The Making of Arguments

parties in this conspiracy: That you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar knew that the murder was to be done on the night of the 6th of April: That you cannot doubt that the murderers of Captain White were the suspicious persons seen in and about Brown Street on that night: That you cannot doubt that Richard Crowninshield was the perpetrator of that crime: That you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar was in Brown Street on that night. If there, then it must be by agreement, to countenance, to aid the perpetrator. And if so, then he is guilty as "Principal." Similarly, in most arguments of policy there are a number of considerations that converge in favor of or against the proposed policy. If you were writing an argument in favor of keeping the study of Latin in the commercial course of a high school, you would probably urge that Latin is essential for an effective knowledge of English, that it is the foundation of Spanish and French, languages which will be of constantly increasing importance to American business men in the future, and that young men and women who go into business have an even stronger right to studies which will enlarge their horizons and open their minds to purely cultivating influences than those who go on to college. Indeed, in very few questions of policy which are doubtful enough to need argument is there any single consideration on which the whole case will turn. Human affairs are much complicated by cross interests, and many influences modify even one's everyday decisions. To find the main issues—which are really the critical ones on which your audience will make up their minds—is a matter largely of native sagacity and penetration; but thorough knowledge of your whole subject is essential if you are to strike unerringly to the heart of the subject and pick out these pivotal points. A simple and very practical device for getting at the main issues is to put down on paper the chief points which might be made on the two sides. Then with these before you, you can soon, by stating them and rearranging them, simmer down your case into arguable form. In the argument on introducing a commission form of government into Wytown this noting down of the chief points which might be urged on the two sides would be about as follows: Contentions on the Two Sides. On the affirmative the following points might be urged: 1. The plan would make the individuals who hold the power directly responsible at all times to the citizens. 2. It would make the responsibility for all municipal action easy to trace. 3. It would get abler men to serve the city. 4. It would take municipal government out of politics. 5. It would hold municipal administration up to the same standards of honesty and efficiency as private business. 6. It would make it difficult to elect representatives of corrupt interests. 7. It would make possible advantageous dealings with public-service corporations. 8. It would make possible the immediate removal of an unfaithful official. 9. It would tend to interest the citizens intelligently in municipal affairs. 10. It has worked well wherever it has been tried. On the negative side the following points might be urged: 1. The plan is a complete departure from the traditional American theory of government. 2. It throws away a chance for training in public affairs for a considerable body of young men. 3. It might put very great power in the hands of unworthy men. 4. Corrupt interests, having a larger stake, would work harder to control the city. 5. Past experience gives no reason to expect the constant interest on the part of citizens which is necessary to make so great concentration of power safe. 6. With further increase in the foreign population of the city there will be danger from race and religious clannishness. 7. A return to the old-fashioned town government, or some such modification of it as has been tried at Newport, would enlist the active interest of more citizens. 8. The system is still an experiment. 9. The present success of the plan in various places is largely to be ascribed to its novelty. 10. The present system has in the past given good government. 11. The liability to recall will keep public officials from initiating advantageous policies if they would be detrimental to part of the city, or if they were unpopular because of novelty. In most cases, as here, you will get too many points to argue out in the space which is at your disposal. Fifteen hundred or two thousand words are very soon eaten up when you begin to state evidence in any detail, and arguments written in school or college can rarely be longer. You must look forward, therefore, to not more than four or five main issues. In going over and comparing the points which you have jotted down in this preliminary statement you must consequently be prepared to throw out all that are not obviously important. Even when you have done this you will usually have more than enough points left to fill your space, and must make some close decisions before you get at those which you finally decide to argue out. You must also be prepared to rephrase and remold some of the points in order to get at the most important aspects of the case. This noting down of the points which might be urged you should therefore regard entirely as a preliminary step, and not as fixing the points in the form in which you will argue them out. In the main issues for the argument on introducing commission government into Wytown, as they are worked out below, it will be seen that main issue 4 for the affirmative is derived in part from the points marked 1, 2, 6, and 8 of those for the affirmative, and those marked 3, 4, and 5 for the negative. Furthermore, it is obvious that the main issues you choose will vary somewhat with the side of the question which you are arguing. You will almost surely have to leave out some of the points which might be urged, and there is no sense in letting the other side choose your ground for you. Points which from one side may be of no great consequence, or not very practicable to argue, may on the other be highly effective; and in arguing you should always take what advantage can fairly be gained from position. The phrasing of the main issues, too, will vary with the side on which you are arguing them. Here, again, you must take every fair advantage that is to be gained from position. In the main issues of the question I have been using for an example, as they are stated below, it will be seen that main issue 1 on the affirmative and main issue 3 on the negative cover very nearly the same ground; but if you were arguing on the affirmative you would direct attention to the shortcomings inherent in the system of government, if on the negative, to the temporary and removable causes of them. Whichever side you were arguing on there is no reason that you should lose the advantage of so phrasing the issue that you can go directly to your work of establishing your contention. In the argument on introducing commission government into Wytown the main issues might be as follows: The main issues as chosen by the affirmative: 1. Is the admitted inefficiency of the city government at present due to the system of government? 2. Will the adoption of the plan result in more economical administration? 3. Will the adoption of the plan result in more efficient service to the city? 4. Will the direct responsibility of the mayor and councilors to the citizens be a sufficient safeguard for the increased power given to them? The main issues as chosen by the negative: 1. Is there danger in putting such large powers into the hands of so few men? 2. Will the new plan, if adopted, permanently raise the standard of public servants? 3. Is the inefficiency of the city government at present due to temporary and removable causes? 4. Has the plan succeeded in other places largely because of its novelty? 5. Will the liability to recall keep officials from initiating new policies for fear of unpopularity? In some cases it will be hard to reduce the number of issues to a manageable number; in others, for special reasons, it may be possible to treat a part of them only at length. In such cases one can always adopt the device of an imaginary "next chapter" or "to be continued in our next." In considering how many issues you can deal with satisfactorily, however, you must not leave out of account contentions on the other side that must be refuted; and in choosing among the possible main issues you must always exercise judgment. Many points which might be argued are not worth the space it would take to deal with them; but not infrequently you will have to let points that have some weight give place to others that have more. It is not to be expected that the points made by the two sides will always exactly pair off, for the considerations which make for a course of action may be different in kind from those which make against it. Sometimes one side will contribute more to the final number of main issues, sometimes the other. Ordinarily your own side will give you the larger number of points that you think worth arguing out, for an affirmative and constructive argument usually makes more impression than a negative one. Notebook. Enter the chief points which might be made on the two sides of your question. Then, after studying them and comparing them, enter the main issues which you decide to argue out. (The contentions on the two sides and the main issues for the model argument will be found on pages 74-77.) EXERCISE Take one of the questions on pages 10-12, with which you have some acquaintance, and obtain the main issues by noting down first the points which might be urged on the two sides. NOTE. This exercise is a good one for class work. Let the class suggest the points, and write them, as they come, on the blackboard. Then call for criticism and discussion of them, in order to come to the main issues. 22. The Agreed Statement of Facts. Now that you have compared the points on which the two sides disagree, you can pick out the points on which they agree, and decide which of the latter will enter into the discussion. You are therefore in a position to draw up the agreed statement of facts, in which you will sum up compactly so much of the history of the case, of the origin of the present question, and other relevant facts and necessary definitions, as will be needed to understand the brief. The style of this statement should be strictly expository, and there should be nothing in it to which both sides could not agree. It should be similar to the statements of facts in courts of law, which are sent up with the briefs when a case is appealed on a point of legal principle. Since this agreed statement of facts is not argument, it will make small use of such conjunctions as "because," "for," "hence," and "therefore." If you find any of them in your agreed statement, it is better to rearrange it, so that you will not seem to be giving reasons before you have begun your argument. In the making of this preliminary statement and to a certain extent in the framing of the main issues, it is convenient and advisable, wherever both sides of the question are to be presented in arguments, whether in writing or in debate, for the two parties to work together. In this working together they should aim to agree on as many points as possible. If they meet in a carping and unyielding temper, the result will be