Elements of Debating Part 3

LESSON IV

DETERMINING THE ISSUES

I. What the "issues" are.

II. How to determine the issues.

III. The value of correct issues.

When you have made perfectly clear to your hearers what you wish them to believe, the next step is to show them why they should believe it.

The first step in this process, as we saw at the beginning of Lesson III, is to see what points, if proved, will make them believe it.

These points, as we call them, are better known as "issues." The issues are really questions, the basic questions on which your side and the other disagree. The negative would answer "No" to these issues, the affirmative would say "Yes."

The issues when stated in declarative sentences are the fundamental reasons why the affirmative believes its proposition should be believed.

A student might be arguing with himself whether he would study law or medicine. He would say to himself: "These are the issues: For which am I the better adapted? Which requires the more study? Which offers the better promise of reward? In which can I do the more good?"

Should he argue with a friend in order to induce him to give up law and to study medicine, he would use similar issues. He would feel that if he could settle these questions he could convince his friend.

Now, however, he would state them as declarative sentences and say: "You are more adapted to the profession of medicine; you can do more good in this field," etc. If the friend should open the question, he would be in the position of a man on the negative side of a debate. He would state the issues negatively as his reasons. He would say: "I am not so well adapted to the study of medicine; it offers less promise of reward," etc.

Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few main issues. Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an ill.u.s.tration.

Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we see in the framework of a large truss bridge and should say: "This bridge is strong because this rod is here." Our statement would be only partially true. The rod might be broken, and although the strength of the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it would not fall.

But suppose we should say: "This bridge really rests on these four great steel beams which run down to the stone abutment. If I can see that these four steel beams are secure, I can believe in the security of the bridge." So a mechanical engineer shows us that certain rods and bars of the framework hold up one beam, and how similar rods and bars sustain a second, and that yet other rods and bars distribute the weight that would press too heavily on a third, and so at last we are convinced that the bridge is safe. It is not because we have been shown that several of the bolts and braces are strong, but because we have been shown that the four great beams, upon which it rests, are reliable.

Thus it is with everything in which we believe. We do not believe that taxes are just because the government must have money to pay the president or to buy uniforms for the army officers. These things must be done, but they are incidentals. They are facts, but they are like the small braces of the bridge. We believe that taxation is just, because the government must have money for its work. Paying the president and buying uniforms are details of this more fundamental reason.

In the same way we might say: "Athletics should be encouraged in high schools because it will make John Brown, who will partic.i.p.ate, more healthy." That is a reason, but again only a small supporting reason.

We might rather choose a fundamental reason, which this slight reason would in turn support, and it would be: "Athletics should be encouraged in high schools because they improve the health of the students that partic.i.p.ate."

In a recent debate between two large high schools on the proposition: "_Resolved_, That Contests within High Schools Should Be Subst.i.tuted for Contests between High Schools," one of the contesting teams took the following as issues:

1. Contests within high, schools will accomplish the real purpose of contests better than will contests between schools.

2. Contests within high schools are the more democratic.

3. Contests within high schools can be made to work successfully.

When these three facts had been demonstrated, there was little left to urge against the claim.

Recently among the universities of a certain section, this question was discussed: "_Resolved_, That the Federal Government Should Levy a Graduated Income Tax." (Such tax was conceded as const.i.tutional.) One university decided upon these as the issues:

1. Does the government need additional revenue?

2. Admitting that additional revenue is needed, is a graduated income tax the best way of securing the money?

3. Could a graduated income tax be successfully collected?

Here again if the debaters favoring a graduated income could show that the government does need the money, that the proposed tax is the best way to get it, and that such a tax would work in practice, they would make the audience believe their proposition. If the speakers on the negative side could show that the income of the federal government is sufficient, that, even if additional revenue is needed, this is a poor way to obtain it, or that this plan, though good in theory, is impracticable, they would have a good case. Thus in every question that is two-sided enough to be a good question for debate, there are certain fundamental issues upon which the disagreement between the affirmative and the negative can be shown to rest. When either side has answered "Yes" or "No" to these issues and has given reasons for its answer that will find acceptance in the minds of the audience and of the judges, it has won the debate. It is easy, then, to see why "determining the issues," and showing the audience what these issues are, is the second step in successful debating.

Although there is no fixed rule or touchstone by which an issue can immediately be determined, there are several rules which will aid in finding them.

1. In all your thinking and reading upon the question, constantly try to decide: (1) What will the other side admit? (2) Is there anything that I am thinking of in connection with this question that is not essential to it?

2. Do not try to make a final determination of the issues until you are sure you understand the question.

3. Be always ready to change your issues when you see that they are not fundamental.

With these general rules in mind, think the question over carefully.

This process of determing the issues can, and should, go on at the same time as the process of learning what the question means. One helps the other. Having decided what will be the issues of the debate, set those issues down under appropriate heads; such as, "Is desirable," "Is needed," "Would work well," etc. Whenever you think of a reason why a thing is not needed, would not work, etc., put that down in a similar way. Now read more carefully (see "Reading References," Appendix I) on both sides of the question, and, whenever you find a reason for or against the proposition, set it down as above. The best method of doing this is to have a small pack of plain cards, perhaps two and one-half by four inches. Use one for each reason that you put down. As you think and read you will determine many reasons for the truth or falsity of the proposition. Gradually you will see that a great many of them are not so important as others and that they do not bear directly on the question, but in reality support some more important reason that you have set down. As you begin to notice this, go through your pack of cards and arrange them in the order of importance. Begin a new pile with every statement that seems to bear directly upon the proposition and put under it those statements that seem to support it. You will soon find that you have all your cards in two or three piles. Now examine the cards which you have on the top of each pile. See if the proof of these statements would convince any person that you are right. If so you have probably found the issues.

_Always think first, then read, then think again_.

If you have determined the issues wisely, it will be easy in the debate itself to show the audience and the judges what those issues are. You will have a tremendous advantage over your opponent, who in his haste or laziness may have chosen what are not the real issues of the question. He may present well the material that he has, but if that material does not support the _fundamental issues_ of the question, you are right in calling the attention of the judges to that fact.

Few debates are won on the platform. They are won by thoughtful preparation. Be prepared.

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

1. Give in your own words, as briefly as you can, a definition of the term "the issues of a question."

2. Give one ill.u.s.tration of your own of the issues of a question.

3. What is meant by "determining the issues"?

4. Will the affirmative and the negative teams always agree on the issues?

5. Can a question have two entirely different sets of issues? Why, or why not?

6. If there can be only one correct set of issues for a question, and you believe that you have determined those, what must you do in the debate if your opponents advance different issues?

7. Think over carefully and set down what you believe are the issues of one of the following propositions. Frame the issues as questions.

(1) a) Football Should Be Abolished in This [your own] School.

b) Football Should Be Installed as a Regular Branch of Athletics in This [your own] School.

(2) a) Manual Training /Should Be Established in This Domestic Science [your own] School.

b) Manual Training / /Boys /Should Be Made Compulsory For in This [your own]

Domestic Science Girls School.

8. Are there any terms in any of the above propositions which should be made more clear to an average audience? Are there any terms on the meaning of which two opposing teams might disagree?

9. Define one such term so that it would be clear and convincing to an audience not connected with the school.