SECTION 81 The Proposition You cannot go far in argument without knowing the very essential distinction between a term and a proposition, and the reason will soon be apparent. The distinction is this: A term is the name of some idea, as, for example, "golf," "the President of the United States," "examinations"; a proposition, on the contrary, states the relation between two ideas, or makes an assertion in regard to a term or two terms, as, for example, "Golf is a Scottish game," ""The President of the United States should hold office for the term of eight years," "Examinations are a fair test of scholarship." In the proposition, "Examinations are a fair test of scholarship," there are two terms, (1) "examinations" and (2) "a fair test of scholarship." Both of these terms are the names of ideas. If these terms stand alone, neither (1) nor (2) can be argued. That is, you can explain what "examinations" are and what "a fair test of scholarship" is, but you cannot argue either term. The reason is to be found in the nature of argument, for argument, you will remember, has been defined as "the art of convincing others of the truth or falsity of some thought or thoughts."1 Until (1) falls under (2), or until you make some assertion about either (1) or (2), you have no thought, no proposition, and until you have a thought, a proposition, you have nothing that can be argued, nothing whose truth can be disputed. Though every proposition, I presume, can be argued, and though in life we all now and then have to argue propositions whose truth ought to be perfectly obvious to any 1 In Section 80. reasonable human being, not every proposition is suitable for formal debate. Thus, we cannot with any profit to ourselves or others debate the proposition that “Golf is a Scottish game;" if the proposition means that the game of golf had its origin in Scotland, as I fancy it does, it is, for all I know, an indisputable fact.1 The proposition that "Examinations are a fair test of scholarship," or that "The President of the United States should hold office for eight years," is fairly open to doubt, and, not being objectionable for other reasons, may very profitably be debated. In stating the proposition for debate you will find it helpful to observe the following rules: 1. State the proposition in the affirmative.2 That is, if the argument is about examinations as a test of scholarship, the proposition should be stated in this fashion: "Resolved, That examinations are a fair test of scholarship." This form of statement puts "the burden of 1 Mr. Alden, in his Art of Debate, gives the following list of propositions to be avoided, to which I append examples : 1. Obvious propositions; e.g., "Golf is a Scottish game." 2. Propositions the truth of which depends wholly on the meaning of some ambiguous words or words; e.g., "Walt Whitman was a poet." Here the word "poet " is ambiguous; see Section 82. 3. Propositions the truth or error of which is practically incapable of demonstration; e.g., "The planet Mars is inhabited." "The 4. Propositions involving more than one main issue; e.g., United States government should not have acquired the Philippine Islands, and should now withdraw from them." 5. Propositions devoid of interest to the audience addressed. 2 This rule does not always hold good. If, for example, it is intended that the burden of proof shall rest from the start on the negative, the proposition may of course be given a negative form. 3 A proposition, stated for formal debate, generally takes this complete form. proof" on the affirmative, and leaves "the presumption in favor of the negative. "He who affirms must prove," runs a rule of law. A man accused of crime is presumed to be innocent. The presumption is in his favor, and, unless his accuser makes out a case against him, he must be acquitted. The burden of proof lies with the accuser to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the man committed the crime of which he is accused. So it is in debate. The affirmative opens and closes the debate, and, if the affirmative is not successful in proving the proposition in debate, the negative wins. If, on the contrary, the affirmative proves the proposition in debate, and if the negative fails to refute the proof presented by the affirmative, then the affirmative wins. 2. State the proposition as briefly as is consistent with exactness. A single unnecessary word in a proposition may divert the argument from the real point at issue. Adjectives especially need watching. 3. State the proposition so as to avoid partiality. If, for example, a proposition were to be stated in this fashion: "Resolved, That injudicious examinations should be abolished," the word "injudicious" would at once give the affirmative an unfair advantage over the negative. 4. Use only such terms in the proposition as are intelligible and unmistakable. The terms in a proposition should be understood by both sides in the same sense, for it is a thought that is to be debated — not mere words. If it seems necessary to use a term that is likely to be misunderstood, therefore, the opponents should agree at the outset as to the meaning of the term, and, if the term is very important, they should write out a definition of it and append the definition to the proposition. If the argument is about trusts, a much debated question nowadays, the definition may begin in this way: "It is agreed that the word trust' shall mean 'A combination of financial interests, formed with the intention of creating a monopoly."" Exercise 95 1. Point out the terms in the last ten propositions in the list at the close of this chapter. 2. Find and state the proposition in some argumentative essay or speech to which your instructor refers you. 1 3. State a proposition about each of the following subjects: (1) The discovery of America about 1000 A.D. by the Northmen; 1 (2) the eight-hour day; (3) the navy of the United States; (4) the annexation of Canada to the United States; (5) the high school and athletics. 4. State a proposition about each of the subjects in the list you made for Exercise 94 (3). Test the propositions you draw up for 3 and 4 by the rules in Section 81. Give the complete form to each proposition. SECTION 82 The Point at Issue The point at issue is the point about which the whole argument centres. If the point at issue is not stated clearly and distinctly in the proposition, you must search for it until you find it, or the proofs you present may be misdirected. "What does the proposition mean?" "What do the terms mean?" "How did the proposition come to be debated?" "What is the origin of the question?" "How much of what I believe does my opponent admit?" "How much of what my opponent believes do I admit?" "Is my opponent wholly wrong, or only partially 1 See Fiske's Discovery of America, i, 148-226, for an interesting argument on this subject. wrong?" "What ideas, usually connected with the subject, are irrelevant?" "What ideas, really connected with the subject, are most important?" "What ideas, really connected with the subject, are of less importance?” are some of the questions you may ask yourself in your search for the point at issue. Oddly enough, it sometimes happens that by the time such questions as these are answered and the point at issue is determined, opponents find themselves practically in accord, the argument having started from a mere misunderstanding of terms. Hence it comes that the point at issue so frequently turns on the meaning of some term in the proposition. Take, for instance, the proposition, frequently debated, that Walt Whitman was a poet. Obviously, the point at issue cannot be determined until an agreement is reached as to the sense in which the word "poet" is used. If the word is used in the sense of one who makes verses according to the well-known laws of metre, there is really no point at issue, because it is granted by all that Whitman was not a poet in this sense of the word. If, on the contrary, the word "poet" is used in the sense of one who puts beautiful thought into rhythmic language, half verse and half prose, there is a point at issue that can be debated. In some cases the determination of the point at issue shows that there is only one decision possible. For instance, take the question, "Was Aaron Burr guilty of treason?" At first thought the question seems equivalent to "Did Aaron Burr commit treason?" but our Constitution1 states that no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt 1 Constitution of the United States, article iii, section 3. |