affirmative which you conceive they are bound to answer in order to establish their case. The Second Speeches.-The speakers second in order, affirmative and negative, must elaborate and carry on. Do you accept the task imposed by the last speaker? If not, readjust the case, showing your right to do so. Rapidly summarize your colleague's preceding argument and, when necessary, strengthen it against the attack of the preceding speaker. Take up your division of the proof, showing its relation to the argument of your colleague. Summarize your own and your colleague's proof up to this point, and make it clear to the hearers that the proof to be offered by the colleague who will follow completes a logical and strong case for your side. The Third Speeches.-Each of the last speakers in direct debate has both to elaborate the final points and to conclude. He must complete the proof as first outlined, close up any gaps that have been left by his colleagues or made by his opponents, summarize the whole proof for his side, and leave as vivid an impression as possible regarding the strength of his side as compared with that of his opponents. To "amplify and diminish," in concluding, is a very effective method. The conclusion should not only sum up, but it should also show that the final points complete a strong casethat they clinch the proof. Rebuttal Speeches.-It will be seen that the rules to govern class exercises, as previously stated, provide for a brief speech in rejoinder by the affirma It tive leader. The rules for interscholastic and intercollegiate debates vary as to the provisions for second speeches; sometimes a representative from each side, and again each member of the teams, has a speech in rebuttal. In the latter case the points to be dealt with by each speaker are determined in part in a consultation with his colleagues; but it is to be remembered that the first business of any speaker in rebuttal is to defend and strengthen his particular division of the proof-the necessity for team-work must never be lost sight of. should also be remembered that a speech in rebuttal should introduce no new matter; that is, it is not permissible to present new lines of proof, although new evidence may be introduced to sustain a controverted point which has been presented in the direct debate. Further than this, little can be said of any real value in addition to what was said in the chapter on Refutation. It may be worth while repeating here, however, that rebuttal which degenerates into scattering objections makes little total impression; that the repetition of a number of minor points carries no weight; and that an attempt to make any sort of a detailed reply to a mass of arguments in a few minutes is futile and confusing. What is needed is to select the fundamental points, show that they are fundamental, that they have been proved, and that therefore the proposition is proved. Rebuttal, like direct proof, must be massed on main points. And there is also danger of mere assertion in rebuttal, no less than in direct proof. It will ordinarily not do to say, for example, "My colleague has already met this point," but it is necessary to remind the hearers, by rapid review, just how he has met it, and why his proof should be accepted in preference to that offered against him. The suggestions offered in this chapter are, after all, only suggestions. They are by no means intended to furnish a system to which all debates must conform. The necessity for a well-organized plan, however, so that the work of each debater dovetails into that of his colleagues, cannot be too strongly emphasized, for the lack of such organization is the bane of much student debating. The affirmative speakers must establish a line of proof all leading to the same end-they must make out a case. The speakers on the negative, too, as we have previously seen, must usually do something more than simply attack the proof offered by the affirmative; they must also make out a case to replace that of the affirmative. Each side should ordinarily hew close to the line previously marked out. It may sometimes happen, of course, that one side may have to abandon its prepared line of argument in order to meet the case as presented by the other side, but such instances are rare. But while successful team debates have rigid requirements as to organization of the proof and division of labor, good debating must, on the other hand, necessarily be flexible. In tracing the general progress of a debate we noted the necessity for a speaker's quickly deciding how he should meet a given argument on the other side, and how fully he should meet it, always bearing in mind that he must leave time for his own constructive proof. He who has not learned to depart, whenever the state of the discussion demands it, from a cut-and-dried speech is at a great-and usually a fatal-disadvantage. True, in most questions a thorough study of both sides will reveal the leading arguments pro and con, so that one may prepare rebuttal largely in advance. But general preparation only is possible, for one never knows just what points he will be called upon to refute, nor just how they may best be treated, until they are presented by the other side in actual debate. And it is this very uncertainty, this necessity of quickly adjusting methods of attack and defense, that makes debating the most flexible, the most difficult, and withal the most stimulating of all forms of public speaking. EXERCISES Discuss assigned debates for the purpose of determining how well the foregoing principles have been carried out. Similar exercises may be devoted to a study of the LincolnDouglas debates (Masterpieces of Modern Oratory, pages 133146, or Bouton's edition of these debates, will furnish convenient texts), and of the Hayne-Webster debate (The Great Debate, Riverside Series). See also "Specimen Debate," Appendix II. |