which the subject may be regarded. Let us look for an example at an argument in favor of the abolishing of football from the sports of the school. We might find arguments against the game (1) from the player ’ s point of view, (2) from the onlooking student ’ s, (3) from the teacher ’ s, and (4) from the public ’ s. Or, regarding the player ’ s point of view alone, we could discuss football as it affects the player (1) physically, (2) mentally, and (3) morally. This last example, moreover, has a double significance, for besides illustrating how a certain method may be applied, it hints at a fact most important to remem¬ber, namely, that these methods can be used not only singly, but often in combination, one method deter¬mining the larger plan, another the details within that plan.

Now in applying these methods, singly or in com¬bination, it is evident that we are addressing ourselves not to reasoning machines, but to people with sym¬pathies. And since sympathies are won, as a rule, little by little, it is well for us, so far as we can, to have a climax of force in the presentation of our arguments. Which end of our series is more weighty, that dealing with the football player himself, or that concerning the general public? Do we consider the physical effects of football more deleterious, or the moral? On our answer should depend the order in which we urge our views.

3. Conclusion.—Finally comes the conclusion. Gen

erally it contains a summing up of the arguments, a bird ’ s-eye view of the whole course of reasoning. The purpose is to refresh the memory, and to bring the parts once more back into their proper perspective. If this is well done, it makes a very effective conclusion; but there are two dangers that ought to be avoided. First, no new argument should be introduced in the conclusion. The mood has changed, and the mind is engaged in reviewing familiar arguments. It is then a distraction and an annoyance to have to turn back and fit a new thought into a system that seemed complete before. The other danger is that we be not satisfied simply to bring our points together, touching lightly on those that are of less weight, but that we be led into taking up the whole question a second time, repeating and laboriously explaining the arguments that we have already presented carefully in the body of our paper.

But though, in the summing up of our logical judg¬ments, we must exercise these restraints, in our call on the reader ’ s sympathies we can be more free. In fact, the conclusion is the best place for that more imaginative appeal to the will that we call persuasion. While we are in the midst of our arguments, and before we have won the reader to a favorable inclina¬tion towards our cause, a direct call on the sympathies would seem inappropriate, and be resented as an affront to the reader ’ s judgment. But when the whole case has been clearly stated, then is the time chiefly to show the warmth of our convictions, and to try to

kindle a sympathetic response in the imagination of the reader.

46. Organizing Oral Debate.—Fundamental though the principles be, which govern the presentation of a written argument, we have to adapt them somewhat when we apply them under the special conditions of oral debate. For one thing, we have in debate not a theoretical opponent, whose objections we try to anticipate, but an actual one, who picks flaws in our reasoning before our face, often to the intense satis¬faction of our audience. Moreover, we have to speak without the aid of a fully written manuscript before our eyes. The result is that we must make a different sort of preparation, modifying in some respects the procedure that has been suggested for written argu¬ment.



1. Wording of the Subject.—In the first place, it is generally desirable so to word our subject that the first speaker on the affirmative side may have a prop¬osition to battle with at once. If the debate is to be on the question of examinations, and the question is worded: "Resolved, that school examinations are a fair test of merit," the first speaker is going to have an uninteresting time; to defend a system that is generally accepted as good, at least in practice, does not give much opportunity for interesting, forcible speaking. But make the subject read: "Resolved, that school examinations are not a fair test of merit," and the first speaker has something to do, and we are interested at once to see how he will do it. The

second speaker then has the first speaker to attack, and, the ball being once set to rolling, it is an easy thing to keep it going. In almost every subject there is thus one side that has an attack to make, or, as we say, the burden of proof to sustain; and there is generally a distinct advantage when the wording of the question gives that side to the affirmative.

2. Team Work in Presenting Arguments.—Then

comes the dividing of the work between the two speakers of each side, so as to get the advantages of team-play. The affirmative side, as we have seen, is generally on the offensive, and obviously to the first speaker on that side falls the important duty of setting forth in a favorable light the line of argument his side intends to follow. Clearness and vigor are the qualities needed here, for the stronger the first impression on the audience, the easier to follow it up effectively in the second speech. In certain respects, therefore, the good opening speech is like the good written argument. But in one respect it is different. A spoken address is less concisely worded than a written one: we cannot say so much, so accurately, in so short a time. Even if we could, the audience cannot follow as closely a spoken ad¬dress as a written one. But what is lost in ful¬ness and accuracy can be made up for in vigor and vividness; and so it is that a speaker should pass over lightly or omit altogether the many unimportant and indirect arguments, if by so doing he can present his few strong arguments with more insistent, telling effect.

3. Rebuttal.—After the first speaker has finished, a new element, the direct answering of arguments, may be introduced by any of the speakers. But in practice this negative arguing, called rebuttal, is generally assigned to the last speaker on each side, and forms an important part of his address. In that case the first speaker on the negative, like the first affirmative speaker, devotes himself to constructive arguments.

To a certain extent, the rebuttal of a debate must be prepared at the moment, depending as it does on the arguments that the opposing speakers have brought out. Yet many of these points can be anticipated, and the answers prepared for them in advance. It thus becomes as important to study the opposite side of a case as it is to study one ’ s own. We have already seen how to find the weak places in our own arguments, and in •the same way we can test our opponents ’. Does this argument apply to the question at issue at all? Is this an authority on whose opinion we can put much reliance? Is this precedent or analogy so circumstanced that the conclusion from it can be justly drawn here? Have our opponents used two arguments one of which can be shown to be contradictory of the other? Is this line of reasoning such that if it be carried out to its logical conclusion it may be shown to be obviously absurd? These are a few of the points we must be on the watch for; and very effective is it, this pulling down of specious arguments, if it be skilfully done. But there is danger here, as every¬where, of overdoing. If we rush in blindly to answer

every argument, we are likely not only to get tangled ourselves in contradictions, but to obscure the impor¬tant points by the very number of unimportant ones. As in constructive arguments, so in destructive: two or three points, important in themselves and clearly set forth, are more effective in debate than a large number of good and indifferent points thrown together.

4. Preparation of a Brief.—All else that goes into the making of a good debate—lucidity of statement, accuracy and_ease of diction, self-control in demeanor —are, though difficult to acquire in practice, obvious enough in theory. One final hint, however, may be practically helpful. In order that we may have our mind free to devote to the proper expression of our arguments, all the results of our previous thinking should be readily available in the shape of a system¬atic, clearly expressed outline, or "brief." We have seen, in making outlines for expositions, the advantage for the eye in indenting headings in accordance with their relative importance. Much more is this desir¬able in the plan of an argument, for when we are on our feet ready to speak it is a matter of practical moment with us whether our notes are instantly intel¬ligible, or need ransacking and study to be available at all.





An example will make clear how indenting may aid us in the construction of a brief. Our subject may as well be that of Haneck ’ s desirability as football captain. Usage has shown that it is convenient to throw our brief into some such form as this:

Introd.

No other candidates have been mentioned.
 * Choice of captain lies between Halleck and Cross- well, for

'''The object is to choose the best captain. Therefore C. We should compare the qualifications of both can¬didates with respect to:'''
 * Decision should be made strictly on the merits of the men, for

1.  Personal characteristics.

2. Special circumstances.

3. Attitude of the team.

Body.

A. Halleck ’ s qualifications.

I. Halleck ’ s personal qualifications are good, for

'''i. by the fewness of his errors in play, a. by his success as temporary captain, 3. by the testimony of Fiske, this year ’ s'''
 * he has a cool head, as shown.

captain;

i. he is acknowledged to be the best in  dividual player on the team.
 * he has authority to coach the other play¬ers, for

U. Halleck has advantageous circumstances in his favor:

i.  the team would resent taking orders from a junior;
 * his being a senior, for

2.  a senior would receive more con¬sideration from the captains of other teams;

z. he will have more time to devote to the team;
 * his being ahead in his studies, for

2.  the teachers will be more interested in the team.

'''III. Halleck is popular with the team, '''for

(a) the individual members have said so;

 (b) his temporary captaincy was acceptable to them.

B. Refutation of arguments favoring Crosswell.

I. His brilliancy as a player is granted, but

r. he loses his head in critical moments;
 * he is erratic, for

1. he was irregular in coming to practice;
 * he is careless in discipline, for

2. ex-captain Fiske complained of his insubordination.

II. His having done much for the school is not to the point, for

(a) the football captaincy is not a reward for services to the school.

(a) it is not among the harder workers,
 * His quickness in studies is no advantage, for (a) his sickness last spring gives him extra work to make up.
 * His general popularity is not to the point, for

including the members of the team.

that he is popular.

Concl.

HaReck has in his favor:

I. Personal qualifications:


 * coolness of head,

prestige as an individual player, (c) authority as a coach;

II. Special circumstances:

III. The good-will of others:
 * being a senior,
 * having spare time;

(c) the team as a whole.
 * the teachers,
 * this year ’ s captain,

IV. EXPRESSION.

One element we have yet to consider, on which to a large extent depends the total effectiveness of an argument: the tone in which it is written. This is worthy of separate consideration.

47. Courtesy toward Opponents.—As we have said, an argument is addressed, not to reasoning machines, but to people—people who have opinions and sym¬pathies of their own, and as much a right to them as we have to ours. In presenting an argument, there¬fore, we must adapt ourselves to these conditions. Above all things we must avoid the impression that it is our mission to set the world right on the question at issue, and that all who disagree with us are wilfully obstinate in error. No attitude is so likely to arouse every bit of antagonism that the reader or hearer pos¬sesses. The skilled arguer goes rather to the other extreme. He assumes that both he and his opponent wish to get at the truth, but that he is in possession of evidence that gives him deeper insight into the subject than others have. And so he is not only willing but anxious to look the arguments of the other side squarely in the face, fair-mindedly, and to admit the justice of this or that contention, where he can. By so doing he gains the confidence of his audience, and wins a respectful hearing when he comes to present the more weighty reasons for his own belief. Even here he is not dogmatic and disputatious, but, however firm, always deferential and courteous in his expression.

48.

49. Adaptation of Tone to Audience.—When our arguments are addressed to a particular person or set of persons, it is desirable to go a step farther than that, and to adapt both our arguments and the expression of them to those whom we would influence. If we were urging that athletic control should be in the hands of the students, we could take for granted a good deal of favorable inclination in an audience of fellow students, and we could address ourselves very vigorously to them. With an audience of teachers, however, we should have to overcome a certain pre¬disposition of mind, and while we should be just as frank to them as to our fellow students, we should substitute temperance of statement for enthusiasm, and convince them, by our moderation of tone, that our judgments are maturely considered. Chiefly at the end of an argument, while we are summing up our case, can we give our feelings freer rein. And since this is always an emphatic point, if we can compress into our conclusion, not only a retrospective glance over the course of our reasoning, but a feeling of the heightened energy of our conviction as well, we have done all that we can to make our personal enthusiasm both effective in itself and acceptable to the hearer.