adverse criticism of rebuttal in debates is that it is scattering and trivial. The closing rebuttal speech. There is danger in formal debate that the audience shall become confused, and unable, after the give and take of refutation, to see how the contest stands at the end of the debate. It is therefore the first function of the conclusion to make clear what has been done by both sides. To make this clear, the speaker must take up the issues, one by one, in a logical order, which is usually the order determined at the outset. His purpose is to show, by contrasting the arguments which the course of the debate has left standing on each side of each issue, that his side has the weight of proof in its favor. He thus emphasizes his own arguments at the expense of his opponents' arguments. As the weight of evidence is rarely on the same side for all the issues, the last speaker in rebuttal may find that his side has established only part of its case. He should then endeavor to show that the issues on which his side has presented the preponderance of proof are the most important. All this is called the work of amplifying and diminishing. This work may take the form of contrasting the results of policies, or the nature of underlying motives, or the kinds of argument, or the sources of evidence. But in any event, the last speaker has no time for minor matters. He must subordinate the insignificant odds and ends, which are more or less confused in the minds of the hearers, to the main issues. His task is to muster the whole forces of his side for an orderly, unified, final attack. Organization of rebuttal material. The material for answering the contentions of opponents should be immediately available. Otherwise much of your reading and study may count for nothing. You may know that there is a decision of the Supreme Court which invalidates the legal argument just presented against your proposition; but unless you can find the exact quotation at once, you cannot use it. You may remember that somewhere in the reports of the Philippine Commission is a table of statistics showing that your opponent is wrong in his contention regarding the population of the islands; but if you are obliged to hunt through those reports to find the table, you may lose the rest of his speech, and even then fail to track down the evidence you need. You may feel sure that, somewhere among your notes, there is evidence that an authority just cited against your position is incompetent; but if your notes are carelessly taken and unorganized, you may search them in vain, and have nothing to offer against the authority but uselessly general charges. All material for use as refutation should be taken down with clearness, fairness, and precision, and arranged according to a definite and serviceable system. The plan of taking down, on one side of cards of uniform size, all the evidence which may be useful for rebuttal, and then organizing that material under six or eight heads, has been tried time and again by many successful debaters.1 The cards may well be of standard library size (about 3 by 5). The number and the nature of the groups into which the cards are finally divided for convenient use will depend on the question for debate, and will be roughly indicated by the issues. For example, in preparation for a debate on the proposition, "Resolved, that high school secret fraternities should be prohibited," the rebuttal cards might be arranged in eight packs, labeled: "Legality," "Effect on Morals," "Effect on Scholarship," "Effect on School Spirit," " Other Methods," "School Statistics," "Authorities Commonly Cited,” “Objections to Analogies from College Fraternities." The only necessity is that the classification shall be such, in number and in headings, that any member of the team which is to employ the system can put his hand at once on the needed evidence. 1 See also section VIII of the fourth chapter. LEGALITY. SPECIMEN REBUTTAL CARDS Illinois Supreme Court decision: Although prohibition of school fraternities is held illegal, in that (Authority of "Com. on Secret Frats." of N. E. A., G. B. Mor- Source: Journal of Education, January, 1907. EFFECT ON MORALS. Exceptional Schools. Although it is held that the societies at are morally beneficial to the members, Yet, these are not fair cases, for The societies are not really secret, for A faculty member is obliged to attend Source: Review of Reviews, September, 1907, p. 340: M. Melius, on 66 Are Secret Societies a Danger to Our High Schools?" Attitude toward opponents. Milton, in replying to Salmasius, said, “Let me enter therefore upon this Noble Cause with a cheerfulness grounded upon this assurance, that my Adversary's Cause is maintained by nothing but Fraud, Fallacy, Ignorance, and Barbarity; whereas mine has Light, Truth, Reason, Practice, and the Learning of the best Ages of the World on its side." The debater who enters upon his cause with such assurance is liable to fail. No speaker can carry conviction who imagines all the truth to be on his side and all who differ from him to be in obstinate error. Such an attitude arouses antagonism. A speaker must bear in mind that he is addressing people who have sympathies and opinions of their own, who have a perfect right to them, and who cannot be cudgeled into renouncing them. Webster made this clear in this Reply to Hayne, when he said: Sir, the human mind is so constituted that the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear and very palpable to those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff: she sees oppression there also, and she sees danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. The faith of South Carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but resolves, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration, resolves also, and gives, to every warm affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her Assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote.1 Debate, which should be an honest effort to discover truth and to convince others of that truth, is in both these aspects so difficult that it should promote tolerance of the opinions and convictions of other people. During the preparation for debate and in the actual contest, one should bear in mind his own liability to error. Far from resenting the fact that others disagree with him, he should welcome opposition. If he believes in his own side, opposition is opportunity. "He that wrestles with us," as Burke well said, "strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Adversaries in debate should have at least this common pur 1 Webster, In Reply to Hayne, United States Senate, January 26, 1830. pose, the search after truth. A great mind is a mind open to conviction. Ridicule and satire. Cheap ridicule is so easy and common, effective ridicule is so difficult and rare, that the danger of the one far outweighs the possibility of success with the other. A debater should not turn from the main line of his argument to introduce personalities, and he should be alert to discover and defeat the tricks of opponents who strive to allure him from the main issues by introducing such digressions as personal abuse. A thousand can answer an argument with abuse to one who can answer with reason. "It is the opinion of the ignorant," says Holyoake," that if a man does not bluster and retort, he is deficient in spirit. This apprehension often betrays weak men into violence, and to prove themselves independent they become rude and insolent; whereas courage pursues its own way without ostentation, preserves its independence, corrects misrepresentation, repairs any injury it may have unwittingly done, and answers slander (if there be slander) with the truth. No wise man answers a fool according to his folly. He shows that it is folly, and abandons it to die by its own hands.” 1 Invective. Invective delights both the weak-minded speaker and the weak-minded hearer, for it relieves the one of the trouble of producing proof and the other of the trouble of keeping his mind on the question. But the day has gone by when railing at opponents is regarded as sufficient defense of opinion. There are men, it is true, who advocate the use of invective. Some assert that when an opponent has won the sympathy of the audience, "the speaker must counteract these effects by the use of sarcasm, wit, invective, or whatever resources he may command." Ridicule and sarcasm are especially recommended as defense against conceit and affectation. But conceit and affectation do more harm to an opponent's cause 1 G. J. Holyoake, Public Speaking and Debate, p. 56. (Ginn & Co., 1897.) |