at Harvard College, Bowdoin College, and other institutions. Some instructors prefer to take up the subject of brief-drawing directly after the subject of analysis, in order that the students may be developing briefs while they are studying evidence. The plan is a good one. The reason for the order in this book is that a knowledge of the principles of structure is of no practical value without a knowledge of the material out of which the structure must be built. But in the class-room the studies of substance and of form may proceed together. There seem to be abundant reasons why the old style "elocution" has been largely superseded in American schools and colleges by courses in argumentative writing and speaking. There is little place for special teachers of elocution. To maintain such teachers is to place the emphasis precisely where it does not belong. All training in spoken discourse- however its name may shift with the winds and tides of popular disapproval - should be subordinate to training in thinking. It should be a means to the end of clear and direct expression of the pupil's own thoughts. Training in public speaking should be conducted by teachers who aim first, to produce sound thinkers, second, to train these thinkers in the clear, correct, straightforward, and effective oral expression of their own thoughts. And these aims may be best achieved by the study of Argumentation and Debate. Those who believe that argumentation deserves a high place among school studies "hold very strongly " with Cardinal Newman, "that the first step in intellectual training is to impress upon a boy's mind the idea of science, method, order, principle, and system; of rule and exception. . . Let him once gain this habit of method, of starting from fixed points, of making his ground good as he goes, of distinguishing what he knows from what he does not know, and I conceive he will be gradually initiated into the largest and truest philosophical views, and will feel nothing but impatience and disgust at the random theories and imposing sophistries and dashing paradoxes, which carry away half formed and superficial intellects." Science and principle, — in argumentation the student meets principles based upon the science of logic from which, as he soon discovers, the rational mind cannot escape. Method, order, system, this is the very backbone of argument. Without methodical procedure from definitions to historical facts, to admitted matters, through conflicting contentions to the main issues and thence to the argument, by order of proposition and proof, the known to the unknown, all according to a systematic brief, without all this there is chaos, not argument. No other form of discourse so readily conveys to young minds the most important ideas of rhetorical structure. Again, let the boy start from fixed points and make his ground good as he goes,—this is the process of the exact sciences; but argumentation applies this process to all practical questions, especially to the innumerable public problems to the solution of which the boy should some day, as an educated citizen, bring a well-trained mind. Let him distinguish what he knows from what he does not know, this is the initial business of argumentation, through which many a boy gets his first contempt for snap judgments and his first notion of testing the supposed knowledge and random theories by which he has been accustomed to guide his conduct in every-day affairs. Graduates of secondary schools now go forth to college with cultivated memories, heads packed with ideas soon to be forgotten, often with keen desire for information. But rare are those who have learned to think! Argumentation, as it should be taught, cultivates that power, - so much demanded and so little found both in school and in the life beyond Commencement, the power of independent thinking. Let us not be surprised, however, if the study of the principles of argumentation - or even Burke's much mis-taught Speech seems dry without the prospect of actual debate. We should hardly expect a half-back to feel much enthusiasm over reading the rules of the game and tackling a dummy if he could not look forward to tackling a man. When elocution and argumentative writing have failed to stimulate interest, formal debate may succeed, for it is a kind of game. In the time limit, the order of speakers, the alternation of sides, the actual struggle of opposing forces, the give and take of rebuttal, the fixed rules and the ethics of conduct, the qualifications for success, and the final awarding of victory, debate has much in common with tennis and football. The great superiority of debating, as the schools should look upon it, lies in the fact that it adds to many of the elements of the present absorbing interest in athletics those educational values which contribute directly to the highest type of citizenship. From work in debating, guided by efficient instruction and right ideals, students discover that debatable questions are far from simple; and they learn to refrain from making judgments based on ignorance. The necessity for thorough preparation is forced upon them by the conditions of the contest. Often the hard work for a given debate provides their first standard for sounding the shallowness of their knowledge on other subjects. They learn to examine a question critically to find out what it actually involves, to define terms with precision, to distinguish the relevant matters from the irrelevant matters which confuse the ordinary discussion of the subject, to separate what may be admitted or granted from what is held by both sides, and thus, through this conflict of contentions, to reach the main issues. In the attempt to group their evidence in relation to these issues, they learn something of structure, coherence, unity, proportion. Best of all, they come to respect the opinions of those who differ from them, but to accept nothing and to offer nothing unless the reasoning is sound and the evidence sufficient. There could be no better training for citizenship. The first man to develop systematic courses of instruction in argumentation and debating was Professor George P. Baker of Harvard University. To his pioneer work all later books on these subjects seem much indebted. I wish here gratefully to acknowledge my own indebtedness to Professor Baker, who was for several years my inspiring teacher. Although I am aware that I owe much to him, as the chapter on analysis bears witness, yet my debt is probably even greater than I realize. My thanks are due also to several members of the Bowdoin College faculty, especially to Professor W. B. Mitchell, for many suggestions, as well as to Mr. H. P. Chandler of the University of Chicago, Mr. C. R. Nutter of Harvard University, Mr. A. K. Spofford of Bates College, Professor Frank Chase and Mr. P. B. |