Mohammedanism has retarded civilization consisted in the attempt to prove that Mohammedanism has retarded the spread of Christianity. He assumed that whatever retards Christianity retards civilization, a particular involved in the proposition itself and therefore demanding proof.

(5) Sometimes a single word begs the question. In the introduction to an argument in favor of intercollegiate football, a speaker asked, "Shall we begrudge the time for sound physical development? Shall we do away with this manly sport?" On another occasion, a speaker announced at the outset, "The question is whether we shall have a naval policy which, unlike the present policy, is for the best interests of the United States." In still another debate the speaker said, "The immediate origin of the question is the failure of Speaker Cannon to give due recognition to the demands of labor." These sentences contain question-begging words.

(6) In pointing out the requisites of a clear and convincing definition, we gave instances of question-begging definitions. In Professor Hammond Lamont's English Composition are other good examples:

If the question were, "Is the degraded condition of our American cities due to foreign immigration?” and “degraded conditions" were described as those which exist in the crowded foreign quarters of our large cities, the argument might as well end there; for the conditions in the foreign quarters are largely the result of foreign immigration. Should the question be, "Is rotation in office desirable?" and the definition of "rotation," "that change which is needed to bring fresh vigor and intelligence to the discharge of public duty," the question would not be debatable. It would be equally one-sided if the definition were "that frequent change which makes it impossible for a man to master his duties and work out an intelligent policy."

In one of Fielding's novels a debate occurs on the question "Can any honor exist independent of religion?" Each disputant tries to frame the definition so as to shut out the other side:

"Square answered that it was impossible to discourse philosophically concerning words till their meaning was first established; that there were scarce any two words of a more vague and uncertain signification than the two he had mentioned; for there were almost as many different opinions concerning honor as concerning religion. 'But,' says he, 'if by honor you mean the true, natural beauty of virtue, I will maintain it may exist independent of any religion whatever.'

"Thwackum replied, 'When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England. And when I mention honor, I mean that mode of divine grace which is not only consistent with and dependent upon that religion, but consistent with and dependent upon no other.

999 1

An effective way of exposing fallacies of begging the question in debate is to state clearly the premises of your opponent's argument and demand proof for them. He must then either ignore the question, or, in attempting to prove the premises expose his own fallacy.

In the simple forms of the syllogism, fallacies are obvious. But the most dangerous fallacies of every-day argument never appear in such simple forms. They are indistinct and appear reasonable. This is particularly true of fallacies of begging the question, for they may hang together beautifully and yet have nothing to hang on. Their coherence is accepted in place of truth. Trusting in such argument because it looks reasonable is like relying on a fire-escape because it is made of strong rope, without asking what supports the rope.

1 Arranged from Tom Jones by Hammond Lamont. See English Composition, pp. 168, 169. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906.

EIGHTH CHAPTER

REFUTING OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: SPECIAL

METHODS

"If any one can convince me of an error,

I shall be very glad to

change my opinion, for truth is my business, and nobody was ever yet hurt by it.". MARCUS AURELIUS.

I. SELECTION OF REFUTATION

THE principle of selection is quite as important in refutation as in constructive argument. To refute all that an opponent offers is rarely possible or desirable. "Too much is seldom enough." One must distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. Some of the opposing arguments may be safely admitted and the field of the contest thus narrowed.1 Others, which have no bearing on the issues, may, for the most part, be ignored. It is poor policy to employ time and the patience of an audience in refuting anything which is not vital, no matter how easy and attractive an opening is offered. The very object of an opponent may be to attract attention from the main issues. If he wanders, drags in matters which are clearly beside the point, substitutes invective and ridicule for reason and evidence, the most effective course is to ignore the digressions and hew to the line of the argument. Attention to the insignificant words of an opponent may rescue them from oblivion.

If, however, there is danger that the audience may not perceive the digressions, one should point out clearly 1 Cf. pages 38-42.

which of the opposing arguments are pertinent. Some of these are of minor importance, and are seen to have little effect on the audience. These should be briefly refuted, or even ignored, for the more points a writer or speaker advances, the less emphasis he can place on each point. A debater cannot make a dozen matters all appear of supreme importance in a five-minute rebuttal speech. A lot of petty material causes confusion without destruction. A well-directed cannon-ball may sink a ship; a whole charge of birdshot will only scratch the paint. To the admitted, the extraneous, and the subordinate contentions of an opponent, little time should be spared. Nearly all of the refutation should be directed against those central pillars on which the whole structure rests.

As a rule, it is poor policy to undertake to refute more than is necessary to prove the error of the opposing contentions. A chain is as weak with one broken link as with many. If one absolutely essential part of an argument is really destroyed, the whole argument falls. To attempt to destroy other parts is needlessly to incur additional danger of failure. When Lincoln desired to prove the falsity of testimony regarding events said to have been observed on a moonlight night, he simply produced an almanac which proved that there was no moonlight on the date in question. A person burdens himself unwisely who attempts to controvert a universal judgment (all A is B) by the opposite universal (all A is not B) when the opposite particular (some A is not B) is easier to prove and equally effective. To refute the statement that all strikes of coal-miners have attained their objects, one need prove merely that some strikes of coal-miners have not attained their objects. Thus, in the Harvard-Princeton debate on the proposition," Con

gress should take measures to retire all the legal tender notes," Harvard overthrew the proposition to the satisfaction of the judges, not by proving the universal negative, — namely, that no legal tender notes should be retired by Congress, but by proving a particular negative, that not all but only some should be retired. The general rule, then, is the same in refutation as in all other forms of discourse, - too much is seldom enough.

II. POSITION OF REFUTATION

If a writer or speaker is advocating an extremely unpopular proposition, he may be unable to secure a fair hearing for his constructive argument until he has answered the principal objections. In such a case, the refutation should come first. If, on the other hand, the constructive argument does not require this preliminary clearing of the ground, and if the refutation depends for its cogency on points to be established in the constructive part of the proof, the refutation should come last. The danger of this final position is that of leaving the opposing contentions uppermost in the minds of the readers or hearers. One who puts his refutation at the end, therefore, should make it unquestionably strong, and follow it with a vigorous and persuasive summing up of the constructive work. More generally useful than either the initial or the final position is the method of introducing the refutation wherever objections arise in connection with the constructive argument. No further directions can be of much help, for the most effective position depends on infinitely variable attendant circumstances.

Arguments illustrating each of the three positions for refutation are readily available. The speech of Frank H.