CHAPTER III

ANALYZING THE PROPOSITION

I. The importance of analysis.

The subject for argument has been determined and it has been reduced to a satisfactory proposition. The next step is to analyze this proposition. It is well to consider first the importance of this analysis in order that its true value may be appreciated, and this preliminary step be not passed over hurriedly. Upon the success of the analysis depends in large measure the success of the argument. This is true because the analysis shows just what must be proved in order to sustain or overthrow the proposition. If the work has been done carefully the student will have confidence in the solidity of his argument. He cannot feel secure if he suspects that his analysis is defective.

The question of analysis is not only of supreme importance in relation to a particular proposition for discussion, but it is also of the greatest importance in all the practical affairs of life. No mental quality is so necessary as the analytical habit of mind. Practically all the men whom history calls great have possessed in a large degree the habit of analyzing everything. Lincoln was in the habit of applying this analytical process not only to great affairs of state but to anything and everything which came beneath his notice. He analyzed the actions of his fellow men, the workings of a machine, the nature of moral principles, and the significance of political movements. He was continually penetrating to the point of things, visible and invisible, and laying it bare.

Everything which comes up for personal action should be analyzed and the vital point at issue determined. Nothing should be done blindly or in a spirit of trusting to luck or chance. Instead of voting as the majority seem to be voting in a class meeting, analyze the issue and vote according to the light revealed by that analysis. Instead of entering some business or profession blindly and in the hope that something will turn up, analyze the situation and determine rationally what ought to be done. For the right determination of these practical affairs no better preparation can be made than the careful analysis of propositions for debate.

II. Essential steps in analysis.

_1. A broad view of the subject._

In the first place the student must know something about the subject-matter of the proposition. If the question is of a local character and one with which he is familiar, the work of analysis may be begun at once. The proposition can be scrutinized, its exact meaning determined, and the proof for its establishment or overthrow decided upon. If the question be one with which the student is not familiar, his first duty is to become acquainted in a general way with the subject-matter. He should carefully examine the proposition to see just what subject-matter is included and then consult someone familiar with its substance, or read some material which appears to treat the subject in a general way. Here confusion is likely to result if an attempt is made to substitute reading for thinking. The mind of the investigator should be kept open, free, and independent. He should not allow the opinions of men, either oral or written, to cause him to depart from the precise wording of the proposition. His present object is to determine its limits, meaning and significance.

When a general knowledge of the subject has been acquired, sufficient to enable the student to reason about the question, he should next consider the origin and history of the question.

_2. The origin and history of the question._

The meaning of a question must be determined in the light of the conditions which gave rise to its discussion. For this reason it is well to find out just how this question came to be a subject of debate. For example, the people of this country a few years ago were debating the proposition, “Resolved, that the Federal Government should control all life insurance companies operating within the United States.” To one unacquainted with the facts of the case at that time the proposition appears at first glance to lack point. Why should anyone want Federal control of insurance companies? What difference does it make as to who controls them or whether they are controlled at all? These questions are answered directly when we come to study the origin of the proposition. Until within a few months of the discussions no one had thought of debating this proposition. The insurance companies had always been under the control of the states in which they operated. Then suddenly it came to light that these companies were grossly mismanaged. Dishonesty had characterized the administration of their affairs. This served to cast grave doubt on the efficiency of state control. Therefore the stronger arm of the Federal government was suggested as a remedy for the evils which the states had been unable to prevent. The real heart of the controversy, which a study of the origin of the question revealed was “Will the control of insurance companies by the Federal government be more efficient than that exercised by the state governments?” Thus the real point at issue was made clear through the origin of the question.

In the search for the main issues, the history of the question is often important. However, the tendency of the inexperienced debater is to dwell too long upon this part of the argument. Actual practice often reveals the fact that such a history causes the audience or reader to lose interest. This is especially true if its bearing on the argument is not immediately shown.

The history of the question should, however, receive serious consideration, and any facts which bear directly upon its solution should be stated in brief and concise form. When the question has undergone a change because of shifting conditions, its history becomes especially important. Very often the original significance of a controversy becomes entirely changed by subsequent happenings. In such a case the history of the question should be resorted to for the purpose of finding out the changes through which the original dispute has passed and determining the exact issues involved at the present time.

_3. Definition of terms._

Before proceeding farther it is well to examine each word in the proposition. Now that a general idea of the significance of the proposition has been obtained, and the main point of the controversy reached through the study of the origin and history of the question, the task of defining terms may be undertaken in an intelligent manner.

Let it be understood at the outset that a dictionary definition is not satisfactory. A dictionary gives every meaning which can be attached to a given word and thus covers a broad, general field. But when a word is used in a proposition for debate it is used in a special and restricted sense. The meaning depends largely on the context of the proposition. The origin and history of the question, the meaning which expert writers on this particular subject have attached to the words, and the present conditions must be considered in determining the precise meaning of the terms.

The words of a proposition which need definition are very often so grouped that the meaning of a phrase or combination of words taken as a whole must be determined. Here it is plain that dictionary definitions, even if satisfactory in other respects, would be entirely inadequate. In the question in the last chapter, “Resolved, that monopolies in restraint of trade should be regulated by Federal law,” we find a necessity for the definition of both a term and a phrase. The term “regulate” may not in this instance be given the broad meaning which a dictionary definition attaches to it. We must first look at the context of the proposition in order to find out to what field of authority we should go for a proper definition.

The proposition specified regulation by Federal law; therefore we must go to the law for our definition of the term which indicates the action the law is to take. But even here we need not be satisfied with the broad legal definition of the term “regulate.” The field included by the question is obviously a commercial field. The agencies which would come under this regulation are for the most part engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore the power to regulate would be placed under that clause of the United States constitution which expressly gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. We may then rely upon the definition which the courts have placed upon the term “regulate” when used in this connection. By consulting _Black’s Constitutional Law_,[1] an eminent authority on this subject, we find that the power to “regulate” has never been held to include the power to destroy. This eliminates a possible meaning. By consulting some of the decisions of the United States courts in which this term has been defined, we are given to understand that to “regulate” commerce implies that “an intention to promote and facilitate it, and not to hamper or destroy it, is naturally to be attributed to Congress.” (_Texas & P. R. Co._ v. _Interstate Commerce Commission_, 162 U. S., 197; _Interstate Commerce Commission_ v. _Alabama Midland Ry. Co._, 74 Fed., 715). Therefore we are warranted in concluding that to “regulate” in this proposition means such control by the Federal law as will promote the best commercial interests of the country at large.

Footnote 1:

P. 194.

It is thus seen that both the definition of the term and the source from which it is taken are determined by the context of the proposition. If the context of the proposition shows that legal definitions are required, legal authorities must be consulted. If the context of the proposition shows that an economic definition is required, economic authorities should be consulted. In whatever field of knowledge the context of the proposition lies, the authoritative definitions generally accepted in these branches of learning should be consulted.

In defining the phrase “monopolies in restraint of trade” the student should consult the same class of authorities utilized in defining the term “regulate.” The generally accepted definitions used by prominent writers may be relied upon with safety, since they are usually taken directly from authoritative reports and decisions.

One of the most important requisites of a definition is that it be reasonable. It must appear, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, to be the most obvious and natural definition which can possibly be produced. In no case must it appear that the speaker or writer has laboriously searched for a definition which will conform to his view of the proposition. Equally fatal is a highly technical definition which ignores its evident meaning. No trickery based upon a technicality should be tolerated. The definition presented must be so reasonable that everyone concerned (with the possible exception of one’s opponents) will willingly admit its validity.

_4. Narrowing the question._

The next step in the analysis of the question is to narrow it down to the points which must be proved. Now that the meaning of the question is well understood this task ought not to be difficult. Nevertheless it demands the most earnest efforts of the student. There are two steps in this process, (a) Excluding irrelevant matter, (b) Admitting matters not vital to the argument.

(_a_) _Excluding irrelevant matter._

The first task is to cut away all surplusage. The proposition as it now stands, should be closely examined in order to determine just what must be proved. Neither the affirmative nor the negative should undertake the burden of proving more than is necessary. In the discussion of the proposition “Resolved, that Prohibition is preferable to High License,” it is not necessary for the affirmative to prove that temperance is a virtue. The task before these debaters is to show only that prohibition is preferable to high license as a method of dealing with the liquor traffic. It is not necessary for the negative to attempt to prove that temperance is not a virtue; their task is to show only that high license is preferable to prohibition. It is true that temperance as an abstract virtue is very closely related to the subject-matter of the proposition, but it is not one of the real points at issue. When the question has been narrowed down to the method of dealing with the liquor traffic, each side may prove this point in the way which appears most effective. Each may assert that its method of control is preferable because theory and practice show it to be better for (a) social, (b) political, and (c) economic reasons. Any other division of the subject which seems effective may be adopted.

It is evident from the above illustration that certain matters which are relevant to the general subject should be eliminated in order that the audience may understand just what must be proved. Everything that is not relevant to the proposition as stated should be excluded.

(_b_) _Admitting matters not vital to the argument._

Since the debater should not attempt to prove more than is necessary he should admit, in the beginning, such matters as may be admitted without detriment. Great care should be exercised at this point; nothing should be admitted the full bearing and significance of which the debater does not understand. Only matters which may be admitted with safety should be included. Otherwise an opponent may seize upon the admitted matter and turn it to his own advantage. Furthermore, the language used in making an admission should be carefully guarded lest an opponent ingeniously attach to it a meaning which was not intended.

With these cautions in mind it is well to continue the process of narrowing the question by admitting matters not vital to the argument. These admissions should be made in the beginning in order that they may appear in their true light as free admissions. For example, in the last question discussed both sides may safely admit that neither plan will wholly eliminate intemperance. The object is to adopt the plan which will minimize the effect of this evil. In the question, “Resolved, that physical valuation of the property of a corporation is the best basis for fixing taxation values,” the affirmative may safely admit that no basis for fixing taxation values will work absolute justice to all tax-payers. This places the affirmative speakers in position to make plain to their hearers that the method advocated will come nearer to the goal of absolute justice than any other plan. In advocating any reform it is usually best to admit that it is not a cure-all for existent evils, but that it will remedy such evils to a greater extent than any other measure.

In conclusion, it is well to remember that these admissions and exclusions should be made plain rather than elaborate. They should be stated in the introduction of the argument with such brevity and clearness that the audience will realize that it is being led directly to the vital issues.

_5. Contrasting the affirmative arguments with those of the negative._

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 Immigration should not be further restricted, because restricted, because

I. It is a detriment to the I. It is a benefit to the country, for country, for 1. We now admit extreme 1. The worst elements are now socialists and excluded. anarchists. 2. They form undesirable 2. They are soon assimilated. groups of foreigners in the congested parts of cities. 3. They lower the standard of 3. They furnish examples of living of the American thrift to American workman. workmen. 4. Many of the immigrants now 4. They ultimately become good admitted do not make good citizens. citizens.

II. The present laws are not II. The present laws are satisfactory, for satisfactory, for 1. Black Hand societies show 1. No law would exclude all that undesirable persons undesirable immigrants. are admitted. 2. Diseased persons are 2. All persons having admitted. contagious diseases are excluded. 3. Steamship lines help to 3. Custom house officials are evade the immigrant laws. diligent in enforcing the laws. 4. Paupers are admitted. 4. Paupers are not admitted.

III. We do not need all the III. We need all the immigrants now immigrants now coming to us, coming to us, for for 1. The great necessity for 1. We need them to develop our laborers to develop our natural resources. natural resources has passed.

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.

III. The main issues.

The process of analysis with which we are dealing has revealed the main issues of the proposition. It now becomes the duty of the debater to arrange the issues in logical and climactic order. The most forcible array of argument should come at the end. For example, in the question just analyzed the logical as well as the climactic order of arrangement for the main issues on the affirmative would be as follows:

I. The present laws are not satisfactory.

II. We do not need all the immigrants now coming to us.

III. Immigration (under the present system) is a detriment to the country.

This analysis should be the result of a thorough study of both sides of the whole proposition. If the task has been well done no change in the essential elements of the analysis will become necessary. However, as the investigation of the subject progresses, and the work of collecting evidence leads the student into a more intimate acquaintance with the proposition, it may be found advisable to make some alterations in the analysis first written out. Such alterations should be made only after careful deliberation, for it often happens that, in investigating a subject at close range, one loses the broad general view which is necessary to an intelligent analysis. It may even become necessary for a beginner to change his entire plan after he has made a more thorough investigation of the subject. In such an event the work originally spent in analysis should not be regarded as lost, because it is absolutely necessary that the student have some definite plan as a basis for his investigation. If it does no more than show him that he is wrong, the time spent on it cannot be said to be wasted. In any event, the student should keep his mind open for the reception of ideas which will make his analysis clearer, briefer, and more forcible.

EXERCISES IN ANALYSIS

1. Write out a complete analysis of one of the local questions phrased for Exercise 1, Chapter II.

2. Show the importance of the origin and history of the question in the analysis of each of the following propositions:

(1) Three-fourths of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in all criminal cases.

(2) Public libraries should be open on Sundays.

(3) The growth of large fortunes should be checked by a graduated income tax.

(4) United States senators should be elected by direct vote of the people.

(5) National party lines should be discarded in municipal elections.

(6) The membership of the national House of Representatives should be considerably reduced.

3. Define the terms which need defining in the above propositions. From what source or sources should these definitions be taken?

4. Write out a complete analysis of one of the questions given under Exercise 2.