local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control slavery in our Federal territories? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and the Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue this question-is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we."1

Webster, in his famous debate with Hayne, finds the main issue as follows:

The inherent right in the people to reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government. It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that the main debate hinges.

So Burke, in his speech on "Conciliation with the American Colonies" thus states the two main issues:

The capital leading questions on which you must this day decide are these two: First, whether you ought to concede; and, secondly, what your concession ought to be.

One further example, with a different method of approach.2 Take the question, "Resolved, that three-fourths of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in criminal cases." On analysis it will appear that both sides admit that absolute

1 Perry, Little Masterpieces, pp. 37-39.

2 Adapted from Alden's Art of Debate, p. 35.

justice cannot always be expected in jury trials. The question, therefore, is: How secure the most perfect justice consistent with a uniform system? There are two sorts of interest involved: (1) the interest of the accused, that he shall not be unjustly convicted (the present status); (2) the interest of the people as a whole, that the guilty shall not escape punishment. The main issue, therefore, might be thus stated: Will the proposed change increase the probability of public justice without lessening the probability of justice to the accused?

Having gone thus far in the process of analysis, the student will fully realize that a thorough knowledge of the question is absolutely essential. Not only a knowledge of the side he desires to maintain, but the side of the opposition as well; for any one "who knows only one side of a question knows little of that." As a general of an army, he must not only know the strength and weakness of his own army, but the strength and weakness of the enemy.

When the important issues and the point or points on which the question hinges have been determined, it will be discovered that there is what is called a "clash of opinion." In other words, the main contention of the affirmative and the main contention of the negative will directly contradict each other. This head-on collision is always desirable in a formal debate, though not always existent. In the less formal discussions of

every-day life, also, the clash of opinion is often not readily apparent, but the skilful debater will always analyze the question to discover the vital issue or issues upon which the discussion turns.

It is impossible to formulate a definite plan to determine the issues that will be adequate for every subject for debate, but the following scheme will at least afford a check for beginners:

In most questions of reform there is an underlying evil. It is quite important that this evil be pointed out. Man will not change his action or his attitude toward the fundamental problems of economics, government, religion, or sociology until it has been proved to his satisfaction that there is a need for this change. Human nature is very conservative when basic principles of life are involved. Hence, the first important issue to prove is that there are evils in the present system great enough to warrant a change. The next logical step would be to suggest an adequate remedy for this evil-a plan of action. Mankind will not abandon a plan, faulty as it may be, until it sees a better one. Having suggested a cure for the evil, there still remains another point, and that is, to prove the proposed plan practical-that it will work, and also that it will work better than any other proposed remedy. The negative will, of course, maintain the opposite. These issues will have many subdivisions, but the "clash of opinion" will not be as direct in the subissues as they are in the main issues.

By way of summary. The affirmative may prove:

1. Cause for action, or evils in the present system, or necessity for change.

2. Method of action or remedy for evils, or feasibility of plan.

3. Practicability of method, and best plan. The negative may prove:

1. No just cause for action, or evils do not exist, or no immediate need for proposed changes.

2. Method not adequate, or evils incurable, or plan not feasible.

3. Method impracticable, or better plan.

EXAMPLE

Resolved, that the United States should establish a protectorate over Mexico.

The issues might be arranged in the following

manner:

AFFIRMATIVE

A. Present conditions in Mexico are unsatisfactory, for,

1. Foreign capital and foreign citizens are unprotected.

2. Mexico is unable to establish a stable government.

B. Protectorate the best remedy, for,

1. Foreign citizens and property would be protected.

2. The Monroe Doctrine obligates the U. S. to intervene.

NEGATIVE

A. Conditions in Mexico are not bad enough to warrant intervention, for,

1. Very little capital and very few foreign citizens have been molested.

2. Only about one in three hundred are engaged in warfare. B. Protectorate would be undesirable, for,

I. It could be established only at a tremendous expense and the sacrifice of many lives.

2. The Monroe Doctrine does not require the U. S. to inter

vene.

C. The plan is practicable, for, 1. It has been successful in Cuba.

2. England and other nations have successful protectorates.

C. It is impracticable, for,

1. There is little analogy between Cuba and Mexico.

2. Annexation is the sequel of protectorates: witness England. The U. S. does not desire to annex Mexico.

The following tests should be applied to the issues of every question for debate:

1. Does each issue include only disputed matter? 2. Does each issue bear directly on the main proposition?

3. Do the issues collectively embrace all phases of the propositions?

EXERCISES

1. Assign members of the class questions of current discussion, and let each student bring in at the next meeting a written statement of (a) why the subject is one of public discussion, (b) the state of the discussion at the present time, and (c) the opinions held by each side.

2. Point out the merits or demerits of the following definitions:

(a) A hammer is something to hammer with.

(b) A hand is a part of the body.

(c) To caper is to dance like a goat.

(d) Idiot (Gr. a private person). A person not holding a public office.

(e) Fast. Something immovable; rapid in motion.

Jesus's definition of "neighbor" as given in Luke x, 30-36.

(g) Life is the definite combination of heterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and successive in correspondence with eternal coexistences and sequences. (h) The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the