PROVING AND PERSUADING
What Argumentation Is. It is an old saying that there are two sides to every question. Any speaker who supports some opinion before an audience, who advances some theory, who urges people to do a certain thing, to vote a certain way, to give money for charitable purposes, recognizes the opposite side. In trying to make people believe as he believes, to induce them to act as he advises, he must argue with them. Argumentation, as used in this book, differs widely from the informal exchange of opinions and views indulged in across the dinner table or on the trolley car. It does not correspond with the usual meaning of argue and argument which both so frequently suggest wrangling and bickering ending in ill-tempered personal attacks. Argumentation is the well-considered, deliberate means employed to convince others of the truth or expediency of the views advocated by the speaker. Its purpose is to carry conviction to the consciousness of others. This is its purpose. Its method is proof. Proof is the body of facts, opinions, reasons, illustrations, conclusions, etc., properly arranged and effectively presented which makes others accept as true or right the proposition advanced by the speaker. Of course, argumentation may exist in writing but as this volume is concerned with oral delivery, the word speaker is used in the definition. So much for the purpose and nature of argumentation.
Use of Argumentation. Where is it used? Everywhere, in every form of human activity. Argumentation is used by a youngster trying to induce a companion to go swimming and by a committee of world statesmen discussing the allotment of territory. In business a man uses it from the time he successfully convinces a firm it should employ him as an office boy until he secures the acceptance of his plans for a combination of interests which will control the world market. Lawyers, politicians, statesmen, clergymen, live by argumentation. In the life of today, which emphasizes so markedly the two ideas of individuality and efficiency, argumentation is of paramount importance.
Any person can argue, in the ordinary sense of stating opinions and views, in so far as any one can converse. But to produce good, convincing argumentation is not so easy as that. The expression of personal preferences, opinions, ideas, is not argumentation, although some people who advance so far as to become speakers before audiences seem never to realize that truth, and display themselves as pretending to offer argumentation when they are in reality doing no more than reciting personal beliefs and suggestions.
Cite instances of speakers who have indulged in such personal opinions when they might or should have offered arguments.
While argumentation is not so easily assembled as running conversation is, it may be made quite as fascinating as the latter, and just as surely as a person can have his conversational ability developed so can a person have his argumentative power strengthened.
Conviction. What should be the first requisite of a speaker of argumentation? Should it be conviction in the truth or right of the position he takes and the proposition he supports? At first thought one would answer emphatically "yes." A great deal of discredit has been brought upon the study of argumentation by the practice of speakers to pretend to have opinions which in reality they do not sincerely believe. The practical instance is the willingness of paid lawyers to defend men of whose guilt they must be sure. Such criticism does not apply to cases in which there are reasonable chances for opposing interpretations, nor to those cases in which our law decrees that every person accused of crime shall be provided with counsel, but to those practices to which Lincoln referred when he recommended the lawyer not to court litigation. Nor should this criticism deter a student of public speaking from trying his skill in defense of the other side, when he feels that such practice will help him in weighing his own arguments. In every instance of this highly commendable double method of preparation which the author has seen in classrooms, the speaker, after his speech has been commented upon, has always declared his real position and explained why he advocated the opposite. Even school and college debating has been criticized in the same way for becoming not an attempt to discover or establish the truth or right of a proposition, but a mere game with formal rules, a set of scoring regulations, and a victory or defeat with consequent good or bad effects upon the whole practice of undergraduate debating. If such contests are understood in their true significance, as practice in training, and the assumption of conviction by a student is not continued after graduation so that he will in real life defend and support opinions he really does not believe, the danger is not so great. The man who has no fixed principles, who can argue equally glibly on any side of a matter, whose talents are at any man's command of service, is untrustworthy. Convictions are worthy elements in life. A man must change his stand when his convictions are argued away, but the man whose opinions shift with every new scrap of information or influence is neither a safe leader nor a dependable subordinate.
For the sake of the training, then, a student may present arguments from attitudes other than his own sincere conviction, but the practice should be nothing more than a recognized exercise.
Because of its telling influence upon the opinion of others let us, without further reservation, set down that the first essential of a good argument is the ability to convince others. Aside from the language and the manner of delivery—two elements which must never be disregarded in any speech—this ability to convince others depends upon the proof presented to them in support of a proposition. The various kinds and methods of proof, with matters closely related to them, make up the material of this chapter.
The Proposition. In order to induce argument, there must be a proposition. A proposition in argument is a statement—a declarative sentence—concerning the truth or expediency of which there may be two opinions. Notice that not every declarative statement is a proposition for argument. "The sun rises" is not a statement about which there can be any varying opinions. It is not a proposition for argument. But "Missionaries should not be sent to China," and "John Doe killed Simon Lee," are statements admitting of different opinions and beliefs. They are propositions for argument. No sane person would argue about such a statement as "Missionaries are sent to China," nor would any one waste time on such a statement as "Some day a man named John Doe will kill a man named Simon Lee."
Although in common language we speak of arguing a question the student must remember that such a thing is impossible. You cannot argue about a question. Nor can you argue about a subject or a topic. The only expression about which there can be any argument is a proposition. The question must be answered. The resulting statement is then proved or disproved. The topic must be given some definite expression in a declarative sentence before any real argument is possible. Even when the matter of argument is incorrectly phrased as a topic or question you will find almost immediately in the remarks the proposition as a sentence. "Should women vote?" may be on the posters announcing an address, but the speaker will soon declare, "Women should vote in all elections in the United States upon the same conditions that men do." That is the proposition being argued; the question has been answered.
Kinds of Propositions. Certain kinds of propositions should never be chosen for argumentation. Many are incapable of proof, so any speech upon them would result in the mere repetition of personal opinions. Such are: The pen is mightier than the sword; Business men should not read poetry; Every person should play golf; Ancient authors were greater than modern authors. Others are of no interest to contemporary audiences and for that reason should not be presented. In the Middle Ages scholars discussed such matters as how many angels could stand on the point of a needle, but today no one cares about such things.
Propositions of Fact. Propositions fall into the two classes already illustrated by the statements about missionaries in China and the killing of Simon Lee. The second—John Doe killed Simon Lee—is a proposition of fact. All argument about it would tend to prove either the affirmative or the negative. One argument would strive to prove the statement a fact. The other argument would try to prove its opposite the actual fact. Facts are accomplished results or finished events. Therefore propositions of fact refer to the past. They are the material of argument in all cases at law, before investigation committees, and in similar proceedings. Lincoln argued a proposition of fact when he took Douglas's statement, "Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," and then proved by telling exactly how they voted upon every measure dealing with slavery exactly what the thirty-nine signers of the Constitution did believe about national control of the practice. Courts of law demand that pleadings "shall set forth with certainty and with truth the matters of fact or of law, the truth or falsity of which must be decided to decide the case."
Propositions of Policy. Notice that the other proposition—Missionaries should not be sent to China—is not concerned with a fact at all. It deals with something which should or should not be done. It deals with future conduct. It depends upon the value of the results to be secured. It looks to the future. It deals with some principle of action. It is a question of expediency or policy. It induces argument to show that one method is the best or not the best. Propositions of expediency or policy are those which confront all of us at every step in life. Which college shall a boy attend? What kind of work shall a woman enter? How large shall taxes be next year? Which candidate shall we elect? How shall we better the city government? How shall I invest my money? What kind of automobile shall I buy? What kind of will shall I make?
The answers to all such questions make propositions of expediency or policy upon which arguments are being composed and delivered every day.
In choosing propositions for argument avoid, 1, those which are obviously truth; 2, those in which some ambiguous word or term covers the truth; 3, those in which the truth or error is practically impossible of proof; 4, those involving more than one main issue; 5, those which do not interest the audience.
Wording the Proposition. The proposition should be accurately worded. In law if the word burglary is used in the indictment, the defense, in order to quash the charge, need show merely that a door was unlocked. The phrasing should be as simple and concise as possible. The proposition should not cover too wide a field. Although these directions seem self-evident they should be kept in mind continually.
When the proposition is satisfactory to the maker of the argument he is ready to begin to build his proof. In actual speech-making few arguments can be made as convincing as a geometrical demonstration but a speaker can try to make his reasoning so sound, his development so cogent, his delivery so convincing, that at the end of his speech, he can exclaim triumphantly, "Quod erat demonstrandum."
Burden of Proof. Every argument presupposes the opposite side. Even when only one speaker appears his remarks always indicate the possibility of opposite views in the minds of some of the hearers. The affirmative and negative are always present. It is frequently asserted that the burden of proof is on the negative. This is no more correct than the opposite statement would be. The place of the burden of proof depends entirely upon the wording of the proposition and the statement it makes. In general the burden of proof is upon the side which proposes any change of existing conditions, the side which supports innovations, which would introduce new methods. With the passage of time the burden of proof may shift from one side to the other. There was a time when the burden of proof was upon the advocates of woman suffrage; today it is undoubtedly upon the opponents. At one period the opponents of the study of Latin and Greek had the burden of proof, now the supporters of such study have it. Other topics upon which the burden of proof has shifted are popular election of Senators, prohibition, League of Nations, self-determination of small nations, the study of vocations, civics, and current topics in schools, an all-year school term, higher salaries for teachers, the benefits of labor unions, Americanization of the foreign born.
Evidence. One of the best ways of proving a statement is by giving evidence of its truth. Evidence is made up of facts which support any proposition. In court a witness when giving testimony (evidence) is not allowed to give opinions or beliefs—he is continually warned to offer only what he knows of the fact. It is upon the facts marshaled before it that the jury is charged to render its verdict.
Direct Evidence. Evidence may be of two kinds—direct and indirect. This second, especially in legal matters, is termed circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence consists of facts that apply directly to the proposition under consideration. If a man sees a street car passenger take a wallet from another man's pocket and has him arrested at once and the wallet is found in his pocket, that constitutes direct evidence. Outside criminal cases the same kind of assured testimony can be cited as direct evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence. In most cases in court such direct evidence is the exception rather than the rule, for a man attempting crime would shun circumstances in which his crime would be witnessed. Indirect evidence—circumstantial evidence—is much more usual. It lacks the certainty of direct evidence, yet from the known facts presented it is often possible to secure almost the same certainty as from direct evidence. In serious crimes, such as murder, juries are extremely cautious about convicting upon circumstantial evidence. There are many chances of error in making chains of evidence. In indirect evidence a group of facts is presented from which a conclusion is attempted. Suppose a boy had trouble with a farmer and had been heard to threaten to get even. One day the man struck him with a whip as he passed on the road. That night the farmer's barn was set on fire. Neighbors declared they saw some one running from the scene. Next day the boy told his companions he was glad of the loss. Circumstantial evidence points to the boy as the culprit. Yet what might the facts be?
In presenting arguments get as much direct evidence as possible to prove your statements. When direct evidence cannot be secured, link your indirect evidence so closely that it presents not a single weak link. Let the conclusion you draw from it be the only possible one. Make certain no one else can interpret it in any other way.
When you present evidence be sure it completely covers your contention. Be sure it is clear. Be sure it fits in with all the other facts and details presented. Do not let it conflict with usual human experience. Consider the sources of your evidence. If you do not, you can be certain your audience will. Are your sources reliable? Is the information authoritative? Is it first-hand material, or merely hearsay? Is it unprejudiced? Many of the other facts for evidence have already been suggested in the chapter on getting material.
Two General Methods of Reasoning. Frequently the evidence to be used in argumentation must be interpreted before it can be of any value, especially when dealing with propositions of expediency or policy. There are two general methods of reasoning. One is the inductive method, the other the deductive.
Inductive Reasoning. When we discover that a certain operation repeated many times always produces the same result we feel justified in concluding that we can announce it as a universal law. After thousands of falling bodies have been measured and always give the same figures, scientists feel that they may state the law that all falling bodies acquire an acceleration of 32.2 feet per second. This illustrates the inductive method of reasoning. In this system we reason from the specific instance to the general law, from the particular experiment to the universal theory, from the concrete instance to the wide principle.
All modern science is based upon this method—the experimental one. All general theories of any kind today must—to be accepted—be supported by long and careful consideration of all possible and probable circumstances. The theory of evolution as applied to the living things upon the earth is the result of countless observations and experiments.
Hasty Generalization. The speaker cannot himself examine all the specific instances, he cannot consider all the illustrations which might support his position, but he must be careful of a too hasty generalization. Having talked with a dozen returned soldiers he may not declare that all American army men are glad to be out of France, for had he investigated a little further he might have found an equal number who regret the return to this land. He must base his general statement on so many instances that his conclusion will convince not only him, but people disposed to oppose his view. He must be better prepared to show the truth of his declaration than merely to dismiss an example which does not fit into his scheme by glibly asserting that "exceptions prove the rule." He must show that what seems to contradict him is in nature an exception and therefore has nothing at all to do with his rule. Beginning speakers are quite prone to this fault of too hasty generalization.
EXERCISES
1. Write down five general theories or statements which have been established by inductive reasoning.
2. Is there any certainty that they will stand unchanged forever?
3. Under what circumstances are such changes made?
4. Can you cite any accepted laws or theories of past periods which have been overturned?
Deductive Reasoning. After general laws have been established, either by human experience or accepted inductive reasoning, they may be cited as applying to any particular case under consideration. This passing from the general law to the particular instance is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning has a regular form called the syllogism.
Major premise. All men are mortal.
Minor premise. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
If the three parts of a syllogism are correct it has absolute convincing power. Most attempts to disprove its statement attack the first two statements. Although it carries such an air of certainty it is likely to many errors in use. An error like this is common:
All horses are animals.
All cows are animals.
Therefore, all cows are horses.
Explain the fallacy in this syllogism.
Quite as frequently the incorrect syllogism is of this kind.
The edge of a stream is a bank.
A bank is a financial institution.
Therefore, the edge of a stream is a financial institution.
You will comment upon this that its evident silliness would prevent any speaker from using such a form in serious argument. But recall that in the discussion of any idea a term may get its meaning slightly changed. In that slight change of meaning lurks the error illustrated here, ready to lead to false reasoning and weakening of the argument. Certain words of common use are likely to such shifting meanings—republic, equality, representative, monarchy, socialistic. Any doubtful passage in which such an error is suspected should be reduced to its syllogistic form to be tested for accuracy.
A representative of the people must vote always as they would vote.
A Congressman is a representative of the people.
Therefore, Congressmen must vote always as the people who elect them would vote.
Is not the expression, representative of the people, here used in two different senses?
When an argument is delivered, one of the premises—being a statement which the speaker assumes everyone will admit as true—is sometimes omitted. This shortened form is called an enthymeme.
Smith will be a successful civil engineer for he is a superior mathematician.
Supply the missing premise. Which is it?
In the bald, simple forms here set down, the syllogism and enthymeme are hardly suited to delivery in speeches. They must be amplified, explained, emphasized, in order to serve a real purpose. The following represent better the way a speaker uses deductive reasoning.
The appointing power is vested in the President and Senate; this is the general rule of the Constitution. The removing power is part of the appointing power; it cannot be separated from the rest.
Daniel Webster: The Appointing and Removing Power, 1835
Then Daniel Webster stated in rather extended form the conclusion that the Senate should share in the removing proceedings.
Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all republican liberty; that is, that the majority must govern. In matters of common concern, the judgment of a majority must stand as the judgment of the whole.
Daniel Webster: Reply to Calhoun, 1853
Then, he argues, as these revenue laws were passed by a majority, they must be obeyed in South Carolina.
Methods of Proof. In extended arguments, just as in detailed exposition, many different methods of proof may be employed.
Explanation. Often a mere clear explanation will induce a listener to accept your view of the truth of a proposition. You have heard men say, "Oh, if that is what you mean, I agree with you entirely. I simply didn't understand you." When you are about to engage in argument consider this method of exposition to see if it will suffice. In all argument there is a great deal of formal or incidental explanation.
Authority. When authority is cited to prove a statement it must be subjected to the same tests in argument as in explanation. Is the authority reliable? Is he unprejudiced? Does his testimony fit in with the circumstances under consideration? Will his statements convince a person likely to be on the opposing side? Why has so much so-called authoritative information concerning conditions in Europe been so discounted? Is it not because the reporters are likely to be prejudiced and because while what they say may be true of certain places and conditions it does not apply to all the points under discussion? The speaker who wants the support of authority will test it as carefully as though its influence is to be used against him—as indeed, it frequently is.
Examples. Where examples are used in argumentation they must serve as more than mere illustrations. In exposition an illustration frequently explains, but that same example would have no value in argument because while it illustrates it does not prove. A suppositious example may serve in explanation; only a fact will serve as proof. The more inevitable its application, the more clinching its effect, the better its argumentative value. Notice how the two examples given below prove that the heirs of a literary man might be the very worst persons to own the copyrights of his writings since as owners they might suppress books which the world of readers should be able to secure easily. While these examples illustrate, do they not also prove?
I remember Richardson's grandson well; he was a clergyman in the city of London; he was a most upright and excellent man; but he had conceived a strong prejudice against works of fiction. He thought all novel-reading not only frivolous but sinful. He said—this I state on the authority of one of his clerical brethren who is now a bishop—he said that he had never thought it right to read one of his grandfather's books.
I will give another instance. One of the most instructive, interesting, and delightful books in our language is Boswell's Life of Johnson. Now it is well known that Boswell's eldest son considered this book, considered the whole relation of Boswell to Johnson, as a blot in the escutcheon of the family.
Thomas Babington Macaulay: Copyright, 1841
Analogy. In argument by analogy the speaker attempts to prove that because certain things are known to be true in something that can be observed they are likely to be true in something else which in so far as it can be observed is quite like the first. We continually argue by analogy in daily life. Lincoln was really using analogy when he replied to the urging to change his army leaders during the Civil War, that he didn't think it wise to "swap horses while crossing a stream." Scientists use this method to draw conclusions when it is impossible to secure from actual observation or experiment a certain last step in the reasoning. The planet Mars and the earth are similar in practically all observable matters; they are about the same distance from the sun, they have the same surface conditions. The earth has living creatures upon it. Hence—so goes the reasoning of analogy—Mars is probably inhabited. Reasoning by analogy is used to prove that universal suffrage is good for the United States because it has been good for one particular state. A student may argue by analogy that the elective system should be introduced into all high schools, because it has been followed in colleges. It may be asserted that a leading bank president will make a good university president, because he has managed one complex institution. The essence of all good reasoning by analogy is that the two things considered must be so nearly alike in all that is known that the presumption of belief is that they must also be alike in the one point the arguer is trying to establish. This is the test he must apply to his own analogy arguments.
Our community frowns with indignation upon the profaneness of the duel, having its rise in this irrational point of honor. Are you aware that you indulge the same sentiment on a gigantic scale, when you recognize this very point of honor as a proper apology for war? We have already seen that justice is in no respect promoted by war. Is true honor promoted where justice is not?
Charles Sumner: The True Grandeur of Nations, 1845
Residues. The method of residues is frequently employed when the speaker is supporting a policy to be carried out, a measure to be adopted, a change to be instituted, or a law to be passed. Granting the assumption that something must be done he considers all the various methods which may be employed, disposes of them one by one as illegal, or unsuited, or clumsy, or inexpedient, leaving only one, the one he wants adopted, as the one which must be followed.
This is a good practical method of proof, provided the speaker really considers all the possible ways of proceeding and does show the undesirability of all except the one remaining.
A speaker pleading for the installation of a commission form of city control might list all the possible ways of city government, a business manager, a mayor, a commission. By disposing completely of the first two, he would have proven the need for the last. A good speaker will aways go farther than merely to reach this kind of conclusion. He will, in addition to disproving the unworthy choices, strongly support his residue, the measure he wants adopted. In supporting amounts of taxes, assessments, etc., this method may be used. One amount can be proven so large as to cause unrest, another so small as to be insufficient, a third to produce a total just large enough to meet all anticipated expenses with no surplus for emergencies; therefore the correct amount must be just larger than this but not reaching an amount likely to produce the result caused by the first considered. Used in trials of criminal cases it eliminates motives until a single inevitable remainder cannot be argued away. This may be the clue to follow, or it may be the last one of all suspected persons. Burke considered several possible ways of dealing with the American colonies; one he dismissed as no more than a "sally of anger," a second could not be operated because of the distance, a scheme of Lord North's he proved would complicate rather than settle matters, to change the spirit of America was impossible, to prosecute it as criminal was inexpedient, therefore but one way remained, to conciliate the spirit of discontent by letting the colonies vote their own taxes. It is interesting that what Burke described as the sally of anger was the way the matter was actually settled—Great Britain had to give up the American colonies.
This method is also called elimination.
Cause to Effect. Just as the explainer may pass from cause to effect so may the arguer. Other names for this method are antecedent probability and a priori argument. In argument from a known cause an effect is proven as having occurred or as likely to occur. In solving crime this is the method which uses the value of the motives for crime as known to exist in the feelings or sentiments of a certain accused person. A person trying to secure the passage of a certain law will prove that it as the cause will produce certain effects which make it desirable. Changed conditions in the United States will be brought forward as the cause to prove that the Federal government must do things never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. Great military organization as the cause of the recent war is used now in argument to carry on the plea for the securing of peace by disarmament.
The main difficulty in reasoning from cause to effect is to make the relationship so clear and so close that one thing will be accepted by everybody as the undisputed cause of the alleged effect.
Effect to Cause. In reasoning from effect to cause the reverse method is employed. This is also termed argument from sign or the a posteriori method. In it, from some known effect the reasoning proves that it is the result of a certain specified cause. Statistics indicating business prosperity might be used as the effect from which the arguer proves that they are caused by a high protective tariff. A speaker shows the good effects upon people to prove that certain laws—claimed as the causes—should be extended in application. Arguments from effect to cause may be extremely far reaching; as every effect leads to some cause, which is itself the effect of some other cause, and so on almost to infinity. The good speaker will use just those basic causes which prove his proposition—no more.
In actual practice the two forms of reasoning from cause to effect and from effect to cause are frequently combined to make the arguments all the more convincing. Grouped together they are termed causal relations.
Persuasion. When a speaker has conclusively proven what he has stated in his proposition, is his speech ended? In some cases, yes; in many cases, no. Mere proof appeals to the intellect only; it settles matters perhaps, but leaves the hearer cold and humanly inactive. He may feel like saying, "Well, even if what you say is true, what are you going to do about it?" Mathematical and scientific proofs exist for mere information, but most arguments delivered before audiences have a purpose. They try to make people do something. A group of people should be aroused to some determination of purposeful thought if not to a registered act at the time. In days of great stress the appeal to action brought the immediate response in military enlistments; in enrollment for war work; in pledges of service; in signing membership blanks and subscription blanks; in spontaneous giving.
Persuasion Produces a Response. The end of most argumentative speaking is to produce a response. It may be the casting of a vote, the joining of a society, the repudiation of an unworthy candidate, the demonstrating of the solidarity of labor, the affiliating with a religious sect, the changing of a mode of procedure, the purchasing of a new church organ, the wearing of simpler fashions, or any of the thousand and one things a patient listener is urged to do in the course of his usual life.
When the speaker passes on from mere convincing to appealing for some response he has passed from argumentation to persuasion. Nearly every argumentative speech dealing with a proposition of policy shows first what ought to be done, then tries to induce people to do it, by appealing as strongly as possible to their practical, esthetic, or moral interests. All such interests depend upon what we call sentiments or feelings to which worthy—note the word worthy—appeals may legitimately be addressed. Attempts to arouse unworthy motives by stirring up ignorance and prejudice are always to be most harshly condemned. Such practices have brought certain kinds of so-called persuasion into well-deserved contempt. The high sounding spell-binder with his disgusting spread-eagleism cannot be muzzled by law, but he may be rendered harmless by vacant chairs and empty halls. Real eloquence is not a thing of noise and exaggeration. Beginning speakers should avoid the tawdry imitation as they would a plague.
Elements of Persuasion. What elements may aid the persuasive power of a speech? First of all, the occasion may be just the right one. The surroundings may have prepared the audience for the effect the speaker should make if he knows how to seize upon the opportunity for his own purpose. The speaker must know how to adapt himself to the circumstances present. In other cases, he must be able to do the much more difficult thing—adapt the circumstances to his purpose.
Secondly, the subject matter itself may prepare for the persuasive treatment in parts. Everyone realizes this. When emotional impulses are present in the material the introduction of persuasion is inevitable and fitting, if not overdone.
Thirdly, the essence of persuasion depends upon the speaker. All the good characteristics of good speaking will contribute to the effect of his attempts at persuasion. A good speaker is sincere to the point of winning respect even when he does not carry conviction. He is in earnest. He is simple and unaffected. He has tact. He is fair to every antagonistic attitude. He has perfect self-control. He does not lose his temper. He can show a proper sense of humor. He has genuine sympathy. And finally—perhaps it includes all the preceding—he has personal magnetism.
With such qualities a speaker can make an effective appeal by means of persuasion. If upon self-criticism and self-examination, or from outside kindly comment, he concludes he is lacking in any one of these qualities he should try to develop it.
EXERCISES
Prepare and deliver speeches upon some of the following or upon propositions suggested by them. If the speech is short, try to employ only one method of proof, but make it convincing. Where suitable, add persuasive elements.
1. Make a proposition from one of the following topics. Deliver an argumentative speech upon it. The next election. Entrance to college. Child labor. The study of the classics. The study of science.
2. Recommend changes which will benefit your school, your club or society, your church, your town, your state.
3. The Japanese should be admitted to the United States upon the same conditions as other foreigners.
4. Men and women should receive the same pay for the same work done.
5. All church property should be taxed.
6. All laws prohibiting secular employment on Sunday should be repealed.
7. The purely protective tariff should be withdrawn from goods the manufacture of which has been firmly established in this country.
8. Large incomes should be subject to a graduated income tax.
9. Employers should not be forced to recognize labor unions.
10. Immigration into the United States of persons who cannot read or write some language should be prohibited, except dependents upon such qualified entrants.
11. An amendment should be added to the Constitution providing for uniform marriage and divorce laws throughout the entire country.
12. A city is the best place for a college.
13. Military training should be obligatory in all public schools.
14. Colleges and universities should reduce the attention paid to athletics.
15. The negro in the South should be disfranchised.
16. The number of Representatives in Congress should be reduced.
17. Moving pictures should be used in schools.
18. Street car systems should be owned and operated by municipalities.
19. Education should be compulsory until the completion of high school.
20. Athletes whose grade is below 75% should be debarred from all participation until the marks are raised.
21. The Federal government should own and operate the telegraph and telephone systems.
22. The state should provide pensions for indigent mothers of children below the working age.
23. The study of algebra (or some other subject) in the high school should be elective.
24 The initiative should be adopted in all states.
25. The referendum should be adopted in all states.
26. All governmental officials should be subject to recall.
27. The public should support in all ways the movement of labor to secure the closed shop system.
28. Railroad crossings should be abolished.
29. The Federal government should pass laws controlling all prices of foodstuffs.
30. A trial before a group of competent judges should be substituted for trial by jury.