Practical Argumentation by George K. Pattee (summer reading list .txt) đź“–
- Author: George K. Pattee
- Performer: -
Book online «Practical Argumentation by George K. Pattee (summer reading list .txt) 📖». Author George K. Pattee
The private company had worked its men twelve and fourteen hours a day and paid irregular and unsatisfactory wages. The city at once reduced the number of hours to ten, and fixed a satisfactory scale of wages. And, compared with what it formerly was, the service has been greatly improved. In spite of all these acts for the benefit of the public, the roads which had cost the city nothing, now net over all charges for improvements, etc., one-fourth of a million annually. In 1892 the city bought out a private electric light company, and now has the monopoly of furnishing electric light and power. This promises to be a source of enormous revenue for the city….
Manchester has within its narrow limits only a little over half a million people, but within a radius of twenty miles from her city hall there are over three million inhabitants. These have to be considered in discussing Manchester, which is essentially a manufacturing and commercial city. Its history is in many respects a parallel of that of Glasgow. It seemed to be a great city of slums, degradation and misery, and was in the grip of private monopolies.
To-day the city furnishes all the service that is furnished here by private corporations, and does it at about one-half cost. It furnishes gas at fifty-six cents a thousand, and after deducting all that is used to illuminate perfectly the streets and after applying $200,000 a year on the original cost of plants, etc., it still turns $300,000 a year into the public treasury, altho the aim in nearly all English cities is not to make money, but to serve the public. The city constructed an aqueduct ninety miles to secure pure water and furnishes this for a little more than half what the private company had charged for a poor quality of water. It owns street railways, and besides giving greatly reduced rates and giving half-fare tickets to workingmen, the city derives a large revenue from this source. Like Glasgow and Birmingham, the city owns large cemeteries in which there are separate sections for the different religious denominations, and prices are so arranged that while those who desire to do so can get lots costing from ten to thirty dollars, yet “a decent burial with inscription on stone over a grave can be had at about four dollars for adults and three dollars for children. This charge includes all cemetery fees and expenses.”
The city owns the markets and slaughter houses. It has provided parks and swimming baths and, like Birmingham and Glasgow, it maintains large technical schools in which thousands of young men are instructed in the industrial arts and sciences, so as to be able to maintain Manchester’s greatness.
Birmingham has over half a million of people, and its experience resembles that of Glasgow and Manchester. Formerly private corporations controlled almost everything and charged very high rates for very poor service, and the sanitary conditions were frightful. But here again municipal statesmen came to the front, the most prominent among whom was The Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, who has since been in the British government.
Not going further into detail, let me say there are at present in the United Kingdom 185 municipalities that supply their inhabitants with water, with gas and electric light, and one-third of the street railway mileage of Great Britain is owned by the municipalities. Leaving out London it amounts to two-thirds. And in most instances in which they do not own the street railways, they have compelled the companies to grant low fares and divide profits.
Every business reason applicable to the municipalities and governments of Europe is applicable here. We want as pure water, as good drainage, as cheap service as they have, and we want the same privilege of supplying ourselves as they exercise; and when it is apparent that, by acting collectively, we can do business more successfully, can serve ourselves better in every way, and can secure for the public treasury these millions which now go into the pockets of grasping individuals, have we not a right to do it? If we find that, in this manner, we can give steadiness to labor, and can elevate its standards and improve the conditions of our people, dare we not do it? Every one of the reforms carried out in England and on the continent met with fierce opposition from the same classes that oppose them here, but the business sense and patriotic impulse of the people prevailed, and I believe, will prevail here. [Footnote: On Municipal and Government Ownership, Altgeld The World’s Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls Co., Vol. X, p. 208.]
5. Draw a brief of Beecher’s speech found on page 166.
A complete argument consists of two kinds of proof: constructive proof and refutation. Constructive proof is that part of an argument which sets forth direct reasons for belief in a certain proposition; refutation is that part which destroys the reasons for belief in the opposite side.
In general, each of these divisions is of about equal importance, at times the value of one predominating and at times the value of the other. If one is addressing an audience unacquainted with his views or hostile towards them, he is not likely to make much progress in getting his own beliefs accepted until he has, at least in part, shattered the opinion already existing. If, however, the audience is predisposed or even willing to accept the doctrine advocated, very little but constructive proof may be necessary.
In debate, the side that has the burden of proof will usually have more use for constructive argument, and the opposite side will have more use for refutation. This statement will not always hold true, however, for the rule will vary under different circumstances; a debater must, therefore, hold himself in readiness to meet whatever contingencies arise. Debate may be likened to the play of two boys building houses with blocks; each boy builds the best house he can, and at times attempts to overthrow the work of his playmate. The one that has the better structure when the game ends comes off victorious. Thus it is in debate; each debater must do his best both to build up his own argument and to destroy his opponent’s.
To handle refutation successfully, either in written argument or in debate, one must know what to refute and what to leave alone. The general rule governing this matter is: Refute only those arguments which are essential to the proof of the other side. All trivial ideas, even all misstatements which if refuted would not destroy any fundamental process of an opponent’s proof, should pass unnoticed. To mention them means waste of time and effort. It is not uncommon for a debater to make trivial errors intentionally, in the hope that his opponent will consume valuable time in refuting them and thus allow his main argument to go unscathed. When this stratagem succeeds, the one who made the mistakes can acknowledge that he was wrong in those unimportant details, and yet show that his fundamental arguments have not been overthrown. While arguing on a political question, an intercollegiate debater once laid considerable stress on an opinion expressed by Woodrow Wilson, “President,” as he stated, “of Harvard University.” His opponent, of course, might have held this statement up to ridicule, but such an exposure would have been impolitic, in that it would have in no wise impaired the value of Mr. Wilson’s opinion as evidence. Another debater, not so wise, once spent considerable time in correcting an opponent who had said that the Steel Trust was formed in 1891 instead of in 1901, as was the case. As these dates had no vital bearing on the question at issue, the error should have been allowed to pass. The temptation to point out the flaws that are most obvious is always great, but unless by so doing one can knock out the props on which an opponent’s proof rests, such an attack accomplishes nothing.
Another common error in refutation consists in “answering one’s self.” A person is guilty of this fault whenever he misstates an opponent’s argument, either because he does not understand it or through design, and then refutes this misstatement. The folly of such procedure is made apparent by merely calling attention to the fact that the original argument has been garbled but in no wise refuted, An opponent can convict the one who has “answered himself” either of unpardonable ignorance about the subject or of downright dishonesty.
To guard against these errors of refuting unimportant details and of “answering one’s self,” it is always well to reduce an opponent’s argument to the form of a brief. If the argument is in print, this task is comparatively simple; if the argument is oral, the task will be harder but will still present no serious difficulties to one who is used to drawing briefs. When all the ideas have been arranged in the form of headings and subheadings, and the relation between the ideas has been indicated by means of numbers and letters, then the arguer can quickly decide what points he ought to refute and what ones he can refute.
It goes without saying that the headings marked with the Roman numerals contain the most important ideas, and should, therefore, be overthrown as far as possible. There are three ways of disposing of them: one way is to state that the headings are false and then bring on new proof to show their falsity; the second way is to call attention to the subheadings with which the opponent has bolstered up the main headings, and then, by proving these subheads false, allow the main heads to fall to the ground; the third way is to admit that the subheads are true and then show that the inferences drawn from them are unwarranted.
To illustrate: A part of an argument on the affirmative side of the proposition, “Resolved, That students in American colleges should be excused from final examinations in all subjects in which they have attained a daily grade of at least eighty-five per cent.,” might be reduced to the following brief form:—
I. This rule would be of great intellectual benefit to college students, for
A. They would master their work more thoroughly, because
1. They would study harder during the term.
The first method of overthrowing the heading indicated by (I) would be to attack it directly. This attack might consist of opinions of prominent educators who, on theoretical grounds, do not believe an intellectual benefit would result from the adoption of such a rule; of the opinions of educators who have tried the rule and declare that it is an intellectual detriment; and of a course of reasoning which would show that this system would rob the students exempted of the great intellectual benefit that is derived from the preparation for an examination and from the taking of an examination.
The second method would be to show that (1) is not true; therefore (A) would be false, and (I) would be left entirely unsupported.
Under the third method the arguer would admit the truth of (1), but would deny that the truth of (A) is established by it; therefore (I) would be unsupported.
Whenever a subheading is attacked, it is always very essential to show that the attack is made simply because this subheading serves as a foundation for the main heading. In this particular
Comments (0)