argument leads, and the stage of development in the arguments on either side. "An analysis of the debate at this point," he will frequently be led to observe, "shows that the affirmative rest their argument on such and such lines of proof, and the negative base their contention on such and such points." He thus makes plain to the audience the relation of his further argument to what has preceded, and points out any fallacies in the argument of his opponent. The well-known opening words of Webster, in his famous Reply to Hayne, is illustrative: When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution before the Senate. So Lincoln, in his "Divided House" speech, began as follows: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. The analysis now referred to, however, is that preliminary analysis which should make clear the meaning of the question, bring out the debatable issue or issues, show the lines of proof essential to a given side, and also show the arguments on the opposing side that need be met. Now, this process of preliminary analysis is too often neglected by the inexperienced debater. A student is apt to work out lines of proof before he knows, from careful analysis, just what proof is required. He may have read widely on the question, but he has failed to do that preliminary thinking for himself which shows him the bearings and limitations of the discussion. STEPS IN ANALYSIS All argument consists in leading another's thought over the same course your own thought has pursued in reaching a certain conclusion. An analysis of the question will show the point to be reached and the ground to be covered in reaching it. It will show the work to be done, and how it is to be done. "The first step which presents itself in the discussion of any subject is to state distinctly, and with precision, what the subject is, and, where prejudice and misrepresentation have been exerted, to distinguish it accurately from what it is not." The introductory work of analysis will vary greatly with the nature of the question, the familiarity of the audience with the subject, and the time-limit placed on the debate. But the follow 1 Erskine, On the Trial of Thomas Paine. ing steps are usually desirable in analyzing a proposition for debate: 1. Give an exposition of the origin and history of the question. 2. Define the question. 3. Exclude all irrelevant matters. 4. State the points that are admitted by both sides. 5. List the main contentions of both sides. 6. State the main issues in the discussion. 1. Origin and history of the question.-These two matters, although given as two separate steps in analysis in most texts on argumentation, are so closely related that they may be considered as a single step. The origin of a question really results from its history. It raises such queries as: How does the question arise at this time as a subject for debate? What place does it hold in current discussion? What is the nature and trend of public discussion regarding it? And these queries, in turn, involve the presentation of a history of the question sufficient to give the audience a background for the argument. Thus, the question of a literacy test for immigrants would require a general statement of the immigration problem in its relation to the other great sociological problems that confront our nation to-day, and a brief history of immigration and immigration legislation, with a statement of existing restrictive measures. Again, in the question, "Resolved, that the United States should establish a protectorate over Mexico," a brief po litical history of Mexico for the past one hundred years, and a statement of the events which have given rise to the present trouble, could be narrated to advantage. The exposition of the origin and history of the question must be (1) relatively brief. Most beginners give too much detail. Present only those matters that are immediately necessary for an understanding of the question. (2) It must be fair and impartial. No material fact should be concealed, and the statement should be wholly non-partisan. Facts of history are common property and can be used by either side as evidence in the subsequent argument. 2. Definition of the question.—We have previously noted the desirability of having the question for debate so stated that it means the same thing to both sides. Assuming that this has been done as well as desired conciseness will allow, it rarely happens that some of the terms do not need defining, or in any case that the proposition as a whole does not require some exposition or explanation. There are many ways of defining. The first and most natural step is to consult a dictionary, but for the purpose of clarifying the terms used in a proposition for debate a dictionary is usually very inadequate, for dictionary definitions deal largely in synonyms and also fail to give the special or transitory meanings of particular words with reference to questions of current discussion. Again, a purely logical definition, by which is meant a concise statement of the trait or traits most essen tial to an object, is too compact for an unscientific mind. For the purpose of debating, some of the principal ways of supplementing a dictionary or a logical definition are: (1) By authority.-Men who are recognized as (3) By exemplification. This method trans- |