CdornpU InterBttg ICtbrarg BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF lienrg W, Sage 1891 A-MK.t^:z. i^/T/'/Z ' 9306 The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031662954 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING THE UNITEESITY OP CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AgintH THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON AND EDINBUItGH THE MAEUZEN-KABDSHIKI-KAISHA TOKYO, OSAKA, KTOTO KARL W. HIERSEMANN LEIPZIG THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY NEW TOBK Elements of Debating A Manual for Use in High Schools and Academies By LEVERETT S. LYON Head of the Department of Civic Science in the yoliet Toivnship High School THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Copyright 1913 By The University of Chicago All Rights Reserved Published October 1913 Second Impression March 1914 Third Imprraslon January 1915 Fourth Impression March 1916 Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, lUiqois, U>5.A< TO THE MEMORY OF M. M. L. PREFACE This book pretends but little to originality in material. Its aim is to offer the old in a form that shall meet the needs of young students who are beginning work in debate. The effort has been made only to present the elements of forensic work so freed from technicality that they may be apparent to the student with the greatest possible economy of time and the least possible interpreta- tion by the teacher. It is hoped that the book may serve not only those schools where debating is a part of the regular course, but also those institutions where it is a supplement to the work in English or is encour- aged as a "super-currictilum" activity. Although the general obligation to other writers is obvious, there is no specific indebtedness not elsewhere acknowledged, except to Mr. Arthur Edward Phillips, whose vital principle of "Refer- ence to Experience" has, in a modified form, been made the test for evidence. It is my belief that the use of this principle, rather than the logical and technical forms of proof and evidence, will make the training of debate far more apphcable in other forms of public speaking. My special thanks are due to Miss Charlotte Van Der Veen and Miss Elizabeth Bams, whose aid has added technical exactness to almost every page. I wish viii PREFACE to thank also Miss Bella Hopper for suggestions in preparing the reference list of Appendix I. Most of all, I am indebted to the students whose interest has been a constant stimulus, and whose needs have been to me, as they are to all who teach, the one sure and constant guide. L. S. L. TABLE OF CONTENTS LESSON MOE I. What Akgtjmentation Is i n. What Debate Is S ni. The Requirements of Successful Debating 9 rV. Determining the Issues 19 V. How TO Prove the Issues 27 VI. The Brief. The Choice and Use of Evi- dence 37 Vn. The Forensic 48 Vlll. Refutation 58 DC. Management of the Debate 65 X. A Summary and a Diagram 68 APPENDICES APFXHSIX I. How AND Where TO Read FOR More Informa- tion 73 II. Illustrations of Analysis to Determine THE Issues of the Question 74 m. A Typical College Forensic 78 IV. Material for Briefing 114 V. Questions with Suggested Issues and Brief Bibliography .... 124 VI. A List of Debatable Propositions . . . 130 vn. Forms for Judges' Decision 136 LESSON I WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS I. The purpose of discourse n. The forms of discourse: 1. Narration 2. Description 3. Exposition 4. Argumentation When we pause to look about us and to realize what things are really going on, we discern that everyone is talking and writing. Perhaps we wonder why this is the case. Nature is said to be economical. She would hardly have us make so much effort and use so much energy without some purpose, and some purpose beneficial to us. So we determine that the purpose of using language is to convey meaning, to give ideas that we have to someone else. As we watch a little more closely, we see that in talking or writing we are not merely talking or writing something. We see that everyone, consciously or unconsciously, clearly or dimly, is always trjdng to do some definite thing. Let us see what the things are which we may be trying to do. If you should tell your father, when you return from school, how Columbus discovered America on October 12, 1492, and should try to make him 2 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING see the scene on shipboard when land was first sighted as clearly as you see it, you would be de- scribing. That kind of discourse would be called description. Its purpose is to make another see in his mind's eye the same image or picture that we have in our own. On the other hand, if you wished to teU him the story of the discovery of America, you would do something quite different. You would tell him not only of the first sight of land, but of the whole series of incidents which led up to that event. If he could follow you readily, could almost live through the various happenings that you related, you would be telling your story well. That kind of discourse is not description but narration. Suppose, then, that your father should say: "Now tell me this: What is the difference between the discovery of America and the colonization of America?" You would now have a new task. You would not care to make him see any particu- lar scene or live through the events of discovery but to make him understand something which you understand. You would show him that the dis- covery of America meant merely the fact that America was found to be here, but that coloniza- tion meant the coming, not of the explorers, but of the permanent settlers. This form of discourse which makes clear to someone else an idea that is already clear to us is called exposition. And now suppose your father should say: "Well, you have told me a great deal which I WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS 3 may say is interesting enough, but it seems to me rather useless. What is the purpose of all this study? Why have you spent so much time learn- ing of this one event?" You would of course answer: "Because the discovery of America was an event of great importance." He might reply: "I still do not believe that." Then you would say: "I'll prove it to you," or, "I'U convince you of it." You would then have undertaken to do what you are now trying to leam how to do better — to argue. For argumenta- tion is that form of discourse that we use when we attempt to make some one else believe as we wish him to bdieue. "Argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of someone else a belief in the ideas which the speaker or writer wishes the hearer or reader to accept."' You made use of argumentation when you urged a friend to take the course in chemistry in your school by trying to make him believe it would be beneficial to him. You used argimientation when you urged a friend to join the football squad by trjdng to make him beUeve, as you believe, that the exercise would do him good. A minister uses argumentation when he tries to make his congrega- tion believe, as he believes, that ten minutes spent in prayer each momiug will make the day's work easier. The salesman uses argumentation to sell his goods. The chance of the merchant to recover a rebate on a bill of goods that he believes are ' Baker, Principles of Argumentation. 4 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING defective depends entirely on his ability to make the seller believe the same thing. On argumenta- tion the lawyer bases his hope of making the jury believe that his client is innocent of crime. All of us every day of our lives, in ordinary conversa- tion, in our letters, and in more formal talks, are trying to make others believe as we wish them to beheve. Our success in so doing depends upon our skill in the art of argumentation. Suggested ExERasES 1. Out of your study or reading of the past week, give an illustration of: (i) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) argumentation. 2. During the past week, on what occasions have you personally made use of: (i) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) argumentation? '3. Explain carefully the distinction between description and exposition. In explaining this distinction, what form of discourse have you used ? 4. Define argumentation. 5. Skill in argumentation is a valuable acquisition for: (Give three leasons) (i) (2) (3) LESSON n WHAT DEBATE IS I. The forms of argumentation: 1. Written. 2. Oral. II. The forms of oral argumentation: 1. General discussion. 2. Debate. III. The qualities of debate: 1. Oral. 2. Judges present. 3. Prescribed conditions. 4. Decision expected. Now, since we have decided upon a defini- tion of argumentation, let us see what we mean by the tenn "debate" as it will be used in this work. We have said that argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of someone a belief in something in which we wish hiTn to believe. Now it is obvious that this can be accomplished in different ways. Perhaps the most common method of attempting to bring someone to believe as we wish is the oral method. On your way to school you meet a friend and assert your belief that in the coming football game the home team will win. You continue: "Our team has already beaten teams that have defeated our opponent of s 6 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING next Saturday, and, moreover, our team is stronger than it has been at any time this season." When you finish, your friend replies: "I believe you are right. We shall win." You have been carrying on oral argumentation. If, when you had finished, your friend had not agreed with you, your effort would have been none the less argumentation, only it would have been unsuccessful. If you had written the same thing to your friend in a letter, your letter would have been argumentative. Suppose your father were running for an office and should make a public speech. If he tried to make the audience believe that the best way to secure lower taxes, better water, and improved streets would be through his election, he would be making use of oral argumentation. If he should do the same thing through newspaper editorials, he would be using written argumentation. Argumentation, then, may be carried on either in writing or orally, and may vary from the infor- mality of an ordinary conversation or a letter to a careful address or thoughtful article. What, then, is debate as we shall use the word in this work, and what is the relation of argumenta- tion to debate ? The term "debate" in its general use has, of course, many senses. You might say: "I had a debate with a friend about the coming football game." Or your father might say: "I heard the great Lincoln and Douglas debates before the Civil War." Although both of you WHAT DEBATE IS ^ would be using the term as it is generally used, you would not be using it as it will be used in this book, or as it is best that a student of argumenta- tion and debate should use it. The term "debate," in the sense in which students of these subjects should use it, means oral argumentation carried on by two opposing teams under certain prescribed regulations, and with the expectation of having a decision rendered by judges who are present. This is "debate" used, not generally, as you used it in saying, "I debated with a friend," but technically, as we use it when we refer to the Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern Debating League. In order to keep the meaning of this term dearly in mind, use it only when refer- ring to such contests as these. In speaking of your argumentative conversation with your friend or of the forensic contests between Lincoln and Douglas, use the term "discussion" rather than "debate." It is true that the controversy between Lincoln and Douglas conformed to oiu: definition of "debate" in being oral; moreover, at least in sense, two teams (of one man each) competed, but there were no judges, and no direct decision was rendered. Since argumentation, then, is the art of producing in the mind of someone else a belief in the idea or ideas you wish to convey, and debate is an argu- mentative contest carried on orally under certain conditions, it is clear that argumentation is the 8 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING broader term of the two and that debate is merely a specialized kind of argumentation. Football is exercise, but there is exercise in many other forms. Debate is argumentation, but one can also find argumentation in many other forms. The following diagram makes clear the work we have covered thus far. It shows the relation between argumentation and debate, and shows that the specialized term "debate" has the same relation to "discourse" that "football" has to "exerdse." Miscellaneous Swimming [Play jSkadng Kinds of Rolling hoop /Other athletic games exercise [Athletic games \ Football Work [Description Kinds of J Narration discourse] Exposition Argumentation /Written \Oral / General discussion \ Debate Suggested Exercises 1. Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to someone who did not know, the difference between "argu- mentation" and "debate." 2. Set down three conditions that must exist before argu- mentation becomes debate. 3. Have you ever argued? Orally? In writing? 4. Have you ever debated ? Did you win ? S- Which is the broader term, "argumentation," or "debate?" Why? 6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the terms "debate" and "argumentation." LESSON m THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING I. The three requirements stated. n. How to make clear to the audience what one wishes them to believe, by: I. Stating the idea which one wishes to have accepted in the form of a definite assertion, which is: (i) Interesting. (2) Definite and concise. (3) Single in form. (4) Fair to both sides. a. Defining the "terms of the question" so that they , wUl be: (i) Clear. (2) Convincing. (3) Consistent with the origin and history of the question. 3. Restating the whole question in the light of the definitions. To debate successfully it is necessary to do three things: 1. To make perfectly clear to your audience what you wish them to believe. 2. To show them why the proof of certain points (called issues) should make them believe the thing you wish them to believe. 3. To prove the issues. Each of these three things is a distinct process, involving several steps. One is as important as another. lO ELEMENTS OF DEBATING It is impossible to prove the issues until we have found them, but equally impossible to show the audience what the issues are imtil we have shown what the thing is which we wish those issues to support. First, then, let us see what we mean by making perfectly clear what you wish to have the audience believe. Suppose that you should meet a friend who says to you: "I am going to argue with you about examinations." You might naturally reply: "What examinations?" If he should say, "All examinations: the honor system in all examina- tions," you might very reasonably still be puzzled and ask if by all examinations he meant exam- inations of every kind in grade school, high school, and college, as well as the civil service examina- tions, and what was meant by the honor system. He would now probably explain to you carefully how several schools have been experimenting with the idea of giving all examinations without the presence of a teacher or monitor of any sort. During these examinations, however, it has been customary to ask the students themselves to report any cheating that they may observe. It is also required that each student state in writing, at the end of his paper, upon honor, that he has neither given nor received aid during the test. "To this method," your friend continues, "has been given the name of the honor system. And I believe that this system should be adopted in all examina- tions in the Greenburg High School." REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING II He has now stated definitely what he wishes to make you believe, and he has done more; he has explained to you the meaning of the terms that you did not understand. These two things make per- fectly clear to you what he wishes you to believe, and he has thus covered the first step in argumentation. From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the first place your friend stated that he wished to argue about examinations. Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because he had not yet asked you to believe anything about exajninations. He might have said, "I am going to explain examinations," and he could then have told you what examinations were. That would have been exposition. But he could not argue until he had made a definite assertion about the term "examination." Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite assertion the matter to be argued. In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is often called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain conditions: 1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience are interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to think debat- ing a dry subject. 2. It should propose something different from existing conditions. Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no lunchroom. Should it have one ? Your city is governed by a mayor and a council. Should it be ruled by a 12 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING commission? Merely to debate, as did the men of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, or, as some more modem debaters have done, whether Grant was a greater general than Washington, is useless. The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something new places on them what is called the burden of proof. This means that they must show why there is need of a change from the present state of things. When they have done this, they may proceed to argue in favor of the particular change which they propose. 3. It should make a single statement about a single thing: (Correct) In public high schools secret societies should be prohibited. (Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges secret societies and teaching of the Bible should be prohibited. 4. It must be expressed with such definiteness that both sides can agree on what it means. 5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be fair to both sides. But you noticed that your friend had not only to state the question definitely, but to explain what the terms of the proposition meant. He had to tell you what the "honor system" was. Our second rule, then, for making the question clear, is: In the proposition as stated, explain all terms that may not be entirely clear to your audience. REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING 13 And in explaining or defining these terms, there are certain things that you must do. You must make the definition clear, or it will be no better than the term itself. This is not always easy. In defining "moral force" a gentleman said: "Why, moral force is er-er-moral force." He did not get very far on the way toward making his term clear. Be sure that your definition really explains the term. Then one must be careful not to define in a circle. Let us take, for example, the assertion or proposition, "The development of labor unions has been beneficial to commerce." If you should attempt to define "development" by saying "development means growth," you would not have made the meaning of the term much dearer; and if in a further attempt to explain it, you could only add "And growth means development," you would be defining in a circle. There is stiU another error to be avoided in making your terms clear to your audience. This error is called begging the question. This occurs when a term is defined in such a way that there is nothing left to be argued. Suppose your friend should say to you: "I wish to make you believe that the honor system should be used in all examinations in the Greenburg High School." You ask him what he means by the "honor system." He replies: "I mean the best system in the world." Is there anything left to argue ? Hardly, if his definition of the term honor 14 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING system is correct, for it would be very irrational indeed to disagree with the assertion that the best system in the world should be adopted in the Greenburg High School. To summarize: Define terms carefully; make the definition clear; do not define in a circle, and do not beg the question. As you have already noticed, terms in argu- mentation, such as "honor system," often con- sist of more than one word. They sometimes contain several words. "A term [as that word is used in debating and argumentation] may consist of any niunber of names, substantive or objective, with the articles, prepositions, and conjunctions required to join them together; still it is only one term if it points out or makes us think of only one thing or object or class of objects.'" In such cases a dictionary is of little use. Take the term "honor system," the meaning of which was not clear to you. A dictionary offers no help. How is the student who wishes to discuss this question to decide upon the meaning of the term ? Notice how your friend made it clear to you. He gave a history of the question that he wished to argue. He showed how the term "honor system" came iato use and what it means where that system of examinations is in vogue. This, then, is the only method of making sure of the meaning of a term: to study the history of the question and see what the term means in the Hght of that history. This ' Jevons, Primer of Logic. REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING 15 method has the added advantage that a term de- fined in this way will not only be entirely clear to your audience, but will also tend to convince them. A dispute may arise between yourself and an opponent as to the meaning of a term. He may be reljdng on a dictionary or the statement of a single writer, while you are familiar with the history of the question. Under those circumstances it will be easy for you to show the judges and the audience that, although he may be using the term correctly in a general way, he is quite wrong when the special question under discussion is considered. To make this more clear, let us take a specific instance. Suppose that you are debating the proposition, "Football Should Be Abolished in This High School." Football, as defined in the dictionary, differs considerably from the game with which every American boy is familiar. Further, the dictionary defines both the English and the American game. If your opponent should take either of these definitions, he would not have much chance of convincing an American audience that it was correct. Or if he shoiild define football according to the rules of the game as it was played five or ten years ago, he would be equally ineffective. You, on the other hand, announce that in your discussion you will use the term "football" as that game is described in Spatdding's present year's rule book for the American game, and that every reference you make to plays allowed or l6 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING forbidden will be on the basis of the latest ruling. You then have a definition based on the history of the question. As you can see, the case for or against English football would be different from that of the American game. In the same way the case for or against football as it was played ten years ago would be very different from the case of football as it is played today. All this does not mean that definitions found in dictionaries or other works of reference are never good; it means simply that such definitions should not be taken as final until the question has been carefully reviewed. Try to think out for yourself the meaning of the question. Decide what it involves and how it has arisen, or could arise in real life. Then, when you do outside reading on the subject, keep this same id^ in mind. Keep asking yoiirself: "How did this question arise? Why is it being discussed?" You will be surprised to find that when you are ready to answer that question you will have most of your reading done, for you will have read most of the arguments upon it. Then you are ready to make it clear to the audience. When you have thus given a clear and con- vincing definition of all the terms, it is a good plan to restate the whole question in the light of those definitions. For instance, notice the question of the "honor system." The original question naight have been concisely stated: "All Examinations in the Green- REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING 17 burg High School Should Be Conducted under the Honor Systenj." After you have made clear what you mean by the "honor system," you will be ready to restate the question as follows: "The question then is this: No Teacher ShaU Be Present during Any Examination in the Greenburg High School, and Every Student Shall Be Required to State on Honor That He Has Neither Given Nor Received Aid in the Examinations." Your hearers will now see clearly what you wish them to believe. Thus far, then, we have seen that to debate well we should have a question which is of interest to ourselves and to the audience. The first step toward success is to make clear to our hearers the proposition presented for their acceptance. This may be done i) By stating the idea that we wish them to accept in the form of an assertion, which should be: a) interesting b) definite and concise c) single in form d) fair to both sides 2) By defining the "terms of the question" so that they will be: a) clear b) convincing c) consistent with the origin and history of the question l8 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING 3) By restating the whole question in the light of our definitions. Suggested Exercises 1. State the three processes of successful debating. 2. What are the three necessary steps in the first process ? 3. What qualities should a proposition for debate possess ? 4. Give a proposition that you think has these qualities. 5. Without reference to books, define all the terms of this proposition. FoUow the rules but make the defini- tions as brief as possible. 6. Make some propositions in which the following terms shall be used: (i) "Athletics," (2) "This City," (3) "All Studies," (4) "Manual Training," (s) "Domestic Science." 7. Point out the weakness in the following propositions (consider propositions always with your class as the audi- ence) : (i) "Physics, Chemistry, and Algebra Are Hard Studies." (2) "Only Useful Studies Should Be Taught in This School." (3) "All Women Should Be Allowed to Vote and Should Be Compelled by Law to Remove Their Hats in Church." (4) "Agricultural Conditions in Abyssinia Are Superior to Those in Burma." 8. Compare the dictionary definition of the following terms with the meaning which the history of the question has given them in actual usage: (i) Domestic science. (2) Aeroplane exhibitions. (3) The international Olympic games. (4) Township high schools. (s) National conventions of political parties. LESSON IV DETERMINING THE ISSUES I. What the "issues" are. n. How to detennine the issues. III. The value of correct issues. When you have made perfectly clear to your hearers what you wish them to believe, the next step is to show them why they should believe it. The first step in this process, as we saw at the beginning of Lesson III, is to see what points, if proved, will make them believe it. These points, as we call them, are better known as "issues." The issues are really questions, the basic questions on which your side and the other disagree. The negative would answer "No" to these issues, the afl&rmative would say "Yes." The issues when stated in declarative sentences are the fundamental reasons why the affirmative believes its proposition should be believed. A student might be arguing with himself whether he would study law or medicine. He would say to himself: "These are the issues: For which am I the better adapted? Which requires the more study? Which offers the better promise of re- ward? In which can I do the more good?" Should he argue with a friend in order to induce Viim to give up law and to study medicine, he would 19 20 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING use similar issues. He would feel that if he could settle these questions he could convince his friend. Now, however, he would state them as declarative sentences and say: "You are more adapted to the profession of medicine; you can do more good in this field," etc. If the friend should open the question, he would be in the position of a man on the negative side of a debate. He would state the issues negatively as his reasons. He would say: "I am not so well adapted to the study of medicine; it offers less promise of reward," etc. Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few main issues. Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an illus- tration. Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we see in the framework of a large truss bridge and should say: "This bridge is strong because this rod is here." Our statement would be only partially true. The rod might be broken, and although the strength of the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it would not fall. But suppose we should say: "This bridge really rests on these four great steel beams which run down to the stone abutment. If I can see that these four steel beams are secure, I can believe in the security of the bridge." So a mechanical engineer shows us that certain rods and bars of the frame- work hold up one beam, and how similar rods and bars sustain a second, and that yet other rods and bars distribute the weight that would press too DETERMINING THE ISSUES 21 heavily osed to a law which the legislature has passed, upon signing the proper petition the law shall be suspended until the next general election, when the people shall be given an opporttinity to pass upon it. That is the referendum. Now, there are several things about this plan which I believe the people of this country, when they come really to consider it, will scrutinize with a good deal of care and possibly with some suspicion. It is to be noted, in the first place, that a very few of the people can put all the people to the trouble and expense of a vote upon any measure, and the inquiry may well arise whether the cause of settled and orderly government wiU be promoted by vesting power in the minority thus to harass and annoy flie majority. In my own state, for example, who can doubt that the prohibitory amendment, or some one of the statutes enacted for its enforcement, would have been resubmitted again and again if the initiative had been in force there these past twenty- five years. Again, it will be observed that stiU fewer of the people have it in their power to suspend a law which a legislature may have passed in plain obedience to the mandate of a majority of the people, or which may be essential to the prompt and orderly conduct of public affairs, and when they come to think about it the people may wonder if the referendiun might not make it possible for a small, malevolent, and mischievous minority to obstruct the machinery of government and for a time at least to nullify the will of the majority. In the third place, it is to be remarked that a measure sub- mitted either by the initiative or the referendum cannot be amended, but must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and we may well inquire whether this might not afford "the interests" quite as good an opportunity as they would have in a legislature to "initiate" some measure which on its face was wholesome and beneficent but within which was concealed some little "joker" that would either nullify the good features of the law or make it actively vicious, and which, through lack of discussion, would not be discovered. Every day we have new and incontestable proof that "in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.' But that wisdom can never be bad under a system of legislation APPENDICES 117 vrhich lays before the people the work of one man's mind to be accepted in whole or rejected altogether. Once more let us observe that under this system, no matter how few votes are caSt upon a. given measure, if there are more for it than against it, it becomes a law, so that the possibility is always present that laws may be enacted which represent the judgment or the interest of the minority rather than the majority of the people. Indeed, experience would seem to show that this is a probability rather than a possibility, for in the last Oregon election not one of the nine propositions enacted into law received as much as 50 per cent of the total vote cast, while some of them received but little more than 30 per cent of the total vote. And finally and chiefly, without in the the least impeaching the intelligence of the people, remembering the. slight and casual attention the average citizen gives to the details of public ques- tions, we may well inquire whether the average vote cast upon these proposed measures of legislation will really represent an informed and well-considered judgment. In his thoughtful work on democracy, discussing this very question, Dr. Hyslop, of Colimibia University, sajrs: People occupied with their private affairs, domestic and social, demanding all their resources and attention, as a rule have little time to solve the complex problems of national life. The referen- dum is a call to perform all the duties of the profovmdest states- manship, in addition to private obligations, which are even much more than the average man can fuM with any success or intelli- gence at all, and hence it can hardly produce anything better than the Athenian assembly, which terminated in anardiy. It wiU not secure dispatch except at the expense of civilization, nor deliberation except at the expense of intelligence. Very few questions can be safely left to its councils, and these only of the most general kind. A tribunal that can be so easily deceived as the electorate can be in common elections cannot be trusted to decide intelligently the graver and more coniplicated questions of pubUc finance or private property, of administration, and of justice. It may be honest and mean well, as I believe it would be ; but such an institution can not govern. That is the conclusion reached a priori by a profound student of men and of institutions; and there is not a man who hears me or who may read what I am now saying but knows the conclusion is sound. But, fortunately for the states which have not yet adopted the innovation, we are not obliged to rely upon academic, a priori Il8 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING reasoning, in order to reach a concluaon as to the wisdom of the initiative and referendum, for the step has already been taken in other states and we have their experience to guide us. There is South Dakota, for example, where under the initia- tive the ballot which I hold in my hand was submitted to the people at the recent election. This ballot is 7 feet long and 14 inches wide, and it is crowded with reading matter set in non- pareil type. Upon this ballot there are submitted for the con- sideration of the people six legislative propositions. Four of them are short and comparatively simple. But here is one referring to the people a law which has been passed at the pre- ceding session of the legislature dividing the state into con- gressional districts. How many of the voters of South Dakota do you suppose got down their maps and their census reports and carefully worked out the details of that law to satisfy them- selves whether or not it provided for a fair and honest districting of the state? They could not amend it, remember, they had to take It as it was or vote it down. In point of fact, they voted it down; but who will say that in doing this they expressed an enUghtened judgment or merely followed the natural conserva- tive instinct to vote "no" on a proposition they did not under- stand? And here is a law to provide for the organization, maintenance, equipment, and regulation of the National Guard of the state. This bill contains 76 sections. It occupies 4 feet 4 inches of this 7-foot ballot. It would fiU two pages of an ordinary newspaper. And here is a copy of the Oregon ballot, from which it appears that the stricken people of that commonwealth were called upon at the late election to consider 32 legislative propositions. Small wonder that it was well onto a month after election before the returns were all in. And here is another constitutional amendment in which the people are asked to pass judgment on such simple propositions as providing for verdict by three-fourths of jury in civil cases, authorizing grand juries to be simimoned separately from the trial jury, permitting change of judicial system by statute pro- hibiting retrial where there is any evidence to support the verdict, providing for aflSrmance of judgment on appeal notwithstanding error committed in lower court and directing the Supreme Court to enter such judgment as should have been entered in the lowei APPENDICES 119 court, fixing terms of Supreme Court, providing that judges of all courts be elected for six years, subject to recall, and increasing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Is it any wonder that with questions such as those thrust at them so large a percentage of the voters took to the "continuous woods where roUs the Oregon " and refused to express a judgment one way or the other ? Now, with all possible deference to the intelligence and the diligence of the good people of Oregon, is it conceivable that any considerable proportion of the voters of that commonwealth went to the polls with even a cursory knowledge of all the meas- ures submitted for their determination ? As to the practical working of the referendum, I have seen it stated in the public prints that four years ago nearly every appropriation bill passed by the Oregon legislature was referred to the people for their approval or rejection before it could go into effect. As a result, the appropriations being unavailable until the election could be held, the state was compelled to stamp its warrants "not paid for want of funds," and to pay interest thereon, although the money was in the treasury. The university and other state institutions were hampered and embarrassed, and the whole machinery of government was in large measure paralyzed. In other words, under the Oregon law a pitiful minority of the people was able to obstruct and embarrass the usual and orderly processes of government, and for a time at least to absolutely thwart the will of an over- whelming majority of the people. A system of government under which such a thing as that is not only possible, but has actually occurred, may be "the best system ever devised by the wit of man," as we have been vocifer- ously assured, but some of us may take the liberty of doubting it. But the initiative and referendum, subversive as they are of the representative principle, do not compare in importance or in possible power for evil with the recall. The statutes of every state in this Union provide a way by which a recreant official may be ousted from his office or otherwise punished. That way is by process of law, where charges must be specific, the testi- mony clear, and the judgment impartial. But what are we to think of a procedure under which an official is to be tried, not in a court by a jury of his peers and upon the testimony of wit- nesses sworn to tell the truth, but in the newspapers, on the I20 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING street comers, and at political meetings? Can you conceive of a wider departure from the fundamental principles of justice that are written not only into the constitution of every civilized nation on the face of the earth, but upon the heart of every normal human being, the principle that every man accused of a crime has a right to confront his accusers, to examine them under oath, to rebut their evidence, and to have the judgment finally of men sworn to render a just and lawful verdict. Small wonder that the argument oftenest heard in support of a proposition so abhorrent to the most primitive instincts of justice is that it will be seldom invoked and therefore cannot do very much harm. I leave you to characterize as it deserves a law whose chief merit must lie in the rarity of its enforcement. But will it do no harm, even if seldom enforced ? It is urged that its presence on the statute books and the knowledge that it can be invoked will frighten public officials into good behavior. Passing by the very obvious suggestion that an official who needs to be scared into proper conduct ought never to have been elected in the first place, we may well inquire whether the real effect would not be to frighten men into demagogy — and thus to work immeasurably greater harm to the conmion weal than would ever be infficted through the transgressions of deliberately bad men. We have demagogues enough now, heaven knows, when election to an office assures the tenure of it for two or four oi six years. But if that tenure were only from hour to hoiu:, if it were held at the whim of a powerful and unscrupulous newspaper, for example, or if it could be put in jeopardy by an affront which in the line of duty ought, we will say, to be given to some organi- zation or faction or cabal, what coixld we expect? Is it not inevitable that such a system would drive out of our public life the men of real character and courage and leave us only cowards and trimmers and time servers? May we not well hesitate to introduce into our political system a device which, had it been in vogue in the past, would have made it possible for the Tories to have recalled Washington, the copperheads to have recalled Lincoln, and the jingoes to have recalled McKinley? In all the literature of the age-long struggle for freedom and justice there is no phrase that occurs oftener than "the inde- pendence of the judiciary." Not one man could be found now APPENDICES 121 among all our ninety millions to declare that our Constitution should be changed so as to permit the President in the White House or the Congress in the Capitol to dictate to our judges what their decisions should be. And yet it is seriously proposed that this power of dictation shall be given to the crowd on the street. That is what the recall means if applied to the judiciary; and it means the destruction of its independence as completely as if in set terms it were made subject to the President or the Congress. Do you answer, "Oh, the recall will never be invoked except in an extreme case of obvious and flagrant injustice" ? I reply, "How do you know? It is the theory of the initiative that it will never be invoked except to pass a good law, and of the referendum that it will never be resorted to except to defeat a bad law; but we have already seen how easily a bad law might be initiated and a good law referred. And so it is the theory that the recall will be invoked only for the protection of the people from a bad judge. What guaranty can you give that it will not be called into being to harrass and intimidate a good judge ? There never yet was a two-edged sword that would not cut both ways. Mr. Chairman, I should be the last to assert that our present system of government has always brought ideally perfect results. Now and then the people have made mistakes in the selection of their representatives. Corrupt men have been put into places of trust, small men have been sent where large men were needed, ignorant men have been charged with duties which only men of learning could fitly perform. But does it follow that because the people make mistakes in so simple a matter as the selection of their agents, they would be infallible in the incom- parably more complex and difficult task of the enactment and interpretation of laws? There was never a more glaring non sequitur, and yet it is the very cornerstone upon which rests the whole structure of the new philosophy. "The people can- not be trusted with few things," runs this singular logic, "there- fore let us put all things into their hands." With one breath we are asked to renounce the old system because the people make mistakes, and with the next breath we are soleminly assured that if we adopt the new system the people will not make mistakes. I confess I am not mentally alert 122 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING enough to follow that sort of logic. It is too much like the road which was so crooked that the traveler who entered upon it had only proceeded a few steps when he met himself coming back. You cannot change the nature of men, Mr. Chairman, by changing their system of government. The limitations of human judgment and knowledge and conscience which render perfection in representative govenmient unattamable will still abide even after that form of government is swept away, and the ideal will still be far distant. Let it not be said or imagmed, Mr. Speaker, that because I protest against converting this Republic into a democracy therefore I lack confidence in the people. No man has greater faith, sir, than I have in the intelligence, the integrity, the patriotism, and the fundamental common sense of the average American dtizen. But I am for representative rather than for direct government, because I have greater confidence in the second thought of the people than I have in their first thought. And that, in the last analysis, is the difference, and the only difference, so far as results are concerned between the new system and that which it seeks to supplant; it is the fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic. In either form of government the people have their way. The difference is that in a democracy the people have their way in the beginning, whereas in a republic the people have their way in the end — and the end is usually enough wiser than the beginning to be worth waiting for. We count ourselves the fittest people in the world for self- government, and we probably are. But fit as we are we some- times make mistakes. We sometimes form the most violent and erroneous opinions upon impulse, without full information or thoughtful consideration. With complete information and longer study, we swing around to the right side, but it is our second thought and not our first that brings us there. Our intentions are always right, and we usually get right in the end; but it often happens that we are not right in the beginning. It behooves us to consider long and well before we pluck out of the delicately adjusted mechanism by which we govern ourselves the checks and brakes and balance wheels which our forefathers placed there, and the wisdom of which our history attests innumerable times. APPENDICES 123 The simple and primitive life of civilization's frontier has given way to the most stupendous and complex industrial and commercial structure the world has ever known. Incredible expansion, social, political, industrial, conunercial — ^but repre- sentative government all the way. At not one step in the long and shining pathway of the Nation's progress has representative government failed to respond to the Nation's need. Every emer- gency that 130 years of momentous history has developed — the terrible strain of war, the harrassing problems of peace — repre- sentative government has been equal to them all. Not once has it broken down. Not one issue has it failed to solve. And long after the shallow substitutes that are now proposed for it shall have been forgotten, representative government "will be doing business at the old stand," will be solving the problems of the future as it met the issues of the past, with courage and wisdom and justice, giving to the great Republic that government "of the people, for the people, and by the people'' which is the assurance that it "shall not perish from the earth." APPENDIX V QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY Below are several questions with issues suggested which should bring about a "head on" debate. They should be useM at the beginning of debating work or when time for preparation is somewhat limited. A brief bibhography is in each case appended. "The Right ai Suitrage Should Be Granted to Woman" Affirmative I. Woman wants the ballot. II. Woman is capable of using the ballot wisely. III. Where woman has had the ballot, the results have been beneficial to the state. Negative I. A majority of women do not want the ballot. II. Woman is incapable of using the ballot wisely. HI. A benefit has not resulted in those states which have given woman the right to vote. BEIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY "Success of Woman's SufErage," Independent, LXXIII, 334-35 (August 8, 1912). "Suffrage Danger," Living Age, CCLXXIV, 330-35 (August 10, 1912). "Teaching Violence to Women," Century, LXXXIV, 151-53 (May, 1912). "Violence in Woman's Suffrage Movement: A Disapproval of the Militant Policy," Century, LXXXV, 148-49 (Novem- ber, igia). "Violence and Votes," Independent, LXXII, 1416-19 Qune 27 1912). 124 APPENDICES 1 25 "Votes for Women," Harper's Weekly, LVI, 6 (September 21, 191 2). "Votes for Women," Harper's Bazaar XL VI, 47, 148 (January, March, 1912). "Votes for Women and Other Votes," Survey, XXVIII, 367-78 (June I, 191 2). "What Is the Truth about Woman's Suffrage?" Ladies' Home Journal, XXIX, 24 (October, 1912). "Why I Want Woman's Suffrage," Collier's, XL VIII, 18 (March 16, 191 2). "Why I Went into Suffrage Work," Harper's Bazaar, XLVI, 440 (September, 19 12). "Woman and the State," Forum, XLVIII, 394-408 (October 1912). "Woman and the Suffrage," Harper's Weekly, LVI, 6 (August 17, 1912). "Woman's Rights," Outlook, C, 262-66 (February 3, 191 2). "Woman's Rights," Outlook, C, 302-4 (February 10, 1912). "Concerning Some of the Anti-Suffrage Leaders," Good House- keeping, LV, 80-82 (July, 191 2). "Ejcpansion of Equality," Independent, LXXIII, 1143-45 (November 14, 191 2). "Marching for Equal Suffrage," Hearst's Magazine, XXI, 2497- Soi (June, 191 2). "Woman and the California Primaries," Independent, LXXII, 1316-18 (June 13, 1912). "Woman Suffrage, Victory," Literary Digest, XLV, 841-43 (November 23, 1912). "Woman's Demonstration; How They Won and Used the Votes in California," Collier's, XLVIII, 17-18 (January 6, 1912). "Recent Strides of Woman's Suffrage," World's Work, XXII, I4733-4S (August, 1911). "Woman's Suffrage in Six States," Independent, LXXI, 967-20 (November 2, 1911). "Women Did It in Colorado," Hampton's Magazine, XXVI, 426. "Woman's Victory in Washington" (state). Collier's, XLVI, 25. "Are Women Ready for the Franchise?" Westminster, CLXII, 255-61 (September, 1904). "Argument against Woman's Suffrage," Outlook, LXIV, 573-74 (March 10, 1900). 126 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING "Check to Woman's Suffrage in the United States," Nineteenth Century, LVI, 833-41 (November, 1904). "Female Suffrage in the United States," Harper's Weekly, XLIV, 949-50 (October 6, 1900). "Ought Women to Vote?" Outlook, LVHI, 353-55 (June 8, 1901). "Outlook for Woman's Suffrage," Cosmopolitan, XXVIII, 621- 23 (April, 1900). "Woman's Suffrage in the West," Outlook, LXV, 430-31 (June 23, 1900). "Movement for Woman's Suffrage," Outlook, XCIII, 265-67 (October 2, 1909). "Why?" Everybody's, XKL, 723-38. "Woman's Rights," Twentieth-Century Encyclopedia. "The American Navy Should Be Enlarged So As TO Compare in Fighting Strength with Any in the World" Affirmative I. The scattered possessions of the United States demand the protection of a large navy. II. The expense of the proposed navy would be a judicious investment. III. The proposed enlargement of the navy would be a step toward imiversal peace. Negative I. The geographical situation of the United States makes a large navy unnecessary. II. The expense entailed, if the proposed plan were put into practice, would embarrass the United States. III. To carry out the proposed plan would be to increase the chances of war. BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY "Relative Sea Strength of the United States," Scientific American, CVII, 174 (August 31, 19 1 2). "For an Adequate Navy in the United States," Scientific Ameri- can, CV, 512 (December 9, 1911). APPENDICES 127 "Humble Opinions of a Fiat-Foot; Frank Criticism and Intimate Picture of Our Navy, by a Blue-Jacketed Gob," Collier's L, 14-is; P-. XIX, 22-33 (December 7, 1912) "Importance of the Command of the Sea," Scientific American, CV, 512 (December 9, 191 1). "The United States Fleet and Its Readiness for Service," Scien- tific American, CV, 514 (December 9, 191 1). "Battle-ship Fleet in Each Ocean," Scientific American, CII, 3S4 (April 30, 1910). "Naval Madness," Independent, LXVIII, 489 (March 3, 1910). "Our Naval Waste," Nation, XCI, 138 (August 25, 1910). "Our Navy As a National Insurance," Scientific American, Cn, 414 (May 21, 1910). "American Naval Policy," Forum, XLV, 529 (May, 1911). "If We Had to Fight," Collier's, XLVIII, i8 (November 18, 1911). "Panama Canal and the Sea Power in the Pacific," Century, LXXXII, 240 (January, 1911). "Local Option Is the Best Method of Dealing WITH the Liquor Problem" Affirmative I. Other methods of dealing with the liquor problem have failed. II. Local option is consistent with American ideas of government. III. Local option is a provfed success. Negative I. Local option is undesirable in theory. n. Local option has not succeeded where tried. ni. There is a better method of dealing with this problem. BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY "Local Option; A Study of Massachusetts," Atlantic, XC, 433-40. "Principle of Local Option," Independent, LIII, 3032-33 (Decem- ber 19, igoi). 128 ELEMENTS OF DEBATESTG "When Prohibition Fails and Why," Outlook, CI, 639-43 (July, 20, 1912). "To Dam the Interstate Flow of Drink," Literary Digest, XLIV, 106-7 (January 20, 1912) "Psychology of Drink," American Journal of Sociology, XVIII, 21-32 (July. 1912). "Worid-Wide Fight against Alcohol," Review of Reviews, XLV, 374- "Drink and the Joy of Life," Westminster, CLXXVI, 620-24 (December, 1911). "Drink Traffic," Missionary Review, XXXII, 337-39 (May, 1909). "Efforts to Promote Temperance since 1883,'' in L. B. Paton, Recent Christian Progress, 446-71. "Fight against Alcohol," Cosmopolitan, XLIV, 492-96, S49-S4 (April, May, 1908); Harper's Weekly, LII, 6-7 (April 25, 1908). "Foreign Anti-Liquor Movements,'' Nation, LXXXVI, 230 (March 12, 1908). "March of Temperance," Arena, XL, 325-30 (October, igo8). "Social Conditions and the Liquor Problem," Arena, XXVI, 275-77 (September, 1906). "Temperance Question," Canadian M., XXXH, 282-84 (January, 1909). "Local Option Movement," Annals of the American Academy, XXXII, 471-5 (November, 1908). "Results of a Dry Year in Worcester, Mass.," Map Survey, XXII, 301-2 (May 29, 1909). "Local Option and After," North American, CXC, 628-41 (November, 1909). "Capital Punishment Should be Abolished" Affirmative I. Capital punishment does not accomplish the purpose for which it is intended. II. Capital punishment is inconsistent with the teachings of modern criminology. III. There are other methods of punishment far more beneficial than the death penalty. APPENDICES 129 Negative I. Capital punishment decreases crime. II. The cruelty of capital punishment has been greatly exaggerated. III. Society has found no crime deterrent so powerful as the death penalty. BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY "Does Capital Punishment Prevent Convictions?" Review of Reviews, XL, 219-20 (August, 1909). "Does Capital Punishment Tend to Diminish Capital Crime?" Barper's Weekly, L, 1028-29; Review of Reviews, XXXIV, 368-69 (1909). "Meaning of Capital Punishment," Harper's Weekly, L, 1289 (September 8, 1906). "Plato on Capital Punishment," Harper's Weekly, L, 1903 (December 29, 1906). "Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?" Harper's Weekly, LIII, 8 Quly 3, 1909). "Whitely Case and Death Penalty," Nation, LXXXIV, 376-77 (April 2S, 1907). "Death Penalty and Homicide," American Journal of Sociology, XVI, 88-116 Quly, 1910); Nation,Yin., 166; North American, CXVI, 138; ibid., LXII, 40; ibid., CXXXIII, 534; Forum, in, S03; Arena, II, 513. "Capital Punishment and Imprisonment for Life," Nation, XVI, 193- "Capital Punishment Anecdotes from Blue Book," Eel. M., LXVI, 677. "Capital Punishment, Arguments Against," Nation, XVI, 213. "Capital Punishment by Electricity," North American, CXLVI, 219. "Capital Punishment, Case Against," Fortnightly Review, Ln, 322; same article in Eclectic Magazine, CXIII, 518. "The Crime of Capital Punishment," Arena, I, 175. "Failure of Capital Punishment," Arena, XXI, 469. "Why Have a Hangman?" Fortnightly Review, XL, 581. "Punishment of Crimes," North American, X, 235. APPENDIX VI A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS SCHOOL QUESTIONS Many of these, because of their local application, will be found useful for class practice where time for prepara- tion is necessarily limited. 1. Coeducation in colleges is more desirable than segregation. 2. Textbooks shoxild be furnished at public expense to students in public schools. 3. The adoption of the honor system in examinations would be desirable in American colleges. 4. Final examinations as a test of knowledge should be discontinued in X High School (or college). 5. AH American universities and colleges should admit men and women on equal terms. 6. The national government should establish a university near the center of population. 7. The X College (or High School) should adopt courses which more definitely fit students for practical careers. 8. Intercollegiate football does not promote the best interests of competing schools. 9. IntracoEegiate athletic contests would be a desirable substitute for intercollegiate athletics. 10. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high schools. 11. National fraternities do not promote the best interests of American colleges and universities. 12. A college commons would be a desirable addition to X College. 13. A lunchroom shoidd be established in the X High School. 130 APPENDICES 131 14. Athletic regulations should not debar a student from plasdng summer baseball. 15. No student in an American college should be eligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics until he has begun his second year's work. 16. All studies in the X College (or High School) above those of the Freshman should be entirely elective. 17. In all public high schools training in military tactics should be required. 18. Public high schools should be under state supervision. 19. Admission to American colleges should be allowed only upon examination. 20. Academic degrees should be given only upon state examinations. 21. The library of X College (or High School, or city) should be open on Sunday. 22. A plan of self-government should be adopted for the X CoUege (or High School). 23. The terms "successful" and "failed" as the only indication of grade work shovdd be adopted by the X School in place of the present plan or working. 24. Gjrmnasium work should be required in X School. 25. Training in domestic science should be required of all girls at X School. 26. Manual training should be a requirement of all boys at X School. SOCIAL QUESTIONS 27. The influence of the five-cent theater is beneficial. 28. A state board with power to forbid public exhibition should exercise stage censorship. 29. Children imder sixteen years of age should be pro- hibited from working in confining industries. 30. Children under fourteen years of age should be prohibited from appearing on the stage. 132 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING 31. A minimum wage for women employees of depart- ment stores should be enacted by the state of X . 32. PubUc ownership of saloons would be a desirable method of dealing with the liquor problem. 33. The English system of old-age pensions should be adopted by the United States government. 34. Vivisection should be prohibited by law. 35. The publication of court proceedings in criminal and divorce cases should be subject to a board of censorship. 36. Education under the direction of a state board, should be required in the state prisons of X . 37. The laws of marriage and divorce should be uniform throughout the United States (constitutionality conceded). 38. Local option is the best method of dealing with the liquor question. 39. The army canteen is desirable. 40. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be adopted by the state of X . 41. An eight-hour law for all women workers should be enacted by the state of X . 42. Immigration should be restricted according to the provisions of the DiUingham-Burnett bill. 43. Free employment bureaus should be established by the city of X . 44. Free emplo3Tnent bureaus should be established by the state of X . POLITICAL QUESTIONS 45. A permanent national tariflf commission should be established. 46. The constitution should be so amended as to make more easy the passing of amendments. 47. The restrictions on Mongolian immigration should be removed. 48. The President of the United States should serve one term of six years. APPENDICES 133 49. Complete public reports of all contributions to political campaign fimds should be required by law. 50. The Monroe Doctrine as a part of American foreign policy should be discontinued. 51. The interests of labor can best be represented by a separate political party. 52. The naturalization laws of the United States should be made more stringent. 53. Aliens should be forbidden the ballot in every state. 54. The state of CaUfornia is justified in her stand against land ownership by aliens. 55. Permanent retention of the Philippine Islands by the United States is not advisable. 56. The United States navy should be maintained at a fighting strength equal to any in the world. 57. Direct presidential primaries should be a substitute for the present method of presidential nomination. 58. Corporations engaged in interstate business should be compelled to operate under a national charter. 59. The Panama Canal should be fortified. 60. The initiative and referendum in^ matters of state legislation would be desirable in the state of X . 61. From the standpoint of the United States the annexation of Cuba would be desirable. 62. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be repealed. 63. The President should be elected by the direct vote of the people of the United States. 64. Proportional representation should be adopted in the state of X . 65. The plan of proportional representation in present vogue in the state of X should be abolished. 66. The use of voting machines should be required in all elections in cities having a population of more than 10,000. 67. Public interest is best served when national party lines are discarded in municipal elections. 134 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING 68. Suffrage should be limited to persons who can read and write. 69. Ex-Presidents of the United States should become senators-at-large for life. 70. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be pen- sioned for life at full salary. 71. The United States should adopt a plan of compulsory voting. 72. The national government should purchase and operate the express systems in connection with the parcel post. 73. Federal judges should be elected by direct vote of the people. 74. Two-thirds of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in jury trials in the state of X . 75. The state of X should adopt a plan for recall of state judges. 76. The state of X should adopt a plan allowing a referendum of judicial decisions. 77. The appointment of United States consuls should be imder the merit system. 78. American vessels engaged in coastwise trade should be permitted the use of the Panama Canal without the payment of tolls. 79. All postmasters should be elected by popular vote. 80. The bin requiring , which is at present before the X dty council (X state legislature, or Congress) should be defeated. ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 81. The Underwood tariff bUl of 1913 would be a desirable law. 82. The federal government should undertake at once the construction of an inland waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf (or from X to Y). 83. AH raw materials should be admitted to the United States free of duty. APPENDICES 135 84. A state law should prohibit prison contract labor in the state of X . 85. Federal government control of all natural resources would be desirable. 86. Municipal ownership of street railways would be an advantage to cities. 87. The Henry George system of single tax would be practicable in the United States. 88. A graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the federal taxing sjrstem. 89. The boycott is a justifiable weapon in labor strikes. 90. The federal government should enact a progressive inheritance tax. 91. The coal mines of the United States should be under federal control. 92. Employers of labor are justified in demanding the "open shop." 93. Irrigation projects to reclaim the arid lands of the West should be undertaken by the United States govern- ment. 94. Courts for the compulsory settlement of contro- versies between labor and capital should be created by Congress. 95. Industrial combinations commonly known as "trusts" are an economical benefit to the United States. 96. The United States should establish and maintain a system of subsidies for the American merchant marine. 97. No tax should be levied on the issue of state banks. 98. Permanent copyrights should be extended by the national government. 99. The judicial injunction as an instrument in labor controversies should be made illegal. 100. A law gradually lowering the present tarifi, so that in ten years the United States will be committed to a policy of free trade, would be economically desirable for the United States. APPENDIX VII FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION The first of the two following forms is a simple and commonly used one; the second is more formal and is desirable when the schools wish to point out carefully the principles upon which the decision is to be based. A form such as the first, which allows the judge entire freedom, is becoming the more popular. I. In my opinion, the better debating has been done by the team. II Judges' DEasioN [In rendering a decision, the judges are asked to act without reference to their own opinion on the merits of the question. They are not to consider that either contesting party necessarily represents the actual attitude of themselves or of their school. They are to act without consultation. A decision is desired based solely on the quality of debating. In determining the quality of debating, the judges are asked to consider both matter and form. Grasp of the question, accuracy of analysis, selection of evidence, and order and cogency of argu- ments should be considered in judging matter. Bearing, voice, directness, earnestness, emphasis, enunciation, and gesture should be considered in judging form.] DECISION Considering the above instructions, I cast my ballot for the . 136