Practical Argumentation

by George K. Pattee

It is important to understand clearly and exactly what the free coinage of silver under present conditions means. It may be defined as the right of anyone to deposit silver of any kind at a mint of the United States, and have every 371.25 grains of pure silver (now worth in its uncoined state about 52 cents) stamped, free of charge, "One Dollar," which dollar shall be a full legal tender at its face value in the payment of debts and obligations of all kinds, public and private, in the United States.

In upholding his opinion that a majority of the members of the House of Representatives have the right to make the rules governing parliamentary procedure in the House, The Hon. Thomas B. Reed carefully defines the term "rights":—

It is the fault of most discussions which are decided incorrectly that they are decided by the misuse of terms. Unfortunately, words have very little precision, and mean one thing to one man and a different thing to another. Words are also used with one meaning and quoted with another. When men speak of the rights of minorities and claim for them the sacredness of established law, they are correct or incorrect according as they interpret the word "rights."

A man has a right to an estate in fee simple, a right to land, and there is no right more indisputable under our system. Nothing but the supreme law can take the estate away, and then only after compensation. The same man has a right of passage over land used as a highway, but his town or county can take that privilege away from him without his consent and without compensation. In both cases the man has rights, but the rights are entirely different, and the difference arises from the nature of things. It is good for the community, or at least it has been so thought, that a man should have unrestricted right over his land. On it he can build as high as heaven or dig as deep as a probable hereafter. This is not because it is pleasant for the man, but because it is best for the community. Therefore his right to build or dig is limited by the right of eminent domain—the right of the whole people to take his property at any time for the common benefit on paying its value.

For the same reason the right of a man to walk over the land of a roadway is an inferior right which may more easily be taken from him; for if it be more convenient for the whole community that nobody should walk over that land, each man's right, which is a perfect right while it exists, is taken away from him, and he alone bears the loss.

It is hardly necessary to multiply examples in order to lay a foundation for the assertion that the rights, so called, of any man or set of men, have their foundation only in the common good.

EXPLANATION.

Not only must the arguer define the unfamiliar words that occur in the proposition, but he must also explain the meaning of the proposition taken as a whole. Since an audience often has neither the inclination nor the opportunity to give a proposition careful thought and study, the disputant himself must make clear the matter in dispute, and show exactly where the difference in opinion between the affirmative and the negative lies. This process is of great importance; it removes the subject of dispute from the realm of mere words—words which arranged in a formal statement are to many often incomprehensible—and brings out clearly the idea that is to be supported or condemned.

To discover just what the proposition means, the arguer must weigh each word, carefully noting its meaning and its significance in the proposition. To neglect a single word is disastrous. An intercollegiate debate was once lost because the affirmative side did not take into consideration the words "present tendency" in the proposition, "Resolved, That the present tendency of labor unions is detrimental to the prosperity of the United States." The negative side admitted everything that the affirmative established, namely, that unions are detrimental; and won by showing that their tendency is beneficial. In another college debate on the subject, "Resolved, That the United States should immediately dispose of the Philippines," one side failed to meet the real point at issue because it ignored the word "immediately." A thorough explanation of the proposition would have shown the limitations that this word imposed upon the discussion.

In the next place, the arguer should usually present to the audience a brief history of the matter in dispute. Many debatable subjects are of such a nature that the arguer himself cannot, until he Has studied the history of the proposition, fully understand what constitutes the clash in opinion between the affirmative and the negative sides. To understand the debate, the audience must possess this same information. A history of the idea contained in the proposition would be absolutely necessary to render intelligible such subjects as: "The aggressions of England in the Transvaal are justifiable"; "The United States should re-establish reciprocity with Canada"; "Football reform is advisable."