The Art of Public Speaking
they come to realize that its processes, even when most intricate, are
merely technical statements of the truths enforced by common sense, it
will lose its terrors. In fact, logic[25] is a fascinating subject, well
worth the public speaker's study, for it explains the principles that
govern the use of argument and proof.
Argumentation is the process of producing conviction by means of
reasoning. Other ways of producing conviction there are, notably
suggestion, as we have just shown, but no means is so high, so worthy of
respect, as the adducing of sound reasons in support of a contention.
Since more than one side of a subject must be considered before we can
claim to have deliberated upon it fairly, we ought to think of
argumentation under two aspects: building up an argument, and tearing
down an argument; that is, you must not only examine into the stability
of your structure of argument so that it may both support the
proposition you intend to probe and yet be so sound that it cannot be
overthrown by opponents, but you must also be so keen to detect defects
in argument that you will be able to demolish the weaker arguments of
those who argue against you.
We can consider argumentation only generally, leaving minute and
technical discussions to such excellent works as George P. Baker's "The
Principles of Argumentation," and George Jacob Holyoake's "Public
Speaking and Debate." Any good college rhetoric also will give help on
the subject, especially the works of John Franklin Genung and Adams
Sherman Hill. The student is urged to familiarize himself with at least
one of these texts.
The following series of questions will, it is hoped, serve a triple
purpose: that of suggesting the forms of proof together with the ways in
which they may be used; that of helping the speaker to test the strength
of his arguments; and that of enabling the speaker to attack his
opponent's arguments with both keenness and justice.
TESTING AN ARGUMENT
I. THE QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION
1. _Is it clearly stated?_
(_a_) Do the terms of statement mean the same to each
disputant? (For example, the meaning of the term "gentleman" may not
be mutually agreed upon.)
(_b_) Is confusion likely to arise as to its purpose?
2. _Is it fairly stated?_
(_a_) Does it include enough?
(_b_) Does it include too much?
(_c_) Is it stated so as to contain a trap?
3. _Is it a debatable question?_
4. _What is the pivotal point in the whole question?_
5. _What are the subordinate points?_
II. THE EVIDENCE
1. _The witnesses as to facts_
(_a_) Is each witness impartial? What is his relation to the
subject at issue?
(_b_) Is he mentally competent?
(_c_) Is he morally credible?
(_d_) Is he in a position to know the facts? Is he an
eye-witness?
(_e_) Is he a willing witness?
(_f_) Is his testimony contradicted?
(_g_) Is his testimony corroborated?
(_h_) Is his testimony contrary to well-known facts or general
principles?
(_i_) Is it probable?
2. _The authorities cited as evidence_
(_a_) Is the authority well-recognized as such?
(_b_) What constitutes him an authority?
(_c_) Is his interest in the case an impartial one?
(_d_) Does he state his opinion positively and clearly?
(_e_) Are the non-personal authorities cited (books, etc.)
reliable and unprejudiced?
3. _The facts adduced as evidence_
(_a_) Are they sufficient in number to constitute proof?
(_b_) Are they weighty enough in character?
(_c_) Are they in harmony with reason?
(_d_) Are they mutually harmonious or contradictory?
(_e_) Are they admitted, doubted, or disputed?
4. _The principles adduced as evidence_
(_a_) Are they axiomatic?
(_b_) Are they truths of general experience?
(_c_) Are they truths of special experience?
(_d_) Are they truths arrived at by experiment?
Were such experiments special or general?
Were the experiments authoritative and conclusive?
III. THE REASONING
1. _Inductions_
(_a_) Are the facts numerous enough to warrant accepting the
generalization as being conclusive?
(_b_) Do the facts agree _only_ when considered in the
light of this explanation as a conclusion?
(_c_) Have you overlooked any contradictory facts?
(_d_) Are the contradictory facts sufficiently explained when
this inference is accepted as true?
(_e_) Are all contrary positions shown to be relatively
untenable?
(_f_) Have you accepted mere opinions as facts?
2. _Deductions_
(_a_) Is the law or general principle a well-established one?
(_b_) Does the law or principle clearly include the fact you
wish to deduce from it, or have you strained the inference?
(_c_) Does the importance of the law or principle warrant so
important an inference?
(_d_) Can the deduction be shown to prove too much?
3. _Parallel cases_
(_a_) Are the cases parallel at enough points to warrant an
inference of similar cause or effect?
(_b_) Are the cases parallel at the vital point at issue?
(_c_) Has the parallelism been strained?
(_d_) Are there no other parallels that would point to a
stronger contrary conclusion?
4. _Inferences_
(_a_) Are the antecedent conditions such as would make the
allegation probable? (Character and opportunities of the accused, for
example.)
(_b_) Are the signs that point to the inference either clear
or numerous enough to warrant its acceptance as fact?
(_c_) Are the signs cumulative, and agreeable one with the other?
(_d_) Could the signs be made to point to a contrary conclusion?
5. _Syllogisms_
(_a_) Have any steps been omitted in the syllogisms?
(Such as in a syllogism _in enthymeme_.) If so, test any such by
filling out the syllogisms.
(_b_) Have you been guilty of stating a conclusion that really
does not follow? (A _non sequitur_.)
(_c_) Can your syllogism be reduced to an absurdity?
(_Reductio ad absurdum._)
QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Show why an unsupported assertion is not an argument.
2. Illustrate how an irrelevant fact may be made to seem to support an
argument.
3. What inferences may justly be made from the following?
During the Boer War it was found that the average Englishman did
not measure up to the standards of recruiting and the average
soldier in the field manifested a low plane of vitality and
endurance. Parliament, alarmed by the disastrous consequences,
instituted an investigation. The commission appointed brought in
a finding that alcoholic poisoning was the great cause of the
national degeneracy. The investigations of the commission have
been supplemented by investigations of scientific bodies and
individual scientists, all arriving at the same conclusion. As a
consequence, the British Government has placarded the streets
of a hundred cities with billboards setting forth the
destructive and degenerating nature of alcohol and appealing to
the people in the name of the nation to desist from drinking
alcoholic beverages. Under efforts directed by the Government
the British Army is fast becoming an army of total abstainers.
The Governments of continental Europe followed the lead of the
British Government. The French Government has placarded France
with appeals to the people, attributing the decline of the birth
rate and increase in the death rate to the widespread use of
alcoholic beverages. The experience of the German Government has
been the same. The German Emperor has clearly stated that
leadership in war and in peace will be held by the nation that
roots out alcohol. He has undertaken to eliminate even the
drinking of beer, so far as possible, from the German Army and
Navy.
--RICHMOND PEARSON HOBSON, _Before the U.S. Congress_.
4. Since the burden of proof lies on him who attacks a position, or
argues for a change in affairs, how would his opponent be likely to
conduct his own part of a debate?
5. Define (_a_) syllogism; (_b_) rebuttal; (_c_) "begging the question;"
(_d_) premise; (_e_) rejoinder; (_f_) sur-rejoinder; (_g_) dilemma;
(_h_) induction; (_i_) deduction; (_j_) _a priori_; (_k_) _a
posteriori_; (_l_) inference.
6. Criticise this reasoning:
Men ought not to smoke tobacco, because to do so is contrary to
best medical opinion. My physician has expressly condemned the
practise, and is a medical authority in this country.
7. Criticise this reasoning:
Men ought not to swear profanely, because it is wrong. It is
wrong for the reason that it is contrary to the Moral Law, and
it is contrary to the Moral Law because it is contrary to the
Scriptures. It is contrary to the Scriptures because it is
contrary to the will of God, and we know it is contrary to
God's will because it is wrong.
8. Criticise this syllogism:
MAJOR PREMISE: All men who have no cares are happy.
MINOR PREMISE: Slovenly men are careless.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, slovenly men are happy.
9. Criticise the following major, or foundation, premises:
All is not gold that glitters.
All cold may be expelled by fire.
10. Criticise the following fallacy (_non sequitur_):
MAJOR PREMISE: All strong men admire strength.
MINOR PREMISE: This man is not strong.
CONCLUSION: Therefore this man does not admire strength.
11. Criticise these statements:
Sleep is beneficial on account of its soporific qualities.
Fiske's histories are authentic because they contain accurate
accounts of American history, and we know that they are true
accounts for otherwise they would not be contained in these
authentic works.
12. What do you understand from the terms "reasoning from effect to
cause" and "from cause to effect?" Give examples.
13. What principle did Richmond Pearson Hobson employ in the following?
What is the police power of the States? The police power of the
Federal Government or the State--any sovereign State--has been
defined. Take the definition given by Blackstone, which is:
The due regulation and domestic order of the Kingdom,
whereby the inhabitants of a State, like members
of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their
general behavior to the rules of propriety, of neighborhood
and good manners, and to be decent, industrious,
and inoffensive in their respective stations.
Would this amendment interfere with any State carrying on the
promotion of its domestic order?
Or you can take the definition in another form, in which it is
given by Mr. Tiedeman, when he says:
The object of government is to impose that degree of
restraint upon human actions which is necessary to a
uniform, reasonable enjoyment of private rights. The
power of the government to impose this restraint is
called the police power.
Judge Cooley says of the liquor traffic:
The business of manufacturing and selling liquor is one
that affects the public interests in many ways and leads
to many disorders. It has a tendency to increase
pauperism and crime. It renders a large force of peace
officers essential, and it adds to the expense of the
courts and of nearly all branches of civil administration.
Justice Bradley, of the United States Supreme Court, says:
Licenses may be properly required in the pursuit of
many professions and avocations, which require peculiar
skill and training or supervision for the public welfare.