Public Speaking

by Clarence Stratton

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.