ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

and leave the speaker at a stand. Besides, even the complete plan gets its fulness from detail. A good argument, however elaborately analyzed, will be found to have only a few main points. Only a few main points, then, with their main support, should be regarded as fixed beforehand. Behind that the whole. evidence must be ready, so far as possible, for use where it may be needed, but not all in a fixed adjustment from which it cannot readily be detached.

(b) Essential Parts

136. Aristotle says that argumentation has but two essential parts; the statement of the case, and the proof. The former is exposition; and the more purely expository it is, the freer from argumentative turns, the stronger will be its effect. Clear, unbiassed statement, excluding whatever is disputed, as it is the only fair way, so is the only wise way in this part. The statement of the case is sometimes called the narrative, since it is sometimes, especially at the bar, a rehearsal of events in chronological order; sometimes, and better, the introduction, since it is necessarily preliminary. It is the definition and division of the proposition, showing the meaning of the terms, their extent and implication, and the issue or issues, surveying and staking out the ground so that every step in the argument may be followed easily. It marks out the common ground of agreement from the debatable ground, and here it must be careful to assume neither too much nor too little not too much, lest the adversary by fair objection undermine one's foundations; not too little, lest time be wasted in proving more than is necessary.

Here the expository part may merge in the proof. Definition may be made, often is made, in effect argumentative; and conversely, an unfair assumption or implication must be overthrown. But generally it is not hard to establish a fair agreement as to the limits of necessary proof; and generally this part may be regarded as purely expository.

(c) Formal Parts

137. But Aristotle makes another division, the four formal parts of a speech, exordium, statement, proof, peroration; and though these are not all essential, they have been at all times common. The two added parts, the first and the last, may be called purely rhetorical. They add nothing to the argument; they may add much to persuasion. Thus the office of the exordium, or rhetorical introduction, according to the concise and final definition of Cicero, is to dispose an audience to good will, attention, and open mind —reddere auditores benevolos, attentos, dociles. The means to this end are as various as audiences and speakers. The office of the peroration, or rhetorical conclusion, is correspondingly to leave a clear remembrance and a strong impression. It is the natural place for recapitulation and summary, and the recognized place for appeal to feeling. Summary is generally stronger than recapitulation. It is better to put the whole in a nutshell than to risk being tiresome. But when important points seem to have missed their due impression, it is better to repeat them, and so of any points slighted by an adversary. Appeal to feeling is proper to the peroration, negatively because earlier in the speech the

audience is not so likely to be open to it, has not, as we say, been worked up; and positively because a strong impression implies, almost of necessity, engaging the feelings. To have presented reasons without engaging sympathy is to leave an audience cold. The peroration, then, is the place for applying the discussion to men's real concerns, or, as we say in a metaphor full of import, for bringing it home.

(d) Division for Debate

138. Intercollegiate debating has fairly fixed a custom of dividing an argument among three speakers. This threefold division should be such that each speaker may clearly support his predecessor and clearly carry the discussion on toward the conclusion. The case must be complete in an order outlined at the start, carried steadily forward, definitely concluded. On the other hand, the case must not be inflexible. No case, of course, is worth the making which has not considered attentively all probable arguments of the other side, and also forecast probable groupings of these arguments; but completely to forecast the line of the other side is rarely possible. Therefore the plan laid out by any three speakers must also be flexible enough to throw emphasis where emphasis is in the actual debate found necessary. It must also leave some spare time for such answers as may serve to remove an impression that the line has been blocked or broken. Rebuttal is separately provided, by present custom, in a brief second speech from each debater; but since a case loses much of its force which seems at any time to be thwarted, it is both customary and practically necessary for attack and

defence to meet arguments, at least briefly, as they come up. A good line of debate, then, is both a very nice adjustment for emphasis and coherence, and at the same time flexible to immediate pressure.

The practical result of these considerations is somewhat as follows: The first affirmative speech is largely an introduction (§ 136), i.e. is largely expository. In defining the issues and the line of proof it should be prepossessing, but above all fair and lucid. The hearers must find the case, or so much of it as is not withheld for strategy, plausible from the start; but first and foremost they must be prepared to follow it easily. The first speaker for the negative has much the same office; but he has also something to attack. It is usually advisable, sometimes necessary, to point out a general deficiency or a particular omission, to insist on a slighted issue, to rebut an ill-advised contention, or to note an implied admission; in general, to reply. This may be done by way of preface, or better, if there be convenient opportunity, in connection with the points of his own case. But since the bringing forward of his own case is his main business, since the clearness of that case depends largely on him, since the case is presumably strong as a whole against the affirmative as a whole, he must not, in an attempt to meet all his adversary's points, leave his own ground. His colleagues are there to carry on the attack in detail; he is there rather to make clear from the start that the case is strong as a whole. Therefore, contenting himself with general reply and the hint that this will be supported later, or with a reply directed against one or two important points, he must keep his main time free for his own case.

The second speeches elaborate and carry on. If the

first speaker has elaborated one main point, as is usual, the second confirms this against attack, shows how the following points, assigned to him, follow and lead on to the next, and elaborates these points of his own most where there appears to be most need. As to rebuttal, though the counsels for the first speech on the negative hold good in general, the second speeches should be the most flexible because they have most room. They have the most favourable opportunity for breaking the opposite line if it has been forecast; and, if it is unexpected, the most favourable opportunity for meeting it by a change of emphasis and by larger use of rebuttal. Provided he leave time enough for that carrying forward of his own case which is essential in a middle speech, a second speaker may spend more or less time in reply according to the exigencies of the occasion. The ideal, as before, is to weave the reply into his own positive argument.

The third speakers have both to elaborate the final points and to conclude. The conclusion should sum up, of course; but it should also show that the final points complete a strong line, that they clinch the proof. The proportion of rebuttal must be determined, on consultation with the other speakers, from what has preceded and what seem to be the opportunities of the short speeches following. It is usually well to make clear by iteration that the strong points of the opposition are met; it is usually unwise to dissipate time over many separate points of rebuttal; it is always and above all necessary to make a strong conclusion of the whole.

The short second speeches of rebuttal depend for their strength so largely on skill in seeing opportunities, and this skill comes so largely from actual practice in

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »