Public Speaking Part 28

6. Discuss the speeches delivered in the fifth exercise.

Persons Involved in a Debate. Who are the persons involved in a regular debate? They are the presiding officer, the speakers themselves, the audience, the judges.

The Presiding Officer. Every debate has a presiding officer. The Vice-President of the United States is the presiding officer of the Senate. The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. If you will refer to Chapter IV on _Beginning the Speech_ you will see several other t.i.tles of presiding officers. In school debates the head of the inst.i.tution may act in that capacity, or some person of note may be invited to preside. In regular cla.s.sroom work the instructor may serve as presiding officer, or some member of the cla.s.s may be chosen or appointed. The latter method is the best--after the instructor has shown by example just what the duties of such a position are.

The presiding officer should announce the topic of debate in a short introductory speech. He should read the names of the speakers on the affirmative and those on the negative side. He should stipulate the terms of the debate--length of each speech, time for reb.u.t.tal, order of reb.u.t.tal, method of keeping speakers within time limits, conditions of judgment (material, presentation, etc.), announce the judges, and finally introduce the first speaker; then the subsequent speakers. At the close he might refer to the fact of the debate's being ended, he might rehea.r.s.e the conditions of judgment, and request the judges to retire to consider their decision. Practice varies as to who shall deliver the decision of the judges to the audience. Sometimes the chairman elected by the judges announces the decision. Sometimes the judges hand the decision to the presiding officer who announces it.

The Debaters. Beyond saying that the speakers must do their best, there is nothing to be added here about their duty in the debate except to issue one warning to them in connection with the next personal element to be considered--the audience.

The Audience. Debaters must remember that in practically no circ.u.mstances outside legislative bodies are the audience and the judges ever the same. Debaters argue to convince the judges--not the entire audience, who are really as disconnected from the decision of the debate as are the straggling spectators and listeners in a courtroom detached from the jury who render the verdict of guilty or not guilty. The debater must therefore speak for the judges, not for his audience. Many a debating team has in the course of its speeches won all the applause only to be bitterly disappointed in the end by hearing the decision awarded to the other side. Recall the warnings given in the previous chapters against the tempting fallacies of appealing to crowd feelings and prejudices.

In cla.s.sroom debates it is a good distribution of responsibility to make all the members not partic.i.p.ating in the speaking act as judges and cast votes in rendering a decision. This makes the judges and the audience one. Moreover it changes the mere listener into a discriminating judge. If the instructor cares to carry this matter of responsibility one step farther, he can ask the members of the cla.s.s to explain and justify their votes.

The audience, when it is also the judge, has the responsibility of careful attention, a.n.a.lysis, and comparison. It is too much to expect usual general audiences to refuse to be moved by unworthy pleas and misrepresentations, to accord approval only to the best speakers and the soundest arguments. But surely in a cla.s.s of public speakers any such tricks and schemes should be received with stolid frigidity.

Nothing is so damaging to appeals to prejudice, spread-eagleism, and fustian bombast as an impa.s.sive reception.

The Judges. In any debate the judges are of supreme importance. They decide the merits of the speakers themselves. The judges are of infinitely more importance than the audience. In interscholastic debates men of some prominence are invited to act as judges. In the instructions to them it should be made clear that they are not to decide which side of a proposition they themselves approve. They are to decide which group of speakers does the best work. They should try to be merely the impersonal registers of comparative merit. They should sink their own feelings as every teacher must when he hears a good speech from one of his own students supporting something to which the instructor is opposed. Good judges of debates realize this and frequently award decisions to speakers who support opposite positions to their personal opinions. They must not be like the judges in an interscholastic debate who announced their decision thus, "The judges have decided that China must not be dismembered." That was an interesting fact perhaps, but it had nothing to do with their duty as judges of that debate.

In business, the buyer, the head of the department, the board of directors, const.i.tute the judges who render the decision. In legislative a.s.semblies the audience and judges are practically identical, for after the debate upon a measure is concluded, those who have listened to it render individual verdicts by casting their votes.

In such cases we frequently see decisions rendered not upon the merits of the debate, but according to cla.s.s prejudice, personal opinion, or party lines. This is why so many great argumentative speeches were accounted failures at the time of their delivery. Delivered to secure majority votes they failed to carry conviction to the point of changing immediate action, and so in the small temporary sense they were failures. In legal trials the jury is the real judge, although by our peculiar misapplication of the term a different person entirely is called judge. In court the judge is in reality more often merely the presiding officer. He oversees the observance of all the rules of court practice, keeps lawyers within the regulations, instructs the jury, receives the decision from them, and then applies the law.

Every lawyer speaks--not to convince the judge--but to convince the jury to render a decision in his favor.

Scholastic Debating. Choosing the Proposition. In school debating the proposition may be a.s.signed by the instructor or it may be chosen by him from a number submitted by the cla.s.s. The cla.s.s itself may choose by vote a proposition for debate. In interscholastic debating the practice now usually followed is for one school to submit the proposition and for the second school to decide which side it prefers to support. In any method the aim should be to give neither side any advantage over the other. The speakers upon the team may be selected before the question of debate is known. It seems better, when possible, to make the subject known first and then secure as speakers upon both sides, students who have actual beliefs upon the topic. Such personal conviction always results in keener rivalry.

Time Limits. Since no debate of this kind must last too long, time restrictions must be agreed upon. In every cla.s.s, conditions will determine these terms. Three or four speakers upon each side make a good team. If each is allowed six minutes the debate should come well within an hour and still allow some time for voting upon the presentations. It should be distinctly understood that a time limit upon a speaker must be observed by him or be enforced by the presiding officer.

The speakers upon one side will arrange among themselves the order in which they will speak but there should be a clear understanding beforehand as to whether reb.u.t.tal speeches are to be allowed.

Reb.u.t.tal Speeches. Reb.u.t.tal speeches are additional speeches allowed to some or all the speakers of a debating team after the regular argumentative speeches have been delivered. In an extended formal debate all the speakers may thus appear a second time. In less lengthy discussions only some of them may be permitted to appear a second time. As the last speaker has the advantage of making the final impression upon the judges it is usual to offset this by reversing the order of reb.u.t.tal. In the first speeches the negative always delivers the last speech. Sometimes the first affirmative speaker is allowed to follow with the single speech in reb.u.t.tal. If the team consist of three speakers and all are allowed to appear in reb.u.t.tal the entire order is as follows.

_First Part Reb.u.t.tal_

First affirmative First negative First negative First affirmative Second affirmative Second negative Second negative Second affirmative Third affirmative Third negative Third negative Third affirmative

If not all the speakers are to speak in reb.u.t.tal the team itself decides which of its members shall speak for all.

Preparation. The proposition should be decided on and the teams selected long enough in advance to allow for adequate preparation.

Every means should be employed to secure sufficient material in effective arrangement. Once const.i.tuted, the team should consider itself a unit. Work should be planned in conference and distributed among the speakers. At frequent meetings they should present to the side all they are able to find. They should lay out a comprehensive plan of support of their own side. They should antic.i.p.ate the arguments likely to be advanced by the other, and should provide for disposing of them if they are important enough to require refuting. It is a good rule for every member of a debating team to know all the material on his side, even though part of it is definitely a.s.signed to another speaker.

This preliminary planning should be upon a definite method. A good outline to use, although some parts may be discarded in the debate itself, is the following simple one.

I. State the proposition clearly.

1. Define the terms.

2. Explain it as a whole.

II. Give a history of the case.

1. Show its present bearing or aspect.

III. State the issues.

IV. Prove.

V. Refute.

VI. Conclude.

Finding the Issues. In debating, since time is so valuable, a speaker must not wander afield. He must use all his ability, all his material to prove his contention. It will help him to reject material not relevant if he knows exactly what is at issue between the two sides.

It was avoiding the issue to answer the charge that Charles I was a tyrant by replying that he was a good husband. Unless debaters realize exactly what must be proven to make their position secure, there will be really no debate, for the two sides will never meet in a clash of opinion. They will pa.s.s each other without meeting, and instead of a debate they will present a series of argumentative speeches. This failure to state issues clearly and to support or refute them convincingly is one of the most common faults of all debating. In ordinary conversation a frequently heard criticism of a discussion or speech or article is "But that was not the point at issue at all."

These issues must appear in the preliminary plans, in the finished brief, and in the debate itself.

The only point in issue between us is, how long after an author's death the State shall recognize a copyright in his representatives and a.s.signs; and it can, I think, hardly be disputed by any rational man that this is a point which the legislature is free to determine in the way which may appear to be most conducive to the general good.

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY: _Copyright_, 1841

Mr. President, the very first question that challenges our attention in the matter of a league of nations is the question of whether a war in Europe is a matter of concern to the United States. The ultraopponents of any league of nations a.s.sert that European quarrels and European battles are no concern of ours. If that be true, we may well pause before obligating ourselves to make them our concern. Is it true?

SENATOR P.J. MCc.u.mBER: _The League of Nations_, 1919

The best method of finding the issues is to put down in two columns the main contentions of both sides. By eliminating those entries which are least important and those which have least bearing upon the present case the issues may be reduced to those which the debate should cover. Any possible attempt to cloud the issues on the part of the opposing side can thus be forestalled. All the speakers on one side should partic.i.p.ate in this a.n.a.lysis of the proposition to find and state the issues.

The New York _Tribune_, by parallel columns, brought out these chief points of difference between the Paris plan and Senator Knox's for the League of Nations.

THE KNOX PLAN THE PARIS PLAN

League formed of all, not Under Article VII it is provided a portion, of the nations of that no state shall be the world. admitted unless it is able to give guaranties of its intention to observe its international obligations and conform to the principles prescribed by the League in regard to it's naval and military forces and armaments.

War to be declared an Article XVI provides that international crime, and any should any of the high nation engaging in war, except contracting parties break in self-defense when covenants under Article XII actually attacked, to be punished (relating to arbitration) it by the world as an shall be deemed to have committed international criminal. an act of war against the League, which undertakes to exercise economic pressure; and it is to be the duty of the executive council to recommend what military or naval force the members of the League shall contribute to be used to protect the covenants of the League.

The Monroe Doctrine to None of these matters is be safeguarded; also our mentioned specifically, but immigration policy and our President Wilson has said right to expel aliens. that the League will "extend the Monroe Doctrine to the whole world" and that domestic and internal questions are not a concern of the League.

Our right to maintain military Article VIII says: "The and naval establishments executive council shall also and coaling stations, determine for the consideration and our right to fortify the and action of the several Panama Ca.n.a.l and our governments what military frontiers to be safeguarded. equipment and armament is fair and reasonable and in proportion to the scale of forces laid down in the program of disarmament, and these limits when adopted shall not be exceeded without the permission of the executive council."

An international court to Article XIV provides for be empowered by the League the establishment of a "permanent to call upon the signatory court of international Powers to enforce its decrees justice," but its powers are against unwilling states by limited to hearing and determining force, economic pressure, or "any matter otherwise. The const.i.tution which the parties recognize of the League to provide, as suitable for submission to however, that decrees against it for arbitration" under an American Power shall be Article XIII.

enforced by the nations of this hemisphere, and decrees against a country of the eastern hemisphere by the Powers of that hemisphere.

Team Work. With the plan agreed upon by the speakers, the brief made out, and the material distributed, each speaker can go to work in earnest to prepare his single speech. The best method has been outlined in this book. His notes should be accurate, clear, easily manipulated. His quotations should be exact, authoritative. By no means should he memorize his speech. Such stilted delivery would result in a series of formal declamations. With his mind stocked with exactly what his particular speech is to cover, yet familiar enough with the material of his colleagues to use it should he need it, the debater is ready for the contest.

Manipulating Material. The speakers on a side should keep all their material according to some system. If cards are used, arguments to be used in the main debate might be arranged in one place, material for reb.u.t.tal in another, quotations and statistics in still another. Then if the other side introduces a point not antic.i.p.ated it should be easy to find the refuting or explaining material at once to counteract its influence in the next speech, if it should be disposed of at once. If slips of paper are used, different colors might indicate different kinds of material. Books, papers, reports, to be used should always be within available distance. While a speaker for the other side is advancing arguments the speaker who will follow him should be able to change, if necessary, his entire plan of defense or attack to meet the manoeuver. He should select from the various divisions upon the table the material he needs, and launch at once into a speech which meets squarely all the contentions advanced by his predecessor. This instantaneous commandeering of material is likely to be most usual in reb.u.t.tal, but a good debater must be able to resort to it at a second's notice.

The First Affirmative Speaker. The first affirmative speaker must deliver some kind of introduction to the contentions which his side intends to advance. It is his duty to be concise and clear in this. He must not use too much time. If the proposition needs defining and applying he must not fail to do it. He must not give the negative the opportunity to explain and apply to its own purposes the meaning of the proposition. He should state in language which the hearers will remember exactly what the issues are. He can help his own side by outlining exactly what the affirmative intends to prove. He may indicate just what portions will be treated by his colleagues. He should never stop with merely introducing and outlining. Every speaker must advance proof, the first as well as the others. If the preliminary statements by the first affirmative speaker are clearly and convincingly delivered, and if he places a few strong, supporting reasons before the judges, he will have started his side very well upon its course of debating. The last sentences of his speech should drive home the points he has proved.

The First Negative Speaker. The first negative speaker either agrees with the definitions and application of the proposition as announced by the first affirmative speaker or he disagrees with them. If the latter, the mere statement of his disagreement is not sufficient.

Contradiction is not proof. He must refute the definition and application of the proposition by strong reasoning and ample proof. If his side does not admit the issues as already presented he must explain or prove them away and establish in their place the issues his side sees in the discussion. When the two sides disagree concerning the issues there is a second proposition erected for discussion at once and the argument upon this second matter may crowd out the attempted argument upon the main proposition. To obviate such s.h.i.+fting many schools have the sides exchange briefs or statements of issues before the debate so that some agreement will be reached upon essentials.

In addition to the matters just enumerated the first negative speaker should outline the plan his side will follow, promising exactly what things will be established by his colleagues. If he feels that the first affirmative speaker has advanced proofs strong enough to require instant refutation he should be able to meet those points at once and dispose of them. If they do not require immediate answering, or if they may safely be left for later refutation in the regular reb.u.t.tal, he may content himself with simply announcing that they will be answered. He should not allow the audience to believe that his side cannot meet them.

He must not give the impression that he is evading them. If he has to admit their truth, let him frankly say so, showing, if possible, how they do not apply or do not prove all that is claimed for them, or that though they seem strong in support of the affirmative the negative side has still stronger arguments which by comparison refute at least their effect.

The first negative speaker should not stop with mere refutation. If the first affirmative has advanced proofs, and the first negative disposes of them, the debate is exactly where it was at the beginning.

The negative speaker must add convincing arguments of his own. It is a good thing to start with one of the strongest negative arguments in the material.

The Second Affirmative and Second Negative Speakers. The second affirmative and the second negative speakers have very much the same kind of speech to make. Taking the immediate cues from the preceding speaker each may at first pay some attention to the remarks of his opponent. Here again there must be quickly decided the question already brought up by the first negative speech--shall arguments be refuted at once or reserved for such treatment in reb.u.t.tal? When this decision is made the next duty of each of these second speakers is to advance his side according to the plan laid down by his first colleague. He must make good the advance notice given of his team.