Practical Argumentation by George K. Pattee (summer reading list .txt) 📖

As soon as the persuasive portion of an introduction has rendered the audience friendly, attentive, and open to conviction, the process of reasoning should begin. First of all, it is the duty of the arguer to see that the meaning of the proposition is perfectly clear both to himself and to all the people whom he wishes to reach. If the arguer does not thoroughly comprehend his subject, he is likely to produce only a jumble of facts and reasoning, or at best he may establish a totally different proposition from the one that confronts him; if the audience fails to understand just what is being proved, they remain uninfluenced. The amount of explanation required to show what the proposition means varies according to the intelligence of the people addressed and their familiarity with the subject.

DEFINITION.

To begin with, if there are any unfamiliar words in the proposition, any terms or expressions that are liable to be misunderstood or not comprehended instantly, they must be defined. At this point the arguer has to exercise considerable judgment both in determining what words to define and in choosing a definition that is accurate and clear. Synonyms are almost always untrustworthy or as incomprehensible as the original word, and other dictionary definitions are usually framed either in too technical language to be easily grasped or in too general language to apply inevitably to the case at hand.

DEFINITION BY AUTHORITY. As a rule, the very best definitions that can be used are quotations from the works of men distinguished for their knowledge in the special subject to which the word to be defined belongs. The eminent economist defines economic terms; the statesman, political terms; the jurist, legal terms; the scientist, scientific terms; the theologian, the meaning of religious phraseology. To present these definitions accurately, and to be sure of the author’s meaning, one should take the quotations directly from the author’s work itself. If, however, this source is not at hand, or if time for research is lacking, one may often find in legal and economic dictionaries and in encyclopaedias the very quotations that he wishes to use in defining a term. It is always well, in quoting a definition, to tell who the authority is, and in what book, in what volume, and on what page the passage occurs.

Another convenient way of using definition by authority is not to quote the entire definition but to summarize it. Frequently an authoritative definition is so exhaustive that it covers several pages or even chapters of a book. In such a case the arguer may well condense the definition into his own words, not omitting, however, to name the sources used. The following example is an excellent illustration of this method:—

The bearing of the Monroe Doctrine on all these contentions and counter contentions is not at once evident to the casual observer…. Of course with changing times its meaning has changed also, for no one attempts to declare it to be as immutable as the law of the Medes and Persians. It is applied in various ways to meet varying conditions. Nevertheless, I may say I believe, after a perusal of the more important works on the subject, that during the forescore years of its existence two principles have steadily underlain it: (1) that Europe shall acquire no more territory for permanent occupation upon this continent; (2) that Europe shall affect the destinies of, that is exert influence over, no American state.[Footnote: A. B. Hart, Foundations of American Foreign Policy, chap. VII; J. W. Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, chap. XII; J. A. Kasson, The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States of America, pages 221 ff. [Footnote: Nutter, Hersey & Greenough, Specimens of Prose Composition, p. 218. ] ]

DEFINITION BY ILLUSTRATION. Since the purpose of each step in the reasoning portion of the introduction is to convey information accurately, quickly, and, above all else, clearly, a particularly good method for defining terms is by illustration. In using this method, one holds up to view a concrete example of the special significance of the word that is being explained. He shows how the law, or custom, or principle, or whatever is being expounded works in actual practice. For example, if he is advocating the superiority of the large college over the small college, he should define each term by giving specific examples of large colleges and of small colleges. The advantage of this method lies in its simplicity and clearness, qualities which enable the audience to understand the discussion without much conscious effort on their part. Investigation reveals that the definitions of great writers and speakers are replete with illustration. Whenever the student of argumentation has something to define that is particularly intricate or hard to understand, he should illustrate it. If he fails to find already prepared an illustrative definition that exactly fits his needs, he will often do well to learn just what the term means, and then make his own illustration.

Consider how this method has been used. The Hon. Charles Emory Smith defines reciprocity as follows:—

Its principle, rightly understood, is axiomatic. Brazil grows coffee and makes no machinery. We make machinery and grow no coffee. She needs the fabrics of our forges and factories, and we need the fruit of her tropical soil. We agree to concessions for her coffee and she agrees to concessions for our machinery. That is reciprocity.

The following is a definition of free silver by The Hon. Edward O. Leech, former Director of the Mint:—

It is important to understand clearly and exactly what the free coinage of silver under present conditions means. It may be defined as the right of anyone to deposit silver of any kind at a mint of the United States, and have every 371.25 grains of pure silver (now worth in its uncoined state about 52 cents) stamped, free of charge, “One Dollar,” which dollar shall be a full legal tender at its face value in the payment of debts and obligations of all kinds, public and private, in the United States.

In upholding his opinion that a majority of the members of the House of Representatives have the right to make the rules governing parliamentary procedure in the House, The Hon. Thomas B. Reed carefully defines the term “rights”:—

It is the fault of most discussions which are decided incorrectly that they are decided by the misuse of terms. Unfortunately, words have very little precision, and mean one thing to one man and a different thing to another. Words are also used with one meaning and quoted with another. When men speak of the rights of minorities and claim for them the sacredness of established law, they are correct or incorrect according as they interpret the word “rights.”

A man has a right to an estate in fee simple, a right to land, and there is no right more indisputable under our system. Nothing but the supreme law can take the estate away, and then only after compensation. The same man has a right of passage over land used as a highway, but his town or county can take that privilege away from him without his consent and without compensation. In both cases the man has rights, but the rights are entirely different, and the difference arises from the nature of things. It is good for the community, or at least it has been so thought, that a man should have unrestricted right over his land. On it he can build as high as heaven or dig as deep as a probable hereafter. This is not because it is pleasant for the man, but because it is best for the community. Therefore his right to build or dig is limited by the right of eminent domain—the right of the whole people to take his property at any time for the common benefit on paying its value.

For the same reason the right of a man to walk over the land of a roadway is an inferior right which may more easily be taken from him; for if it be more convenient for the whole community that nobody should walk over that land, each man’s right, which is a perfect right while it exists, is taken away from him, and he alone bears the loss.

It is hardly necessary to multiply examples in order to lay a foundation for the assertion that the rights, so called, of any man or set of men, have their foundation only in the common good.

EXPLANATION.

Not only must the arguer define the unfamiliar words that occur in the proposition, but he must also explain the meaning of the proposition taken as a whole. Since an audience often has neither the inclination nor the opportunity to give a proposition careful thought and study, the disputant himself must make clear the matter in dispute, and show exactly where the difference in opinion between the affirmative and the negative lies. This process is of great importance; it removes the subject of dispute from the realm of mere words—words which arranged in a formal statement are to many often incomprehensible—and brings out clearly the idea that is to be supported or