CHAPTER I DEBATE In the preceding chapters the principles that have been set forth apply equally to written and to spoken argumentation. But in that form of discussion commonly known as debate, which consists in a direct oral contest between two opposing sides, on a definite question at a definite time, some of these principles must undergo slight adaptations, and to them must be added other new principles. A good argumentative essayist is not necessarily a good debater, any more than a good writer is necessarily a good speaker. To begin with, a debater must know something of the arts of public speech; he may not be positively eloquent, but he must know how to express himself before an audience with a reasonable degree of ease and force. But elocution is not all. The debater, in addition to being an orator, must be something of a general. In polemic warfare there are ambuscades, unexpected reënforcements for the enemy, and critical situations of various kinds which cannot be foreseen. To meet these contingencies and master them demands a clear head, quick judgment, firm decision, and a certain amount of bold self-confidence. There is, moreover, a strategy of debate which must be learned by study and experience. How to open the battle, when to use light cavalry and when to use artillery, when to attack, when to give way, how to plan an ambuscade, how to retreat a knowledge of these things belongs no less to the debater than to the military commander. Finally, the work of preparation for debate is different in many ways from that for written disputation. In preliminary reading, attention must be given to matters that might under other conditions safely be neglected. In selecting evidence, the choice must often be determined by the special conditions; evidence that is good in an essay, is often ineffective in spoken argument. In drawing a brief, the choice of the main headings and the arrangement of the points must be planned, with regard to the exigencies and the strategy of the contest. Then, also, preparation for the refutation of an opponent's arguments must be much more thorough. To attempt to make fixed and inexorable rules for many of these processes mentioned above would be a mistake; uniformity of method in debating is undesirable, as well as impossible. Consequently, the principles that follow are general rather than specific. Further, it should be understood that debate is not a form of argumentation entirely separate and distinct from other forms. Every principle enunciated in the preceding chapters, on argumentation in general, has full force in debate. The suggestions given here are merely additional. I. Preliminary Reading With respect to preliminary reading, there are but two things to be emphasized in addition to what has already been said in Chapter IV. A. Particular study needs to be given to the opposite side of the question. B. Especial attention needs to be given to the study of the broad, general principles of the problem to be discussed. A. In debate, refutation is no less important than positive proof; in intercollegiate debates it is most often the rebuttal that is decisive; in any discussion it is the "last speech" that is coveted; Webster's famous Reply to Hayne was almost pure refutation. And it is very seldom that successful refutation is impromptu. An anecdote in point is told concerning one of the most brilliant advocates of the English bar. This lawyer was one day arguing an important case before one of the highest tribunals of the country. In the course of the trial he was made the object of an attack, personal and political in nature, from his opponent, the attorney for the prosecution. The attack was bitter, but forcible and persuasive. It seemed to be unexpected by any one; the court was surprised, but manifestly affected. The advocate arose to make reply, and in his introduction, with perfect calmness and great eloquence, he answered every charge, retrieved the lost favor of the court, and overpowered his assailant with an irresisti |