Part 3 (1/2)
DEFINITION BY ILl.u.s.tRATION. Since the purpose of each step in the reasoning portion of the introduction is to convey information accurately, quickly, and, above all else, clearly, a particularly good method for defining terms is by ill.u.s.tration. In using this method, one holds up to view a concrete example of the special significance of the word that is being explained. He shows how the law, or custom, or principle, or whatever is being expounded works in actual practice.
For example, if he is advocating the superiority of the large college over the small college, he should define each term by giving specific examples of large colleges and of small colleges. The advantage of this method lies in its simplicity and clearness, qualities which enable the audience to understand the discussion without much conscious effort on their part. Investigation reveals that the definitions of great writers and speakers are replete with ill.u.s.tration. Whenever the student of argumentation has something to define that is particularly intricate or hard to understand, he should ill.u.s.trate it. If he fails to find already prepared an ill.u.s.trative definition that exactly fits his needs, he will often do well to learn just what the term means, and then make his own ill.u.s.tration.
Consider how this method has been used. The Hon. Charles Emory Smith defines reciprocity as follows:--
Its principle, rightly understood, is axiomatic. Brazil grows coffee and makes no machinery. We make machinery and grow no coffee. She needs the fabrics of our forges and factories, and we need the fruit of her tropical soil. We agree to concessions for her coffee and she agrees to concessions for our machinery. That is reciprocity.
The following is a definition of free silver by The Hon. Edward O.
Leech, former Director of the Mint:--
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 pa.s.sage 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 n.o.body 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 a.s.sertion 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 const.i.tutes 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.”
In the last place, the arguer must give his audience all essential information concerning the matter in dispute. For example, if the proposition is, ”Naturalization laws in the United States should be more stringent,” a mere definition of ”naturalization laws” is not enough; the disputant must tell just what naturalization laws exist at the present time, and just how stringent they are to-day. Again, if the subject is, ”The United States army should be enlarged,” the arguer must tell exactly how large the army is now. If the proposition is, ”The right of suffrage should be further limited by an educational test,” the arguer must state what limits now exist, and he must also tell what is meant by ”an educational test.” In a debate the work of the affirmative and of the negative differ slightly at this point.
Since the proposition reads _an educational test_, the advocate for the affirmative has the privilege of upholding any sort of educational test that he wishes to defend, provided only that it comes within the limits of ”an educational test.” He may say that the test should consist of a knowledge of the alphabet, or he may advocate an examination in higher mathematics; _but he is under obligation to outline carefully and thoroughly some specific system_. The negative, on the other hand, must be prepared to overthrow whatever system is brought forward. If the affirmative fails to outline any system, the negative has only to call attention to this fact to put the affirmative in a very embarra.s.sing position.
The following quotations are good ill.u.s.trations of how a proposition may be explained:--
The supremely significant and instructive fact, in the dealings of society with crime in our day, and one which has not been fully grasped as yet by the legal profession, not even by those who practice in criminal courts, and who should be familiar with it, is this: We have now two cla.s.ses of inst.i.tutions fundamentally distinct in character and purpose, both of which are designed by society, erected and conducted at public expense, for the purpose of dealing with criminals. The most numerous cla.s.s of these inst.i.tutions consists of prisons, in which to confine men for terms specified by the trial courts as penalties for their offenses. The laws, under which offenders are sentenced to these prisons, aim at cla.s.sifying crimes according to the degree of guilt they imply, and a.s.signing to each of them the penalty which it deserves. Thus, to these prisons are sent men sentenced to confinement for two, five, ten, fourteen, or thirty years, or for life, according to the name which the law attaches to the crime proved upon them; and each man, when he has served the prescribed term, is turned loose upon society. The other cla.s.s of inst.i.tutions includes what are known as ”reformatories.” The fundamental principle here is that an offender is sent to them not for a term, but for a specified work. It is a.s.sumed that his character and habits unfit him for social life. For reasons to be found in his own nature, he cannot yet be trusted with freedom and the responsibilities of citizens.h.i.+p. But he may possess the capacity to become an honest, industrious, and useful citizen. To the reformatory, then, he is sent to be educated; to be trained to habits of industry; above all, to be disciplined in the habit of looking forward to the future with the consciousness that his welfare and happiness to-morrow depend on his conduct to-day, and that he is constantly shaping his own destiny. He is expected to remain until it satisfactorily appears that this training is effective, and he may then go forth with a prospect of leading an honest and respectable life. This, in brief, is the distinction between these two cla.s.ses of inst.i.tutions.
For a generation past, these two kinds of prisons have been standing side by side in New York, Ma.s.sachusetts, and other States. Each of them has received many thousands of criminals under sentence for grave offenses. Each of them has sent out thousands of inmates into the world of human society, with whatever impress the life, teachings, and a.s.sociations of the inst.i.tutions could make upon their natures, as a preparation for their after career. What is the result?
[Footnote: Charlton T. Lewis, in North American Review, August, 1904.]
Congress has at last decided that the long-talked-of ca.n.a.l shall be built, and shall be built at Panama. Those issues no longer confront us. The question now to be decided concerns the kind of ca.n.a.l that shall be constructed. Two plans have been suggested: the lock-ca.n.a.l plan and the sea-level plan. The advocates of the lock-ca.n.a.l plan aim to build a gigantic dam in the valley of the Chagres River; the enormous artificial lake thus formed being used as part of the pa.s.sageway for the vessels. They say that this lake will be at an elevation of about eighty-five feet above mean sea-level; the pa.s.sage to and from it will be made by means of ca.n.a.ls at both ends, each ca.n.a.l containing three locks. Thus there will be, if this plan is adopted, six locks in the entire system. The ca.n.a.l will be of sufficient width and depth to accommodate vessels of such size as may be expected to be built when the ca.n.a.l is completed.
If the ca.n.a.l is built at sea-level, it will be of the same depth and width as the lock-ca.n.a.l, but it will be at the level of the sea throughout its entire length. Owing to the fact that the Atlantic and the Pacific have a difference in extreme level of twenty feet, an automatic tide-lock will have to be installed. A small lake will also be built, merely to divert the Chagres and to furnish light and power.
The question that now confronts us is, ”Which plan should be adopted?”
ISSUES.
Following the discovery of the real meaning of the proposition, comes the finding of the issues. Whenever a man in business, professional, or political life, or in any circ.u.mstances whatsoever, must determine upon some policy or come to some decision regarding theoretical or practical matters, he formulates his belief and chooses his line of action in accordance with the answers that he makes to certain questions either consciously or unconsciously present in his mind. For instance, if he considers the purchase of a certain piece of real estate, he says to himself: ”Is the price fair?” ”Have I the money to invest?” ”Can I sell or use the property to good advantage?” ”How much pleasure shall I derive from it?” If he answers these questions in one way, the purchase is likely to be made; if in another, it is not.