2. Put the following statements and arguments in concrete form by the use of a specific example, an illustration, an anecdote, or some form of figurative language: (a) A member of a legislative body should not serve as an attorney in any manner for a public-service corporation. Since corporations of this class are likely to be subjects for legislation, an attorneyship for such corporations is incompatible with faithful legislative service. (b) As the twig is bent the tree is inclined. (c) In politics, as in other relations of life, honesty is the best policy. (d) Murder will out. (e) Eloquence results from a conjunction of the man, the subject, and the occasion. (f) The mass of mankind cannot be instructed or in fluenced by abstractions. (g) Diligence is the price of success. (h) In times of peril strong men come to the front. (i) Our multimillionaires are a menace to society. (j) Ours is a government of public opinion. (k) "America is another name for opportunity." 3. Take paragraph 30 of Burke's speech on "Conciliation with the American Colonies" (Masterpieces of Modern Oratory, pages 24-25), and let the student note the logical sequence of sentences by underscoring the words of explicit reference which indicate such sequence. 4. To illustrate persuasion arising from the adaptation of material to a particular audience, analyze and discuss with the class the extracts from the Lincoln-Douglas debates (Masterpieces, pages 142-151). Further examples in the same volume may be found on the following pages: 192-193, 214-218, 258259, 263-264, 327-328; and an illustration arising from the relation of the speaker to his subject will be found in the opening of Webster's address (pages 65-66). CHAPTER IX METHODS IN SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DEBATING S distinguished from debating generally, the school and college demands special consideration as to the organization and conduct of such debates. Whether in a class exercise, a debating or literary society, or an inter-school debate, the methods of procedure are essentially the same. General Organization and Conduct of a Debate.There are usually either two or three speakers on each side, with a given time limit for speaking, and varying rules as to rebuttal speeches. There being three debaters, say, on a side, no one speaker is called upon, nor should he attempt, to cover the whole case for his side unless by way of outline or general summary. That is, there must be "teamwork," each member of the team having a definite task to accomplish. It is therefore necessary that the speakers on each side should look to a careful organization of their argument as a whole by a threefold division, each speaker being assigned some one main line of argument. The division should be, first, exhaustive that is, the whole field of the argument should be covered; and, secondly, logical-that is, the divisions should be related to each other by natural sequence, and such relation should be made plain to the audience as each speaker on a side presents his particular argument. Whenever necessary, an interpretation of the question, if practicable, should be agreed upon in a preliminary conference, in order that all quibbling over the meaning of terms may be avoided. In class exercises the author has found it a good plan to conduct debates in accordance with the following rules of procedure: 1. The first-named affirmative and negative speakers are, respectively, the leaders for each debate, with the second-named speakers as alternates. 2. One week prior to any debate the respective leaders will confer with their colleagues and divide the argument into as many divisions as there are speakers, assigning points and references from the brief previously prepared. 3. Immediately preceding the debate each leader will hand to the instructor a brief written outline of the complete argument, with the respective assignments; and each speaker will make in advance a written outline of his particular argument and hand the same to the instructor when called upon for the oral presentation. 4. The arguments must be presented without notes. Speakers will be allowed six to eight minutes each, according to the number participating, a one-minute warning bell being rung. The affirmative leader will have three minutes for rejoinder. Extempore three-minute speeches in rebuttal, by unassigned members of the class, may be given, as time permits. It will be seen that Rule 2 above implies that at least the leaders shall have briefed a question in advance. This requirement is essential for preventing superficial work, and it is desirable, of course, that all those assigned for a given debate shall have briefed the question. In any event, no debater should make the mistake of preparing his particular line of argument solely. True, his main work is that of presenting and defending his particular division of the proof, but he should also know the case as a whole. Thus will he be able not only to see clearly the relation of his particular argument to the whole case for his side and to make such relation clear to the audience, but also prepared to rush to the defense of a colleague when the exigencies of the debate so demand. THE WORK FOR EACH SPEAKER With the debate organized as above indicated, let us examine-necessarily in a general way a little more in detail the work for each speaker. First Affirmative Speech. The opening by the affirmative leader must be, first of all, introductory and expository. He must first arouse interest in the subject for debate, show how it is related to the interests of the audience, make clear the meaning of the question, point out the main issues, show how the affirmative side proposes to establish its case, and then move into the first division of his proof. In other words, he should cover first the essential points as outlined for the introduction of his brief. But the opening speech should be something more than merely introductory; it should take up and develop at least one line of argument, so that some real progress is made in the proof before the negative side takes up the discussion. An affirmative leader is sometimes apt to spend so much time in his introduction that he has no time left for positive proof. He must make a clear and plausible prima facie case, and then reinforce this by evidence bearing on at least one of the main issues for proof. In closing, it is frequently a good plan, if the question lends itself to this method, to submit certain questions or propositions which the negative are bound to answer or prove in order to meet the case you have made out. First Negative Speech. - The opening by the first negative speaker must almost always be a direct reply to the first speaker for the affirmative. To that end, he must quickly decide his answers to such questions as: Is the introduction by the affirmative acceptable? Do you agree with his interpretation of the question? Is his analysis satisfactory, especially as to the issues and the burden of proof? Does the outline of the affirmative leader cover the case? Is the proof he has offered directly opposed to your assigned line of argument? If not, can you safely leave it for one of your colleagues to answer in detail? If so, deal it one blow, and explain to the audience that you leave the details of refutation to a colleague as belonging to his division of the negative proof as a whole; that is, do not give the impression of dodging the question by an arbitrary postponement. Now outline the case for the negative and move into the proof of your assigned division. In closing, propound, in turn, it may be, questions of the |