Читать книгу The theory and practice of argumentation and debate - Victor Alvin Ketcham - Страница 29

Thus far we have been concerned with finding out the vital point at issue. It is here that the term question is most aptly applied to the proposition for debate, because when this vital point is revealed it is always found to appear in the form of a question. To be more specific, we found that in analyzing the proposition, “Resolved, that the Federal Government should control all life insurance companies operating within the United States,” the vital point at issue as revealed by a study of the origin of the question was “Will the control of insurance companies by the Federal Government be more efficient than that exercised by the State Governments?” This treatment reveals the main point at issue in the form of a question. It shows that the issue is between State control on one side as compared with Federal control on the other. The affirmative must advocate Federal control and the negative must defend State control. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, for it must show that a change should be made in existing conditions. The risk of non-persuasion is upon the affirmative, because, if the position advocated cannot be maintained, existing conditions will continue.

It is well to remember that the burden of proof remains with the affirmative throughout the debate. It is frequently said that the burden of proof “shifts,” that is, that when the affirmative has produced enough evidence to make out a prima facie case, and has shown reason why the plan ought to be adopted, then the burden of proof shifts to the negative and it becomes the duty of the negative to show why the plan should not be adopted. This is not the correct view of the situation, for the affirmative is bound to prove the proposition in the face of all opposition. Therefore the burden of proof never “shifts;” it is the duty of producing evidence which “shifts.” When the affirmative shows reason why the proposition should be maintained, it puts upon the negative the duty of producing evidence to show that the affirmative reasoning is unsound or that there are more weighty arguments in favor of the negative. Thus it is that the duty of producing evidence shifts from one side to the other, but the burden of proof remains on the same party throughout the discussion.

The question upon which the debate hinges must be answered in one way by one side and in just the opposite way by the opponents of that side. In the question above referred to, “Will the control of insurance companies by the Federal Government be more efficient than that exercised by the State Governments?”, the affirmative must answer “Yes” and the negative must answer “No.”

At this point the next task of the analyst begins. He must determine the main reasons why the affirmative should answer “Yes” and the negative should answer “No.” These main reasons when discovered and contrasted, those on the affirmative with those on the negative, will reveal the main issues of the proposition. When these are found the process of analysis is completed.

In undertaking the task of contrasting the affirmative contentions with those of the negative, the student must assume an absolutely unbiased attitude toward the proposition. The importance of this impartial viewpoint cannot be too strongly emphasized. To be able to view any subject with a mind free from prejudice is a most valuable asset.

With this proper mental attitude toward the proposition the analyst must take up both sides of the question and find the main arguments in support of each. He should not be deluded into thinking that it is only necessary to study one side of the question. A lawyer in preparing his case always takes into consideration the position of his opponent. In fact, so important is this task that many lawyers develop their antagonist’s case before beginning work on their own, and it frequently happens that more time is devoted to the arguments of the opposition than to the case upon which the lawyer is engaged. This careful study of an opponent’s arguments must always be included in the work of the debater, not only in the analysis of the question but throughout the entire argumentative process.

The way in which this part of the analytical process should be carried out is best made plain by a concrete example. We will take the proposition “Resolved, that immigration into the United States should be further restricted by law.” The origin of the question is found in the alarm shown by some people over the large number of undesirable foreigners coming to our shores. The question is “Should any of the immigrants now coming to our shores be prohibited from coming?” The affirmative say “Yes,” and the negative, “No.” Now to take the impartial viewpoint, why should there be any further restriction of immigration; why should the affirmative say “Yes” and the negative “No”? One of the chief affirmative arguments is that some of these immigrants are having a bad effect upon our country. Some of them are anarchists; some are members of criminal societies such as the Black Hand; some group by themselves in certain portions of large cities and form what are known as “Little Germanys”, “Little Spains”, “Little Italys”, etc.; some have contagious diseases; some have a very low standard of living and thus tend to drag down the standard of living of the American workman; some are illiterate and do not make good citizens; some are easily made the dupes of city bosses and ward “heelers” and thus exert a harmful influence in our political affairs. These and various other reasons may be brought to support the affirmative argument that immigration is having a bad effect upon our country.

In considering the matter carefully we come to the conclusion that these are the chief reasons why immigration should be further restricted. Now, the unskilled debater would probably be content with framing these reasons into an argument and would proceed with a feeling that his position was impregnable. The skilled debater, however, does not feel content until he has viewed the whole subject impartially. Why do we not have more stringent immigration laws? It must be that the present laws are thought to be satisfactory. Why are they satisfactory? It must be because they now exclude the worst class of immigrants. Upon investigation we find this to be true. Let us look at the problem from a slightly different point of view. Why do we allow all of these immigrants to come in? They must be necessary to our welfare. They are necessary to develop the natural resources of our country; they add to the national power of production, they possess a money value as laborers; they ultimately become American citizens, and their children, educated in our public schools, become the most ardent of young Americans.

The above reflections from the standpoint of the negative lead us to ask a few questions which must be answered before we can answer the main question upon which the proposition hinges, namely: “Should any of the immigrants now coming into the United States be prohibited from coming?” These questions are, so far as we have been able to determine: “Are the present immigration laws satisfactory?”, “Do we need all the immigrants now coming to us?”, “Do the immigrants now coming to us have a bad effect upon our country?” These questions if answered “Yes” will establish the affirmative, and likewise if answered “No” will establish the negative. We may therefore conclude that these three questions contain the main issues of the proposition. The issues may be stated in different forms, but, if resolved to their essential elements, they will ultimately be found in these three questions.

The next step in contrasting the arguments is to write them down in such form that corresponding arguments can be set over against each other. For convenience we adopt the following form:

Proposition:—Immigration should be further restricted by law.
Affirmative argument	Negative argument
Immigration should be further restricted, because	Immigration should not be further restricted, because
I.	It is a detriment to the country, for	I.	It is a benefit to the country, for
	1.	We now admit extreme socialists and anarchists.		1.	The worst elements are now excluded.
	2.	They form undesirable groups of foreigners in the congested parts of cities.		2.	They are soon assimilated.
	3.	They lower the standard of living of the American workman.		3.	They furnish examples of thrift to American workmen.
	4.	Many of the immigrants now admitted do not make good citizens.		4.	They ultimately become good citizens.
II.	The present laws are not satisfactory, for	II.	The present laws are satisfactory, for
	1.	Black Hand societies show that undesirable persons are admitted.		1.	No law would exclude all undesirable immigrants.
	2.	Diseased persons are admitted.		2.	All persons having contagious diseases are excluded.
	3.	Steamship lines help to evade the immigrant laws.		3.	Custom house officials are diligent in enforcing the laws.
	4.	Paupers are admitted.		4.	Paupers are not admitted.
III.	We do not need all the immigrants now coming to us, for	III.	We need all the immigrants now coming to us, for
	1.	The great necessity for laborers to develop our natural resources has passed.		1.	We need them to develop our natural resources.

By contrasting the arguments thus tabulated we derive the following main issues.

I. Is immigration under existing conditions a detriment or a benefit to the country?

(The answer depends upon the answers to these subordinate questions.)

1. Is the undesirable element excluded?

2. Have the immigrants assimilated readily?

3. Do they exert a detrimental influence upon the standard of living of the American workman?

4. Do they make good citizens?

II. Are the present laws satisfactory?

1. Are they the most effective in excluding undesirable immigrants that it is possible to enact?

2. Do they exclude diseased persons?

3. Do the present laws exclude paupers?

4. Are the present laws enforced?

III. Do we need all the immigrants now coming to us?

1. Do we still need all the immigrants we can get to develop our natural resources?

This arrangement of the affirmative and negative arguments places the whole matter, so far as it has been worked out, before the student in tangible form. It also affords a basis for the formal statement of the main issues. The plan of analysis thus set forth should now be examined with a critical eye. Here arise some of the most difficult problems of argumentation. In the first place, is the analysis presented an exhaustive one? Does it include the entire field of argument? It includes the proposed immigration laws and their probable effects. It includes the present laws and their effects. From these two facts it is evident that the analysis covers the entire field of the proposed change in the immigration laws.

Before passing final judgment upon the thoroughness of the analysis, there are at least two other plans which may be applied to the question to see whether either of them will afford a better method of treatment than the foregoing. The first of these plans includes the division of the question into three parts; viz. (1) political, (2) social, and (3) economic. An examination of the question just discussed will show that all the material suggested in the formal analysis could be grouped under one or the other of these heads. For example, the anarchists, Black Hand societies, etc. would come under “political;” the question of assimilation would come under “social;” while the effect upon the American workman and the question of the development of our natural resources would come under “economic.”

This division may be applied to many questions, but it is well suited to only a limited number. In fact, some eminent authorities are of the opinion that it is almost never to be recommended. It is not as well adapted to the immigration question as the division already made, for the reason that it would be necessary to include some of the subject-matter under two separate heads. For example, the Little Spains, Little Italys, etc., mentioned above, might require treatment under the social and political divisions and even under the heading of economics. This is objectionable, because it requires a duplication of the statement of facts under each head, and also because it is not conducive to the clean, clear-cut thinking which is the result of a sharp division of the subject into parts which do not overlap.

The second plan of analysis, which forms a good working basis for many propositions, is that of dividing the subject into three parts, namely, (1) Necessity, (2) Practicability, and (3) Justice. This division of the subject is often applicable to propositions which advocate the adoption of some new plan of action, as, “Resolved, that the Federal Government should levy a progressive inheritance tax,” or “Resolved, that cities of the United States, having a population of over 5,000, should adopt the commission form of government.”

These and similar questions may be analyzed by one of the two plans stated above, but it is well to beware adopting one or the other of these methods merely because it affords an easy way out of the task of analyzing the proposition. That analysis of a question should be adopted which reveals the main issues of the proposition in the clearest and most direct manner.

SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL STEPS IN ANALYSIS

1. A broad view of the subject.

2. The origin and history of the question.

3. Definition of terms.

4. Narrowing the question.

(1) Excluding irrelevant matter.

(2) Admitting matters not vital to the argument.

5. Contrasting the affirmative arguments with those of the negative.