The theory and practice of argumentation and debate

by Victor Alvin Ketcham

In the beginning there is always a tendency to make the proposition cover too broad a field. This is rather a defect of wording than of subject-matter. Let us take a proposition which is too broad, and narrow it so that it will contain but a single idea. For this purpose we may select the proposition, “Resolved, that freshmen should not be permitted to take part in athletics.” As it stands, this proposition includes all freshmen everywhere and prohibits them from taking part in athletics of every kind. In other words the field which it covers is too broad. The proposition treats of two things, freshmen and athletics. Let us first make the provision in regard to freshmen definite, that is, narrow it down to a field with definite limits. We can do this by making it apply only to the freshmen of Columbia University or of any other specified institution. Thus the collecting of material as well as the determination of the issues involved becomes a much simpler matter. In the second place let us make the provision in regard to athletics more definite. As the proposition stands it excludes freshmen from all athletics whatsoever, including inter-class and inter-society as well as intercollegiate. Here again the field is too wide and some restriction must be placed upon the subject-matter. Therefore we insert the word “intercollegiate” before the word “athletics” in order that the field for discussion may be narrowed down to a single, definite issue. With these modifications the proposition now stands, “Resolved, that freshmen at Columbia University should not be permitted to take part in intercollegiate athletics,” which is an entirely satisfactory proposition because it narrows the field of discussion to one definite, central idea.

Though this difficulty will doubtless present itself in a variety of forms, the principles stated above as well as the illustration, if kept in mind by the student, will enable him to keep clear of this fault.

2. The proposition should be stated in the affirmative.

The first argument is always presented by the affirmative. Upon the affirmative rests the burden of proof and if the affirmative proves nothing the decision goes to the negative. “He who affirms must prove.” The affirmative has the burden of proving the proposition to be true, the negative that of proving it false. Therefore the proposition must be worded in the affirmative. This insures that some progress will have been made at the end of the first speech.

The burden of proof rests upon the party who has the risk of non-persuasion. The risk of non-persuasion rests upon the party who would fail if no evidence were introduced. We have seen that the affirmative would fail if no evidence were introduced, because he who alleges must prove. Therefore the risk of non-persuasion rests on the affirmative. To be more concrete, if you are attempting to prove to a friend that he ought to do (or ought not to do) a certain thing, you take the risk of not persuading him to do the thing that you ask, i. e. the risk of non-persuasion is on you. Likewise the salesman who approaches a customer with the purpose of selling him a bill of goods incurs this same risk of non-persuasion, because he may not be able to induce the customer to buy. Since, as in the above cases, the affirmative must be given a chance to prove something before the negative can reply, the proposition should always be worded in the affirmative.

3. The proposition should contain no ambiguous words.

After the proposition has been narrowed down to a single idea and has then been stated in the affirmative, it should be carefully scrutinized in order to determine whether it contains any ambiguous words. Ambiguous words have a meaning so broad that they may be taken in more than one sense. Such a word is “Anarchist.” This word may refer to a lawless individual bent on assassination, or to a peaceable individual who has merely the beliefs of an anarchist with no intention of putting them into practice. Almost all general terms such as “Anarchist,” “Monroe Doctrine,” “Civilization,” “Policy,” and “Trusts,” should be avoided because they tend to make the proposition ambiguous. When such terms are used they should be almost invariably accompanied by explanatory words. The words selected for use in the proposition should have but one meaning and should be so plain that there can be no reasonable dispute as to their significance. If this rule is not complied with the discussion will become a foolish quibble over the meaning of the proposition rather than an intelligent debate upon the merits of the question.

In the question, “Resolved, that trusts should be suppressed by law,” there are three ambiguous words, (1) trusts, (2) suppressed, and (3) law. While these words may not be ambiguous in ordinary speaking or writing, they are not sufficiently definite to be used in a proposition. The word “Trust” has several meanings and several shades of meaning. Among these is the meaning which has recently been given to it, indicating a combination of firms engaged in some special line of business, as for example, “The Sugar Trust”, “The Oil Trust”, “The Steel Trust”, etc. Even this one meaning has different variations. The term “trust” as used in this sense may refer to a mere combination of manufacturers, to a monopoly, or to a monopoly in restraint of trade. In order to make the meaning of the proposition clear we may strike out the ambiguous term “trusts” and insert “monopolies in restraint of trade.”

The word “suppressed” in this connection may have two well defined meanings. It may mean either destruction or regulation. If the intent is that the question shall hinge on whether or not monopolies in restraint of trade should be destroyed or wiped out altogether, the word “dissolved” or “destroyed” should be used. If, on the other hand, it is intended that the issue shall be whether such organizations be allowed to exist in their present form, but subject to governmental regulation which will suppress their evil effects on trade, the word “regulated” should be used. For the purpose in hand let us choose the latter meaning.

The term “law” is also somewhat ambiguous, because there is more than one legal agency which could deal with such organizations. Therefore we will make plain which agency is intended by modifying the word “law” by the word “Federal.” This makes the proposition, as corrected, read, “Resolved, that monopolies in restraint of trade should be regulated by Federal law.” The proposition as thus worded is fairly free from ambiguity and leaves little opportunity for quibbling over the meaning of the words in which it is stated.