up in books, make a selection, and attach them at intervals to his speech. Let him get at the cause of his lifelessness, which may be embarrassment, or lack of preparation, or want of interest in his subject. With sufficient life in the speaker, gestures will come of themselves. After that, criticism should be mainly corrective. If, for instance, a speaker takes naturally to the device of emphasizing everything with one finger, the fault should be corrected before it becomes a habit. It is often said that anything which is natural is effective. This is not true. A speaker may be naturally awkward and ridiculous. The truth is that whatever gestures appear to the audience naturally good at the time are effective; but all gestures that are naturally bad should be corrected or eliminated.

Reading Quotations. When the argument may be strengthened by the exact words of an authority, to read a short quotation directly from the book or paper is quite as effective as to deliver the quotation from memory, provided—and this proviso is far more important than it seems to be provided that the speaker knows how to read. He must decide before the debate whether he will read or trust to memory. If he decides to read, he must familiarize himself with the text so that he shall not stumble in reading, or lose the eyes of his audience for more than a second or two; he must note the words he wishes to emphasize; and he must mark unmistakably the part to be read, so that he shall find it without delay, and so that he shall not read a word more than is necessary for his purpose. Provided that he reads well, the very fact that the auditors see before them the exact source of the evidence may help in conviction. Especially is this true if an authority, a Supreme Court decision, for instance, is

bandied back and forth between the sides. If there is a dispute as to the statement of a given authority, the debater who reads the exact words from their original source gains credence. But first of all he must know how to read.

Practice in Delivery. When you have the brief of your case well in mind and the evidence collected, stand before an imaginary audience and deliver your argument. Do not allow yourself to break down; go through to the end as well as you can, just as you will be obliged to do before the actual audience. If the appropriate phrase refuses to come, supply something and go on. At the close of your speech go back and study out the words or phrases which failed you in delivery. Do this two or three times a day, with watch at your side, until you can get the substance of your argument safely and cogently within the time limit. Then find somebody who is good enough to listen to you, and talk to him along the line of your argument. Encourage him to ask questions if your language is not clear, and to offer objections if your argument is not convincing. Such practice will help you to cultivate a conversational as opposed to an oratorical style of delivery; it will help you to attain a clearer phrasing and one more responsive to your thoughts; and it will suggest chances for strengthening your argument.

Marking Transitions. A delivery which takes due account of the structure of a speech is a great help to an audience, especially in argumentative discourse. The steps from part to part of the introduction, from the introduction to the proof, from one issue of the proof to another, and finally from the proof to the peroration, should be taken by means of well-marked transitions. In addition to the rhetorical possibilities already con

sidered, there are at least seven ways of indicating these transitions: namely, by corresponding changes in rate of delivery, in tone, in volume, in position on the platform, by emphasis, by gestures, and by pauses. Perhaps the most serviceable and least used of these devices is a noticeable pause, during which the speaker deliberately changes his position.

Emphasis. A debater should consider what parts of his proof he must drive home at any cost and what are the means at his command. He may be sure that the parts which deserve emphasis will not be singled out by the audience from a monotonous delivery. He must do this important work for them by uttering the capital words with marked deliberation, by stopping abruptly and pausing in just the right places, by letting his gestures fall on ideas that call for special attention, and by dropping his voice or increasing its volume and the rate of utterance. These possibilities are worth studying in addition to the purely rhetorical means. But in quoting authorities or the words of opponents, a debater should take care not to misplace the accent, thus causing the author of a quotation to appear to say what he never intended to say. This is sometimes called the fallacy of accent. Although it is not strictly a fallacy, it is to be condemned along with all other attempts to deceive.

A Final Word about Debating. The most serious objections to formal debating, as it has been carried on in recent years, are that it is too artificial in its rules and consequently too stereotyped in results; that its aim is victory rather than the pursuit of truth; that, consequently, debating is characterized by trickiness and insincerity, and is not the preparation which it ought to be for the real contests of the life beyond Commencement. One result of this formalism is said to be a noticeable

lack of sincerity and enthusiasm on the part of the speakers which adds to the feeling of unreality. Then, again, the question is often so cleverly phrased, so vague and so complicated, that the time which should be spent on vital issues is wasted in quarrels over the meaning of terms. The petty and academic discussion which results seems more like a controversy of the Middle Ages than an attempt to get at the truth of a contemporary practical problem. Still further to preclude the possibility of real debating are the memorized speeches which render impossible that effective adaptation to opposing speakers, that running rebuttal, that one feature which distinguishes the real debater from the elocutionist. And when, after an hour or two of such lifeless discussion, a team of undergraduates arrives with remarkable ease at sweeping conclusions, and "proves beyond the shadow of a doubt" a proposition which is still puzzling statesmen, the whole affair seems to some people little short of ridiculous. These appear to be the main charges brought against intercollegiate debating.

What shall we do about it? Some people would adopt the heroic method of abolishing intercollegiate debating. That is too easy. If we were to do away with all college activities which fall short of the ideal, we would have nothing left. In the first place, we should lead up to debating by a more sensible kind of instruction in speaking. The formalism, the unreality, the difficulty of producing a "head-on collision," which are complained of in present debating, are due in part to the traditional elocution which nine tenths of our institutions regard as training for debate. Yet none of the essentials of refutation, which is the life of debate, is possessed by those who regard debating as the recitation of memorized speeches, consisting for the most part of strings of quotations,

delivered in supreme disregard of the equally automatic declamations of the "opposing" speakers. Such performances should not parade under the name of debating. They are not even preparation for debating. Indeed, it is an open question whether they do not hinder more than they help; and it is altogether true that they contribute nothing to the power of adapting refutation to the needs of the moment. Any training which develops independent and sound thinking and the faculty of phrasing and presenting thought before an audience prepares a man for the work of refutation; and when to this general training he adds an accurate and wide knowledge of the subject for debate, quite regardless of what material he may expect to use for a given speech, he has acquired the essentials of effective refutation. To these essentials declamation contributes almost nothing. That kind of school and college speaking which prepares for real debating resembles effective speaking in the affairs of grown-up men rather than the parlor performances of children.

Another condition which tends to produce academic and unprofitable discussions is the prevailing practice by which one institution submits the question and leaves the choice of sides to the other. This prompts students who are looking for victory rather than a profitable debate, to phrase a question cunningly and ambiguously, so that it shall appear to be evenly balanced until the choice of side has been announced. Meantime the institution which has received this complicated question is trying to puzzle out its meaning, forbidden by the unwritten laws of good form to take what would seem to be the sensible course of asking the framers for an interpretation. The resulting contest is usually a mere quib