Thus far we have been concerned with finding out the vital point at issue. It is here that the term question is most aptly applied to the proposition for debate, because when this vital point is revealed it is always found to appear in the form of a question. To be more specific, we found that in analyzing the proposition, “Resolved, that the Federal Government should control all life insurance companies operating within the United States,” the vital point at issue as revealed by a study of the origin of the question was “Will the control of insurance companies by the Federal Government be more efficient than that exercised by the State Governments?” This treatment reveals the main point at issue in the form of a question. It shows that the issue is between State control on one side as compared with Federal control on the other. The affirmative must advocate Federal control and the negative must defend State control. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, for it must show that a change should be made in existing conditions. The risk of non-persuasion is upon the affirmative, because, if the position advocated cannot be maintained, existing conditions will continue.
It is well to remember that the burden of proof remains with the affirmative throughout the debate. It is frequently said that the burden of proof “shifts,” that is, that when the affirmative has produced enough evidence to make out a prima facie case, and has shown reason why the plan ought to be adopted, then the burden of proof shifts to the negative and it becomes the duty of the negative to show why the plan should not be adopted. This is not the correct view of the situation, for the affirmative is bound to prove the proposition in the face of all opposition. Therefore the burden of proof never “shifts;” it is the duty of producing evidence which “shifts.” When the affirmative shows reason why the proposition should be maintained, it puts upon the negative the duty of producing evidence to show that the affirmative reasoning is unsound or that there are more weighty arguments in favor of the negative. Thus it is that the duty of producing evidence shifts from one side to the other, but the burden of proof remains on the same party throughout the discussion.
The question upon which the debate hinges must be answered in one way by one side and in just the opposite way by the opponents of that side. In the question above referred to, “Will the control of insurance companies by the Federal Government be more efficient than that exercised by the State Governments?”, the affirmative must answer “Yes” and the negative must answer “No.”
At this point the next task of the analyst begins. He must determine the main reasons why the affirmative should answer “Yes” and the negative should answer “No.” These main reasons when discovered and contrasted, those on the affirmative with those on the negative, will reveal the main issues of the proposition. When these are found the process of analysis is completed.
In undertaking the task of contrasting the affirmative contentions with those of the negative, the student must assume an absolutely unbiased attitude toward the proposition. The importance of this impartial viewpoint cannot be too strongly emphasized. To be able to view any subject with a mind free from prejudice is a most valuable asset.
With this proper mental attitude toward the proposition the analyst must take up both sides of the question and find the main arguments in support of each. He should not be deluded into thinking that it is only necessary to study one side of the question. A lawyer in preparing his case always takes into consideration the position of his opponent. In fact, so important is this task that many lawyers develop their antagonist’s case before beginning work on their own, and it frequently happens that more time is devoted to the arguments of the opposition than to the case upon which the lawyer is engaged. This careful study of an opponent’s arguments must always be included in the work of the debater, not only in the analysis of the question but throughout the entire argumentative process.
The way in which this part of the analytical process should be carried out is best made plain by a concrete example. We will take the proposition “Resolved, that immigration into the United States should be further restricted by law.” The origin of the question is found in the alarm shown by some people over the large number of undesirable foreigners coming to our shores. The question is “Should any of the immigrants now coming to our shores be prohibited from coming?” The affirmative say “Yes,” and the negative, “No.” Now to take the impartial viewpoint, why should there be any further restriction of immigration; why should the affirmative say “Yes” and the negative “No”? One of the chief affirmative arguments is that some of these immigrants are having a bad effect upon our country. Some of them are anarchists; some are members of criminal societies such as the Black Hand; some group by themselves in certain portions of large cities and form what are known as “Little Germanys”, “Little Spains”, “Little Italys”, etc.; some have contagious diseases; some have a very low standard of living and thus tend to drag down the standard of living of the American workman; some are illiterate and do not make good citizens; some are easily made the dupes of city bosses and ward “heelers” and thus exert a harmful influence in our political affairs. These and various other reasons may be brought to support the affirmative argument that immigration is having a bad effect upon our country.
In considering the matter carefully we come to the conclusion that these are the chief reasons why immigration should be further restricted. Now, the unskilled debater would probably be content with framing these reasons into an argument and would proceed with a feeling that his position was impregnable. The skilled debater, however, does not feel content until he has viewed the whole subject impartially. Why do we not have more stringent immigration laws? It must be that the present laws are thought to be satisfactory. Why are they satisfactory? It must be because they now exclude the worst class of immigrants. Upon investigation we find this to be true. Let us look at the problem from a slightly different point of view. Why do we allow all of these immigrants to come in? They must be necessary to our welfare. They are necessary to develop the natural resources of our country; they add to the national power of production, they possess a money value as laborers; they ultimately become American citizens, and their children, educated in our public schools, become the most ardent of young Americans.
The above reflections from the standpoint of the negative lead us to ask a few questions which must be answered before we can answer the main question upon which the proposition hinges, namely: “Should any of the immigrants now coming into the United States be prohibited from coming?” These questions are, so far as we have been able to determine: “Are the present immigration laws satisfactory?”, “Do we need all the immigrants now coming to us?”, “Do the immigrants now coming to us have a bad effect upon our country?” These questions if answered “Yes” will establish the affirmative, and likewise if answered “No” will establish the negative. We may therefore conclude that these three questions contain the main issues of the proposition. The issues may be stated in different forms, but, if resolved to their essential elements, they will ultimately be found in these three questions.
The next step in contrasting the arguments is to write them down in such form that corresponding arguments can be set over against each other. For convenience we adopt the following form: