For another illustration, let us analyze the question popularly known as the recall of judicial decisions. We will assume that in the first place when your society and that rival society from Greenburg, after the debate was agreed upon, decided to discuss the recall, you got together to determine the exact question. You decided that you would not discuss the recall generally, that you did not care to go into the question of the wisdom of retiring legislators or executive officers before their term had expired. You were simply interested in the question as far as it affected judges. Very well.

When you discussed the matter further you found you were all unwilling to advocate any system which might seem to encourage an attack on the independence of the judiciary and so you agreed that the question should concern not the recall of judges but only the recall of judicial decisions. You felt that while the argument for and against the recall of judges generally would largely center about the necessity of preserving the independence of the judge, in the matter of submitting only his decisions to popular verdict, other considerations could be urged with equal effectiveness. You further felt that all his decisions should not thus be subjected to the people’s vote, but only those tending to construe the constitution, the fundamental law of the land. In this preliminary meeting you therefore narrowed the question down to a form something like this: “Resolved: that the decision of any judge affecting the constitutionality of any civil statute may be reversed by vote of the electors of the district affected by the statute.” Your clash of arguments on this question might read as follows:

AFFIRMATIVE CONTENTIONS:NEGATIVE CONTENTIONS:
It is wise becauseIt is unwise because
1. The Constitution is the expression of the people’s will and, in the last resort, only the people should decide what that will is or is not.1. The Constitution itself prescribes a method for its interpretation.
2. Only the collective wisdom of the people as a whole is competent to judge of such fundamentals as constitutional law.2. Only a man specially trained is competent to judge of such fundamental principles.
3. It will cause the average citizen to pay greater attention to the important questions of public concern, and thereby increase the dignity of citizenship.3. Because the average citizen is not educated for public affairs, it would encourage control by the bosses, and other manifestations of demagogy.
4. To know that his action is likely to be reviewed by the public in an authoritative way, will increase the care and attention the average judge will give such questions.4. It will tend to lessen the independence of the average judge—he will listen to every breath of public opinion and hence be unable to form an unbiased judgment based only on the law of the case.
5. The method could be easily applied, e.g., by the executive submitting the question to vote upon a petition signed largely enough to show general intent.5. It burdens the voters unnecessarily and imposes an unwarranted expense upon the community.
6. It presents an orderly method of correcting interpretations of the organic law which are hostile to the moral sense of the people, and would afford an outlet for feeling which might otherwise produce revolution or civil war; e.g.: The war between the states, ’60-65, was largely the result of the Dred Scott decision. If a peaceful method of recalling that decision had been provided, the civil war might have been prevented.6. It would tend to substitute popular prejudice and clamor for calm, dispassionate reasoning.
7. The public could inform itself of the facts in each case through the press and the forums for public discussion now so common.7. It would be impossible properly to acquaint the public with the facts and arguments necessary to a proper understanding of each case because of the partisan nature of the public press.
8. While not interfering with the tenure of office of the judge, it would increase the respect in which that office is held, because the very study of such questions would convince the public of the delicate and arduous nature of his work.8. Judges are almost invariably taken from the legal profession, a body of men who by special and constant study and practice are peculiarly fitted for the exercise of this judicial function. It should be left to lawyers.

Exclusion of Unessential Matter.—I do not pretend to have stated all the arguments pro and con on the question before you. I have illustrated simply to you a useful method of arranging them in your own preparation. As you balance them one against the other, you will see that some are important and vitally affect the main question, while others are comparatively unimportant and may be admitted as true or dismissed as trivial or entirely unrelated.

Almost every subject will suggest many arguments which must be admitted. Don’t waste your time in seeking to refute that which you can’t refute and which is not vital to your argument anyway. Your opponent will have a decided advantage over you when he shows the weakness of your attempt, and your main argument will surely suffer. A careful analysis will many times prevent just that trouble and on the other hand your opponent may carefully prepare himself to prove some proposition which you are perfectly willing to admit if you have anticipated his position and are prepared to show that it does not affect your main case.

The Vital Issues.—All these various steps in analysis are essential to good debating and if you have taken each step, you have now come to the last—the statement of the special issues. You have seen where the question originated, you have defined its terms, you have put yourself in the place of the other man and know about what he will say, you have excluded from the argument all non-essential matter, and there should now be left the real heart of the question, the actual proposition you are to debate. You can be very sure all this preliminary work is most important—if you have well considered all these steps, you have your debate half won.

In your introductory statement, you will give enough of your analysis to show why you present the points you select as essential. You need not state every step; in fact, in your formal speech, you should not let the machinery be too much in evidence, but in your preliminary work you cannot safely omit one step. So far everything has been preliminary to the argument itself, but you are now ready to build up your actual constructive argument.

In your presentation of your side of the conservation question, for instance, you will mass your facts and arguments about the few really essential points which are left for debate. You will not simply talk about the propositions. You will remember that each point must be proved. You will get not simply the opinions of someone else upon the question; you will get facts. For instance, in the question of the ownership of timber tracts, a part of the conservation problem, it will not be enough to cite what some one thinks about it, but get the actual number of acres owned by corporations. Is that enough? No, show the facts as to the relation of these corporations to one another, or the fact that there is no such relationship, as bearing on the fact of an ownership of these lands by one group. Not opinions, not theories, but facts are what win debates. After you have established your facts, then show how your facts prove your case.

Don’t Prove What Everybody Knows.—When you are considering the arrangement and proof, do not waste your time on proof of those facts which are either self-evident or taken for granted. For example, in your discussion of conservation you can take it as self-evident that the policy of the United States government is to aid the people of the United States. You can also take it for granted that the citizens of the United States are moved by love of country and love of home. No doubt you could indulge in some fine writing or fine speaking on these questions, but it is entirely unnecessary to do so. So you need not take time to prove that the government is not deliberately concocting a scheme to injure some of its citizens, nor need you stop to prove that the individual settler loves his forest home if “preëmpting” in good faith and that he should be aided. The mere statement of these two facts proves them.