Elements of Debating. Leverett S. Lyon

the Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern Debating League. In order to keep the meaning of this term clearly in mind, use it only when referring to such contests as these. In speaking of your argumentative conversation with your friend or of the forensic contests between Lincoln and Douglas, use the term "discussion" rather than "debate."

      It is true that the controversy between Lincoln and Douglas conformed to our definition of "debate" in being oral; moreover, at least in sense, two teams (of one man each) competed, but there were no judges, and no direct decision was rendered.

      Since argumentation, then, is the art of producing in the mind of someone else a belief in the idea or ideas you wish to convey, and debate is an argumentative contest carried on orally under certain conditions, it is clear that argumentation is the broader term of the two and that debate is merely a specialized kind of argumentation. Football is exercise, but there is exercise in many other forms. Debate is argumentation, but one can also find argumentation in many other forms.

      The following diagram makes clear the work we have covered thus far. It shows the relation between argumentation and debate, and shows that the specialized term "debate" has the same relation to "discourse" that "football" has to "exercise."

      / Miscellaneous

       | Swimming

       / Play | Skating

      Kinds of | | Rolling hoop / Other athletic games

      exercise | \ Athletic games \ Football

       |

       |

       \ Work

       / Description

      Kinds of | Narration

      discourse | Exposition

       \ Argumentation / Written

       \ Oral / General discussion

       \ Debate

      SUGGESTED EXERCISES

      1. Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to someone who did not know, the difference between "argumentation" and "debate."

      2. Set down three conditions that must exist before argumentation becomes debate.

      3. Have you ever argued? Orally? In writing?

      4. Have you ever debated? Did you win?

      5. Which is the broader term, "argumentation," or "debate?" Why?

      6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the terms "debate" and "argumentation."

LESSON III

       Table of Contents

THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING

       Table of Contents

       I. The three requirements stated.

       II. How to make clear to the audience what one wishes them to believe, by:

       1. Stating the idea which one wishes to have accepted in the form of a definite assertion, which is:(1) Interesting.(2) Definite and concise.(3) Single in form.(4) Fair to both sides.2. Defining the "terms of the question" so that they will be:(1) Clear.(2) Convincing.(3) Consistent with the origin and history of the question.3. Restating the whole question in the light of the definitions.

      To debate successfully it is necessary to do three things:

       1. To make perfectly clear to your audience what you wish them to believe.

       2. To show them why the proof of certain points (called issues) should make them believe the thing you wish them to believe.

       3. To prove the issues.

      Each of these three things is a distinct process, involving several steps. One is as important as another.

      It is impossible to prove the issues until we have found them, but equally impossible to show the audience what the issues are until we have shown what the thing is which we wish those issues to support. First, then, let us see what we mean by making perfectly clear what you wish to have the audience believe.

      Suppose that you should meet a friend who says to you: "I am going to argue with you about examinations." You might naturally reply: "What examinations?" If he should say, "All examinations: the honor system in all examinations," you might very reasonably still be puzzled and ask if by all examinations he meant examinations of every kind in grade school, high school, and college, as well as the civil service examinations, and what was meant by the honor system.

      He would now probably explain to you carefully how several schools have been experimenting with the idea of giving all examinations without the presence of a teacher or monitor of any sort. During these examinations, however, it has been customary to ask the students themselves to report any cheating that they may observe. It is also required that each student state in writing, at the end of his paper, upon honor, that he has neither given nor received aid during the test. "To this method," your friend continues, "has been given the name of the honor system. And I believe that this system should be adopted in all examinations in the Greenburg High School."

      He has now stated definitely what he wishes to make you believe, and he has done more; he has explained to you the meaning of the terms that you did not understand. These two things make perfectly clear to you what he wishes you to believe, and he has thus covered the first step in argumentation.

      From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the first place your friend stated that he wished to argue about examinations. Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because he had not yet asked you to believe anything about examinations. He might have said, "I am going to explain examinations," and he could then have told you what examinations were. That would have been exposition. But he could not argue until he had made a definite assertion about the term "examination."

      Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite assertion the matter to be argued.

      In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is often called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain conditions:

       1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience are interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to think debating a dry subject.

       2. It should propose something different from existing conditions. Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no lunchroom. Should it have one? Your city is governed by a mayor and a council. Should it be ruled by a commission? Merely to debate, as did the men of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, or, as some more modern debaters have done, whether Grant was a greater general than Washington, is useless.

       The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something new places on them what is called theburden of proof. This means that they must show why there isneed of a change from the present state of things. When they have done this, they may proceed to argue in favor of theparticular change which they propose.

       3. It should make a single statement about a single thing:

       (Correct) In public high schools secret societies should be prohibited.(Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges secret societies and teaching of the Bible should be prohibited.

       4. It must be expressed with such definiteness that both sides can agree on what it means.

       5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be fair to both sides.

      But you noticed that your friend had not only to state the question definitely, but to explain what the terms of the proposition meant. He had to tell you what the "honor system"