this statement by a definition of its terms in such a way as to find out just what the proposition means as it stands, to see if it is the true expression of these ideas. C. For the third and last step, it only remains to compare the results of the first two processes. If the work of definition shows the statement as originally formulated to be inaccurate or ambiguous, if it is found that the tentative proposition does not express the ideas that the author intended it to express, then the statement must be changed till it finally does put into words, clearly and accurately, the real question. In choosing a proposition there is one precaution that needs especially to be observed: the error must be avoided of combining two separate ideas in a single proposition; two questions, closely akin to one another but really distinct from each other, may easily become confused and be carelessly joined together in a single statement. For example, students often devise such propositions as, Resolved, that a high protective tariff is hostile to the economic interests of the United States, and reciprocal trade relations should be established with the Dominion of Canada; or, Resolved, that labor unions are detrimental to industry, and they should be compelled to incorporate. Now in each of these propositions there are two problems presented; these problems are similar in the nature of the ideas contained in them, but the issues to be determined are very differ ent. The proofs necessary to establish the fact that labor unions are detrimental to industry are not at all the same proofs required to show that they should be compelled to incorporate; so that the attempt to combine in one demonstration what are really two distinct proofs must result in confusion. We may handle each of these questions separately, but we cannot hope to treat them successfully at the same time. Consequently, in formulating our ideas, we must be sure not only to have the form of a proposition, but to have a single proposition. CHAPTER II THE ISSUES THE issues are the ideas or matters of fact upon the establishment of which depends the establishment of the proposition. We have seen, in the preceding chapter, that, in order to have intelligent argumentation, we must first have a proposition. The formulating of the proposition insures that we have one single question that can be argued directly and so brought to a definite conclusion. This proposition thus makes clear the general position which the disputant must maintain. But the disputant is not yet ready to select the evidence or the arguments with which to support his proof. He has merely found the field of battle. Before he can open the fight, or even arrange his forces, he must examine the ground he has chosen, find out its points of vantage and of weakness; he must decide just where to make his intrenchments and what plan of operations to adopt. The proposition discloses the task that must in the end be accomplished, but it does not show what are the steps necessary in the accomplishment, or just what method may be most effective. The proposition gives a single question for discussion; but even in any such single question there are innumerable arguments and great masses of evidence that may be brought forward. All these arguments and all this evidence cannot be used; it is not all of equal value; some of it will have such a direct and obvious bearing on the question that it must have great significance; but much of it will have such an indefinite and remote bearing that to use it at all would be a waste of time. Clearly, then, the next thing for the disputant to do is to get some standards by reference to which he can determine the value of these materials. In order to know what proofs to use, he must first find out just what are the points he needs to establish by the proofs. In any question, among the endless array of facts and arguments, there are always certain facts that are critical. These few facts are so vital that the whole question must hinge on them. A century and a half ago, John Ward, in his “System of Oratory," said: "But in all disputes it is of the greatest consequence to observe where the stress of the controversy lies. For, without attending to this, persons may cavil about different matters, without understanding each other or deciding anything." In any discussion the "stress of the controversy" inevitably falls upon the proving or disproving of a few points, which are the centre and soul of the question; whichever side wins in the struggle over these points wins the whole contest. These points are always the same in the same question: they exist independently of the wills of the disputants; they are to be discovered, not invented. These facts are the issues. . To use the terms employed by Professor Robinson in his book on "Forensic Oratory," there are both "primary issues" and "subordinate issues." "Every cause, civil or criminal, consists of one or more propositions either of fact or of law, affirmed upon the one side and denied upon the other. ... Each of these primary issues may in its turn contain other issues either simple or complex, whose determination is essential to the determination of the issues which include them. Thus in the charge of burglary, the defendant may deny the breaking, on the ground that the door by which he entered was ajar." 1 These primary and secondary issues are found in all argumentation. The use of them in the law courts differs slightly from their use in argumentation elsewhere in this: in a court the primary issues are declared and set forth in the pleadings, before the real argument begins; whereas in ordinary argumentation the finding and explaining of these primary issues is part of the proof itself. But under all circumstances these issues and the method of finding them are essentially the same. The primary issues in both cases must be sought first. The outcome of the argument may depend 1 Robinson, "Forensic Oratory," p. 62. |