This book is included in the Self Reliance Self Defense section.
Preface
THE original edition of Argumentation and
Debating was used
as a textbook, from 1908 to 1917, in more than one hundred
universities and colleges. The experience of these institutions
has been made the basis for the revised edition. More than
one hundred college teachers aided in the revision. The following
are among those who made especially helpful suggestions:
J. H. Atkinson, Iowa State College. Margaret Ball, Mount Holyoke College. Madison C. Bates, South Dakota State College. Josephine Buraham, University of Kansas. James W. Cain, Washington State College, Maryland. Henry P. Chandler, University of Chicago, J. L. Chesnutt, University of Southern California, S. H. Clark, University of Chicago. George H. Clarke, University of Tennessee. I. M. Cochran, Carleton College, Minnesota. Clinton H. Collester, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. H. V. Cranston, University of Maine. Albert A. Crecdius, Hiram College, Ohio. William H. Davis, Bowdoin College, Maine. Jesse K. Derby, Iowa State College. H. B. Gislason, University of Minnesota, Chester N. Greenough, Harvard University, Massachusetts. Philip M, Hicks, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania. Carl Holliday, University of Montana. Ernest H. Lindley, Indiana University. Carroll L. Maxcy, Williams College, Massachusetts. Glenn N. Merry, University of Iowa. John Muirheid, Hobart College, New York. J. R. Pelsma, University of Texas. Sigurd H. Peterson, Oregon Agricultural College, Robert W. Prescott, University of Oregon. E. D. Schonberger, Washburn College, Kansas. Roderick Scott, Oberlin College, Ohio. Milton Simpson, Michigan Agricultural College. Cliaries W. Snow, Indiana University. Thomas B. Stanley, University of Illinois. A. Starbuck, Iowa State College. . . James Sterlson, College of William and Mary, Virginia. Stanley B. Swartley, Allegheny College, Pennsylvania. Jolia A. Taylor, University of North Dakota. William C. Thayer, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania. Thomas C. Trueblood, University of Michigan. J, Sherman Wallace, MfcMinnville College, Oregon. Dwight E. Watkins, Enox College, Illinois. J Wilbur Kay, Washington and Jefferson College, Pennsylvania. L. Winter, Harvard University, Massachusetts, Homer Woodbridge, Colorado College. Mary Yost, Vassar College, New York.
The aim of the revised edition is to present the essentials of
Argumentation and Debating as simply as possible, following
the order in which the difficulties arise in actual practice.
The order is psychological rather than logical. The point of
view is that of the student rather than that of the instructor.
The amount of practical material, therefore, in proportion
to the amount of theoretical material, is large. The chapter
on brief-drawing, for example, starts with a familiar proposition
and takes the student step by step through, the development
of a complete working brief, The chapter on fallacies
deals not only with the common sources of fallacies, but as
well with the most effective methods of exposing fallacies the
chapter on evidence deals not only with the tests' of evidence,
but as well with the sources and the methods of using evidence.
In short, the aim throughout is to show the student how to go
to work. No imaginary difficulties are raised; the necessity
for every topic has been proved in many class-rooms for many
years. Only those parts of the original edition are retained
which, according to the testimony of teachers, have been
found especially useful in actual class-room work.
Special care has been taken to present an abundance of
striking illustrations, dealing, as a rule, with subjects of immediate
interest, free from extraneous and exceptional elements,
and usually within the range of the student's information
and experience, so that he may direct his attention to
the principles involved. In order that the first specimens of
argument may not be discouragingly far above the beginner's
possibilities, examples are presented from the work of students
at more than a score of colleges.
All training in spoken discourse should be subordinate to
training in thinking. It should be a means to the end of clear
and direct expression of the pupil's own thoughts. John
Stuart Mill, in his Autobiography, says: "I have always dated
from these conversations [discussions in a debating society] my
own inauguration as an original and independent thinker/5
Training in public speaking should be conducted by teachers
who aim first, to produce sound thinkers, second* to train
these thinkers in the clear, correct, straightforward, and effective
oral expression of their own thoughts. There are no
more effective means of attaining these aims in American colleges
and universities than the study of argumentation and
debating.
Those who believe that argumentation deserves a high
place among school studies "hold very strongly" with Cardinal Newman, "that the first step in intellectual training is to
impress upon a boy's mind the idea of science, method, order,
principle, and system; of rule and exception. . . Let him
once gain this habit of method, of starting from fixed points,
of making his ground good as he goes, of distinguishing what
he knows from what he does not know, and I conceive he will
be gradually initiated into the largest and truest philosophical
views, and will feel nothing but impatience and disgust at the
random theories and imposing sophistries and dashing paradoxes, which carry away half-formed and superficial intellects."
Science and principle - in Argumentation the student
upon the science of logic from which,
as he soon discovers, the rational mind cannot escape. Method,
order, system,, this is the very backbone of argument.
Without methodical procedure from definitions to historical
facts, to admitted matters, through conflicting contentions
to the main issues and thence to the argument, by order of
proposition and proof, from the known to the unknown, all
according to a systematic brief, without all this there is
chaos, not argument. No other form of discourse so readily
conveys to young minds the most important ideas of rhetorical
structure.
Again, let the boy start from fixed points and make his ground
good as he goes, this is the process of the exact sciences;
but argumentation applies this process to all practical questions,
especially to the innumerable public problems to the
solution of which the boy as a citizen should some day bring
a well-trained mind. Let him distinguish what he knows from
what he does not know, this is the initial business of argumentation,
through which many a boy gets his first contempt
for snap judgments and his first incentive for testing the supposed
knowledge and random theories by which he has been
accustomed to guide his conduct in everyday affairs. Argumentation,
as it should be taught, cultivates that power,
so greatly needed and so little found both in school and in the life beyond Commencement, the power of independent thinking.
Let us not be surprised, however, if the study of the principles
of argumentation and masterpieces of oratory seems
dry without the prospect of actual debate. A half-back feels
no enthusiasm over reading the rules of the game and tackling
a dummy unless he looks forward to tackling a man. When
elocution and argumentative writing have failed to stimulate
interest, formal debate may succeed, for it has the fascination
of a game with aims far beyond the game itself. In
the time limit, the order of speakers, the alternation of sides, the struggle of opposing forces, the give and take of rebuttal,
the rules and the ethics of conduct, the qualifications for success,
and the final awarding of victory, debate has much in
common with tennis and football. The great superiority of
debating lies in the fact that it adds to these elements of the
absorbing interest in athletics those educational values which
prepare directly for the highest type of citizenship.
From work in debating, guided by efficient instruction and
right ideals, students discover that debatable questions are
far from simple; and they learn to refrain from making judgments
based on ignorance. The necessity for thorough preparation
is forced upon them by the conditions of the contest.
Often the hard work for a given debate provides their first
standard for sounding the shallowness of their knowledge on
other subjects. They learn to examine a question critically to
find out what it actually involves, to define terms with precision,
to distinguish the relevant matters from the irrelevant
matters which confuse the ordinary discussion of the subject,
to separate what may be admitted or granted from the contentions
of both sides, and thus, through this conflict, to reach
the main issues. In the attempt to group their evidence in
relation to these issues, they learn something of structure,
coherence, unity, proportion. Best of all, they come to respect
the opinions of those who differ from them, but to accept
nothing and to offer nothing unless the reasoning is sound
and the evidence sufficient. There could be no better training
for citizenship.
W.T.F.
FIRST CHAPTER - THE PROPOSITION I. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD BE DEBATABLE II. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD NOT EMPLOY AMBIGUOUS TERMS III. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD NOT BB TOO BROAD IV. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD EMBODY ONE CENTRAL IDEA V. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD GIVE TO THE AFFIRMATIVE THE BURDEN or PROOF VI. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD BE INTERESTING VII. THE PROPOSITION FOR FIRST PRACTICE SHOULD COVER FAMILIAR GROUND VIII. THE PROPOSITION SHOULD BE PHRASED BRIEFLY AND SIMPLY SUMMARY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PHRASING THE PROPOSITION EXERCISES SECOND CHAPTER - ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION IMPORTANCE OF THE MAIN ISSUES ISSUES MAY NOT BE CHOSEN ARBITRARILY STEPS IN ANALYSIS I. THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE FOR DISCUSSION II. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE QUESTION III. THE DEFINITION OF TERMS Requisites of a definition Inadequacy of dictionary definitions Special methods of definition 1. Definition by authority 2. Definition by negation 3. Definition by exemplification 4. Definition by etymology 5. Definition by explication IV. THE RESTATEMENT Of THE QUESTION AS DEFINED V. THE EXCLUSION Of IRRELEVANT MATTER VI. STATEMENT Of ADMITTED AND WAIVED MATTER VII. REACHING THE SPECIAL ISSUES BY CONTRASTING THE CONTENTIONS Of AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE SUMMARY of the STEPS IN ANALYSIS EXERCISES THIRD CHAPTER - CONSTRUCTING THE BRIEF I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OP THE BRIEF II. RULES POR CONSTRUCTING THE BRIEP III. SHORT SPECIMEN BRIEFS IV. DEVELOPMENT OP A LONGER SPECIMEN BRIEF V. COMPLETE WORKING BRIEF VI. SUMMARY OP THE RULES FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BRIEF EXERCISES FOURTH CHAPTER - PROVING THE PROPOSITION: EVIDENCE I. THE NECESSITY FOR EVIDENCE II. Two KINDS OF EVIDENCE III. EVIDENCE FROM AUTHORITY IV. TESTS OF EVIDENCE FROM AUTHORITY 1. Is the reference to authority definite? 2. Is the authority capable of giving expert testimony? 3. Has the authority had sufficient opportunity to know the facts? 4. Is the authority prejudiced? 5. Is the authority reluctant? 6. Is the authority aware of the significance of his testimony? 7. Is too great reliance placed on one authority? 8. Is the authority used by opponents? 9. Is the authority likely to be accepted? SUMMARY OF THE TESTS OF AUTHORITY V. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EVIDENCE VI. SELECTION OF EVIDENCE VII. USE of EVIDENCE VIII. TAKING NOTES OF EVIDENCE IX. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE EXERCISES FIFTH CHAPTER - PROVING THE PROPOSITION: INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT THE LOGIC OF ARGUMENT ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT Deductive argument The use of the syllogism in refutation Inductive argument EXERCISES SIXTH CHAPTER - PROVING THE PROPOSITION: THE ARGUMENT FROM EXAMPLE I. GENERALIZATION Four tests of generalization SUMMARY OF THE TESTS OF GENERALIZATION II. ANALOGY Three tests of the argument from analogy ANALOGY AS EXPOSITION AND ARGUMENT ANALOGY RARELY SUFFICIENT AS. ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF THE TESTS OF THE ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY EXERCISES SEVENTH CHAPTER - PROVING THE PROPOSITION: ARGUMENT FROM CAUSAL RELATION I. ARGUMENT FROM EFFECT TO CAUSE II. ARGUMENT FROM CAUSE TO EFFECT III. ARGUMENT FROM EFFECT TO EFFECT The so-called "argument from sign" EXERCISES EIGHTH CHAPTER - REFUTING OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: FALLACIES REFUTATION FALLACIES DEFINITION A SAFEGUARD AGAINST FALLACIES I. FALLACIES OF THE ARGUMENT FROM EXAMPLE A. Hasty generalization B. False analogy II. FALLACIES OF MISTAKEN CAUSAL RELATION A. Mistaking the cause, by employing 1. Another effect of the cause 2. That which is associated with the effect by chance 3. That which operates after the effect 4. That which is causal bit insufficient Refutation of fallacies in mistaking the cause B. Mistaking the effect III. FALLACIES OF IGNORING THE QUESTION 1. To infer from the character, professions, or conduct of an individual the truth or falsity of a general proposition 2. To reach a conclusion through appeal to tradition, prejudice, passion, or sense of humor 3. To shift ground 4. To proceed to a conclusion other than the one at issue 5. To overlook a part of the question through the fallacy of division IV. FALLACIES OF BEGGING THE QUESTION 1. To argue in a circle 2. To assume a more general point which involves the point at issue 3. To assume a particular truth which the proposition involves 4. To employ "question-begging" words 5. To assume a point at issue in defining the terms USE OF STATISTICS EXERCISES NINTH CHAPTER - REFUTING OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: SPECIAL METHODS I. SELECTION OF REFUTATION II. POSITION OF REFUTATION HI. PRESENTATION OF REFUTATION IV. SPECIAL METHODS OF REFUTATION 1. Reductio ad absurdum 2. Method of residues 3. Exposing inconsistencies 4. Turning the tables V. Two ESSENTIALS OF REFUTATION EXERCISES TENTH CHAPTER - DEVELOPING THE ARGUMENT FROM THE BRIEF: THE PRINCIPLES AND QUALITIES OF STYLE THE PRINCIPLES OF STYLE I. Unity II. Emphasis III. Coherence THE QUALITIES OF STYLE IV. Clearness V. Ease VI. Brevity VII. Concreteness VIII. Illustration EXERCISES ELEVENTH CHAPTER - AROUSING THE EMOTIONS: PERSUASION CONVICTION AND PERSUASION SOURCES OF PERSUASION I. The Man Sincerity Earnestness Simplicity Fairness Self-control Humor Sympathy Openness of mind Personal magnetism II. The Subject III. The Occasion EXERCISES TWELFTH CHAPTER - DEBATING DEBATING NOT MERE CONTENTIOUSNESS BURDEN OP PROOF AND PRESUMPTION THE TENDENCY TO QUIBBLE VALUE OF THE EXCHANGE OF BRIEFS FOR COLLEGE DEBATES PREPARATION THE FIRST SPEECH FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE THE FIRST SPEECH FOR THE NEGATIVE THE OTHER MAIN SPEECHES REBUTTAL SPEECHES THE CLOSING REBUTTAL SPEECH ORGANIZATION OF REBUTTAL MATERIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD OPPONENTS RIDICULE AND SATIRE INVECTIVE EPITHETS HONOR IN DEBATE DELIVERY FIVE METHODS OF DELIVERY VOICE ENUNCIATION POSITION GESTURES READING QUOTATIONS PRACTICE IN DELIVERY MARKING TRANSITIONS EMPHASIS A FINAL WORD ABOUT DEBATING EXERCISES APPENDICES I. SPECIMEN OF ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION OF A BRIEF FOR A DEBATE II. SPECIMEN OF ANALYSIS: OPENING SPEECH FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE IN A DEBATE III. SPECIMEN OF ANALYSIS: OPENING SPEECH FOR THE NEGATIVE IN A DEBATE IV. SPECIMEN OF ANALYSIS: OPENING SPEECH FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE IN A DEBATE V. SPECIMEN OF ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION TO A FORENSIC VI. SPECIMEN BRIEFS: (A) PREPARED FOR AN INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE (B) PREPARED FOR A STATE LEGISLATURE VII. SPECIMEN BRIEF AND FORENSIC: SHOWING THE RELATION OF THE BRIEF TO THE COMPLETE ARGUMENT VIII. SPECIMEN OF FALLACIES: FALLACIES OF IGNORING THE QUESTION IX. SPECIMEN ARGUMENT: REASONING FROM CAUSAL RELATION X. SPECIMEN ARGUMENT: SHORT EDITORIALS
End of Preview.
RETURN to Main Titles Index or
Self Reliance Self Defense
Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2012, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All
Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572