The principles of argumentation

Front matter

THE PRINCIPLES OF

ARGUMENTATION

BAKER AND HUNTINGTON REVISED EDITION

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. NATURE OP ARGUMENTATION 1

II. ANALYSIS 14

Chapter I The N4ture Of Argumentation

No man can escape thinking. At times he must face questions on which it is vital to his happiness or success that he should think clearly; at times, too, it will be essential to his own welfare or that of those dear to him to be able so to present the result of his clear and cogent thinking as to make his hearers act as he wishes. Herein lies the importance of Argumentation for all men. But any one who has tried to make another person act in some particular way knows that he has often failed, even when feeling strongly the rightness of what he advocated, because he could not convey to the other person his sense of its rightness, or, even when the desirability of the act was admitted, could not move him to do it. Too often the root of the difficulty is that, though the speaker feels strongly on the subject, he has not thought clearly on it.

What is more common than the sight of grown men talking on political or moral or religious subjects in that off-hand, idle way, which we signify by the word unreal ? " That they simply do not know what they are talking about" is the -spontaneous, silent remark of any man of sense who heard them. Hence such persons have no difB.culty in contradicting themselves in successive sentences without being conscious of it. Hence others, whose defect in intellectual training is more latent, have their most unfortunate crotchets, as they are called, or hobbies, which deprive them of the influence which their estimable qualities would otherwise secure. Hence others can never look straight before them, never see the point, and have no difiiculties in the most difficult subjects. Others are hopelessly obstinate and prejudiced, and, after they have been driven from their opinions, return to them the next momeTit without even an attempt to explain why. Others are so intemperate and intractable that there is no greater calamity for a good cause than that they should get hold of it. . . . I am referring to an evil which is forced upon us in every railway carriage, in every coffee-room or table-d'hote, in every mixed company.^

Argumentation is not contentiousness. At the outset it should be understood that argumentation is not what too many people think it, — contentiousness, that is, discussion carried on " with no real expectation of changing anyone's opinion. Such are most of the partisan speeches in legislative bodies: speeches for or against a tariff or other party measure are in most cases merely attempts to put the other side in a hole ; to establish such a dilemma as will make the majority or the minority, as the case may be, appear inconsistent or absurd, or to show them up as the foes of honest labor. In such kind of argument the height of success is to make it indecent for the majority to proceed ; if the majority is really solid, such success is rare. So the common run of stump speeches, which pass by the name of argument, are argumentative only in so far as they are efforts to rouse the voters from indifference. In short,

1 Idea of University. Newman. Preface, pp. xvii-xviii. Longmans Green & Co. 1888. '

. ARGUMENTATION IS NOT CONTENTIOUSNESS 3

many modes of speech are contentious which are not argument. When you look for the reason why they do not rise to such dignity, you will find that it is because they are not expository. For the essential part of every argument which is worthy of the name is that it offers to the reader an explanation of the facts, a theory or a policy, better, more rational, more thorough, or more for his personal advantage — than that which he or somebody else has maintained." ^

The following newspaper comment on part of President Roosevelt's letter accepting the presidential nomination, 1904, illustrates contentiousness.

The President has but little to say on changes in our currency laws. It is all covered in six lines, which run as follows : " The record of the last seven years proves that the party now in power can be trusted to take the additional action necessary to improve and strengthen our monetary system, and that our opponents cannot be so trusted." It may be noted that the President goes back only seven years ; evidently even he admits that prior to that his party was almost as untrustworthy as its political opponents. His party certainly did not" have any leader who could be trusted to labor as diligently and efficiently for the retention of the gold standard as the Democratic President, Grover Cleveland.

The words "improve and strengthen," which the President uses, may, like charity, cover a multitude of sins. He takes no definite stand either for or against the numerous schemes for currency inflation that have been proposed by Eepublican secretaries of the treasury in the last two administrations. Does " improve and strengthen " mean a declaration in favor of asset currency ? If so, the gold standard is far safer in

1 The Forms of Prose Literature. J. H. Gardiner, pp. 61-62. Charles Scribner's Sons. 1901.

the control of Judge Parker. Or does it mean that the President has no views of his own worth expressing on the currency and that he merely included this one sentence in his letter so that he might later adopt the policy outlined for him by the Eepublican members of the Senate finance committee ? Those senators, it may be remembered, labored all through the summer of 1903 to map out a policy that would be acceptable to the banking interests and at the same time not be antagonized by those who do not care to see the governjnent grant further privileges to the banks. We made the prediction at that time that no financial legislation would be enacted prior to the national election of 1904. After that election, however, if the Republicans are continued in power, an attempt will unquestionably be made to change our financial laws, and if the changes should run in the line proposed by the Eepublican secretaries of the treasury, they might easily prove a serious menace to our currency. Yes, even to the retention of the gold standard.

Compare the contentiousness of the preceding with this strictly argumentative excerpt from a speech of Carl Schurz.

Mark well that all these evil consequences are ascribed to the demonetization of silver in the United States alone — not to its demonetization anywhere else. This is to justify the presentation, as a suf&cient remedy, of the free coinage of silver in the United States alone, " without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation." This platform is amplified by free-coinage orators, who tell us that the act of 1873, called " the crime of 1873," has surreptitiously " wiped out " one half of the people's money, namely, silver; that in consequence the remaining half of our metallic money, namely, gold, as a basis of the whole financial structure, has to do the same business that formerly was done by gold and silver together ; that thereby gold has risen to about double its former purchasing power, the gold dollar being virtually a 200-cent dollar ;

ARGUMENTATION IS NOT CONTENTIOUSNESS 5

that the man who produces things for sale is thus being robbed of half the price, while debts payable on the gold basis have become twice as heavy, and that this fall of prices and increase of burdens is enriching the money changers and oppressing the people.

Are these complaints well founded ? Look at facts which nobody disputes. That there has been a considerable fall in the prices of many articles since 1873 is certainly true. But was this fall caused by the so-called demonetization of silver through the act of 1873 ? Now, not to speak of other periods of our history, such as the period from 1846 to 1851, everybody knows that there was a considerable fall of prices, not only as to agricultural products — cotton, for instance, dropped from $1 a pound in 1864 to 17 cents in 1871 — but in many kinds of industrial products, before 1873. What happened before 1873 cannot have been caused by what happened in 1873. This is clear. The shrinkage after 1873 may, therefore, have been caused by something else.

Another thing is equally clear. Whenever a change in the prices of commodities is caused by a change in supply or demand, or both, then it may affect different articles differently. Thus wheat may rise in price, the supply being proportionately short, while at the same time cotton may decline in price, the supply being proportionately abundant. But when a change of prices takes place in consequence of a great change in the purchasing power of the money of the country, especially when that change is sudden, then the effect must be equal, or at least approximately so, as to all articles that are bought or sold with that money. If by the so-called demonetization of silver in 1873 the gold dollar, or the dollar on the gold basis, became a 200-cent dollar at all, then it became a 200-cent dollar at once and for everything. It could not possibly be at the same time a 200-cent dollar for wheat and a 120- cent dollar for coal, and a 150-cent dollar for cotton, and a 100-cent dollar for corn or for shovels. I challenge any one to gainsay this.

Now for the facts. The act of 1873 in question became a law on the 12th of February. What was the effect ? Wheat, rye, oats, and corn rose above the price of 1872, while cotton decliued. In 1874 wheat dropped a little ; corn made a jump upward; cotton declined; oats and rye rose. In 1875 there was a general decline. In 1876 there was a rise in wheat and a decline in corn, oats, rye, and cotton. In 1877 there was another rise in wheat carrying the price above that of 1870 and up to that of 1871, years preceding the act of 1873. Evidently so far the 200-cent dollar had not made its mark at all. But I will admit the possible plea, that, as they say, the act of 1873 having been passed in secret, people did not know anything about it, and prices remained measurably steady, in ignorance of what dreadful things had happened. If so, then it would appear that, if the knowing ones had only kept still about it, the gold dollar would have modestly remained a 100- cent dollar, and nobody would have been hurt. But, seriously speaking, it may be said that when the act of 1873 was passed we were still using exclusively paper money ; that neither gold nor silver was in circulation, and that therefore the demonetization would not be felt. Very well. But then in 1879 specie payments were resumed. Metallic money circulated again. And, more than that, the cry about " the crime of 1873 " resounded in Congress and in the country. Then, at last the 200-cent gold dollar had its opportunity. Prices could no longer plead ignorance. What happened? In 1880 wheat rose above the price of 1879, likewise corn, cotton, and oats. In 1881 wheat rose again, also corn, oats, and cotton. In 1882 wheat and cotton declined, while corn and oats rose. ■ The reports here given are those of the New York market. They may vary somewhat from the reports of farm prices, but they present the rises and declines of prices with substantial correctness.

These facts prove conclusively to every sane mind that for nine years after the act of 1873 — six years before and three years after the resumption of specie payments — the prices of

CONVICTION AND PERSUASION DISTINGUISHED 7

the agricultural staples mentioned, being in most instances considerably above 1860, show absolutely no trace of any such effect as would have been produced upon them had a great and sudden change in the purchasing power of the money of the country taken place ; that it would be childish to pretend that but for the act of 1873 those prices would be 100, or 50, or 25, or 10 per cent higher ; and that, therefore, all this talk about the gold dollar having become a 200-cent dollar, or a 150-oent dollar, or a 125-cent dollar, is — pardon the expression — arrant nonsense.^

Conviction and persuasion distinguished. In brief, argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of another person acceptance of ideas held true by a writer or speaker, and of inducing the other person, if necessary, to act in consequence of his acquired belief. The chief desiderata in argumentation are power to think clearly and power so to present one's thought as to be both convincing and persuasive. Conviction aims only to produce agreement between writer and reader ; persuasion aims to prepare the way for the process of conviction or to produce action as a result of conviction. In pure conviction one appeals only to the intellect of a reader by clear and cogent reasoning. In persuasion one may produce desired action either by arousing emotion in regard to the ideas set forth or by adapting the presentation of one's case as a whole or in part to special interests, prejudices, or idiosyncrasies of a reader. Pure conviction is best illustrated by the demonstration of some theorem in geometry, — as that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Here all

1 Speech before American Honest Money League,, Chicago, September 5, 1896, Carl Schurz.

the explanation of truth given, that is, all the "proof," appeals solely to the intellect, and rests for its force on truths already known to the reader or acceptable as soon as properly stated. But this kind of demonstration of truth is clearly not argumentation in the ordinary use of the word, for in everyday life it can be duplicated only when the demonstrator moves freely, as in geometry, through a number of related ideas or principles, as true for his reader as for him, to a fresh application of one of the ideas or principles so clearly stated that it is at once convincing. This set of conditions may at times be found in the world of science among a group of men in whom all other interests and emotions are subordinated to eager desire for truth, but ordinarily the people with whom we argue have many prejudices or idiosyncrasies which make it difficult to develop our case unobstructed.^

1 The following illustrates an attempt to use the process of conviction only. " Madame Blavatsky was accused of having forged letters from a mysterious being named Koot Hoomi Vfhich vrere vyont to drift out of methetherial space into the common atmosphere of drawing-rooms. A number of Koot Hoomi's laier epistles, with others by Madame Blavatsky, were submitted to Mr. Nethercliffe, the expert, and to Mr. Sims of the British Museum. Neither expert thought that Madame Blavatsky had written the letters attributed to Koot Hoomi. But Dr. Eichard Hodgson and Mrs. Sidgwick procured earlier letters by Koot Hoomi and Madame Blavatsky. They found that, in 1878, and 1879, the letter d, as written in English, occurred 210 times as against the German d, 805 times. But in Madame Blavataky's earlier hand the English d occurred but 16 times, to 2200 of the German d. The lady had, in this and other respects, altered her writing, which therefore varied more and more from the hand of Koot Hoomi. Mr. Nethercliffe and Mr. Sims yielded to this and other proofs : and a cold world is fairly well convinced that Koot Hoomi did not write his letters. They were written by Madame Blavatsky." The Mystery of Mary Stuart. A. Lang. pp. 278-279. Longmans, Green & Co. 1901.

The way in which prejudice or idiosyncrasy might make it impossible to produce any effect with the paragraph just quoted will be seen if it be

CONVICTION AND PERSUASION COMPLEMENTARY 9

Conviction and persuasion complementary. Though persuasion, in the sense of emotional appeal, may appear alone ' as a paragraph, division, or even a complete speech

supposed that it is in a letter to a man who has a prejudice against all deductions from handwriting, believing them worthless, or to a person ■who has the idiosyncrasy that his handwriting has given him trouble because it is so much like that of several friends. In either case, the whole paragraph, if used at all, must be rewritten, with reference to the prejudice or Idiosyncrasy.

1 The following appeal forms part of a speech which is almost entirely persuasive. In the course of the debate on American affairs, November 18, 1777, 1/ord Suffolk, Secretary for the Northern Department, urged that the Indians should be used in the war on grounds of policy, necessity, and because "it was perfectly justifiable to use all the means that God and nature put into our hands." In protesting. Lord Chatham said: " These abominable principles, and this more abominable avowal of them, demand the most decisive indignation. I call upon that right reverend bench, those holy ministers of the Gospel, and the pious pastors of our Church — I conjure them to join in the holy work, and vindicate the religion of their God. I appeal to the wisdom and the law of this learned bench to defend and support the justice of their country. I call upon the Bishops to interpose the unsullied sanctity of their lawn ; upon the learned Judges, to interpose the purity of their ermine, to save us from this pollution. I call upon the honor of your Lordships to reverence the dignity of your ancestors, and to maintain your own. I call upon the spirit and humanity of my country to vindicate the national character. I invoke the genius of the Constitution. Prom the tapestry that adorns these walls, the immortal ancestor of this noble lord frowns witli indignation at the disgrace of his country. In vain he led your victorious fleets against the boasted Armada of Spain ; in vain he defended and established the honor, the liberties, the religion — the Protestant religion — of this country, against the arbitrary cruelties of Popery and the Inquisition, if these more than popish cruelties and inquisitorial practices are let loose among us — to turn forth into our settlements, among our ancient connections, friends, and relations, the merciless cannibal, thirsting for the blood of man, woman, and child 1 to send forth the infidel savage — against whom ? against your Protestant brethren ; to lay waste their country, to desolate their dwellings, and extirpate their race and name with these horrible hell-hounds of. savage war — hell-hounds, I say, of savage war 1 Spain armed herself with bloodhounds to extirpate the wretched natives of America, and we improve on the inhuman example even of Spanish cruelty ; we or article, conviction, except in paragraphs, very rarely appears without persuasion.

Really, as the definition of persuasion already given suggests, the two are complementary, one being the warp, the other the woof of argumentation. He who addresses the intellect only, leaving the feelings, the emotions, untouched, will probably be dull, for his work will lack warmth and color ; and he will not produce action, for to accept something as true does not, in nearly all cases, mean to act promptly or steadily on that idea. He who only persuades runs the dangers of all excited action: that it is liable to stop as suddenly as it began, leaving no principle of conduct behind ; and is liable to cease at any moment before a clear and convincing statement of the reasons why such conduct is ill-judged.^ Ideal argumentation would, then, unite perfection of reasoning, that is, complete convincingness, with perfection of persuasive power — masterly adaptation of the material to interests, prejudices, and idiosyncrasies of -the audience, combined with excitation of the emotions to just the extent necessary for the desired ends. The history of argumentation shows that usually conviction is preceded or followed by persuasion, and that often the very exposition

turn loose these savage hell-hounds against our brethren and coiuitrymen in America, of the same language, laws, liberties, and religion, endeared to us by every tie that should sanctify humanity." Per the whole speech see Appendix.

1 The first part of the speech of Antony (Julius Cxsar, III, 2) is vivid and stirring, and Antony takes care not to cease until the mob has found an object upon which to vent its excitement ; but had Brutus, instead of balancing clauses and dealing in vague statements as to Casar's wrongdoing, shown cogently wherein his power was dangerous to Rome, Antony's words would have lost a large part of their force. Antony, with nothing against him except vague charges, skillfully turned from these .to stirring the hearts of his hearers by bringing out whatever in the life and the fate of Csesar could move their sympathies.

THE DIVISIONS OF AN ARGUMENT 11

which convinces is made also to persuade.^ All argument is really a dialogue ; " the other man " is always resisting, trying to block progress. Therefore a writer must remember that his test should not be : Am I stating this matter so that it is clear to me, so that it interests and stirs me? but Am I stating this matter so that my reader cannot fail to see wliat I mean, and must be stirred by my way of writing because I have so well understood his knowledge of it, his feelings about it, and his personal peculiarities? In brief, let a writer remember "the other man" in his work, and he can hardly forget that conviction and persuasion are not independent but complementary.

For purposes of instruction it will, however, be convenient to treat first the principles which underlie successful conviction and then those which make for effective persuasion; but a reader should never forget that this separation is artificial and made wholly for pedagogic reasons.

The divisions of an argument. An argument normally has three divisions, though they are rarely marked as such. They are the Introduction, the Argument Proper, and the Peroration.^

1 A fine specimen of blended conviction and persuasion Is Henry Ward Beecher's Liverpool speech in behalf of the Northern party in the Civil War. A blending of the two methods, with the emphasis on conviction, but so subtle that the persuasion helps to conviction, is Lord Erskine's "Defense of Lord George Gordon." Specimens of Aryumentation, pp. 154-178, 86-153. Holt & Co. For skillful handling of persuasion, see pp. 90, 94, 130, 151.

2 Though the adjective "forensic" means connected with courts of law, the noun "forensic" has recently, with teachers, come to mean a special kind of written exercise in argumentation. It is treated as if it could and should drill students only in the principles of analysis, structure, and the selection and the presentation of evidence. Consequently it is likely to be rigid and hard. It differs from every<lay work

The work of the Introduction usually is twofold, — to expound and to persuade. It phrases only what both sides must admit to be true, if there is to be any discussion, and states clearly what the question in dispute is. The final test of it as exposition is that it shall give a reader just the information which will make clear to him the development of the Argument Proper. But readers may be indifferent to a subject, hostile to it or the writer, or likely to be made hostile in the development of the argument. In any of these cases it will evidently be helpful at the outset to overcome or decrease the indifference or hostility, or to offset in some way the ill feeling the discussion may cause. Herein lies the persuasive work of the Introduction.

The Argument Proper also has a twofold work, — to convince by giving in literary form the evidence ifer which the case calls, and to persuade either by appeals to the emotions in regard to the ideas advanced or by relating these ideas to interests, prejudices, or idiosyncrasies of the readers.

The aim of the Peroration is to bring the argument to a full and perfect close. It also has double work to do, — to summarize the argument developed and to make the last persuasive appeals and applications.

Direct proof and refutation. The material with which a writer develops the argument itself divides into Direct Proof and Refutation. The first signifies the material of

in that not the interest of the student but the will of the teacher determines the choice of topic and in that the forensic is written not for a general audience but for the severe, if judicial, criticism of the instructor. It is the work of a teacher, when a student has, by writing forensics, mastered the principles just mentioned, to show him how an intelligent use of the principles underlying persuasion, and a vigorous style, may transmute the rigid forensic into a readable, persuasive address or article successfully adjusted to the peculiarities of some special audience. For methods of transmutation, see Chap. V.

THE FIELD OF ARGUMENTATION 13

all kinds with which a writer supports his own opinions ; the second means the material of all kinds which he offers against ideas urged in disproof of his main thesis or of any of the ideas advanced by him.^

The field of argumentation. For clear thinking, the first desideratum in good argumentation, it is imperative to know just what the topic under discussion means. This signifies ascertaining what is the point in dispute, and what ideas must be proved true (direct proof), as well as what ideas shown to be false (refutation), if a conclusion is to be reached. All this rests, first, on a process called analysis, and secondly, on study of the rules of evidence which distinguish good evidence from bad. But when these steps have been taken, appears the equally important second desideratum in good argument, — presentation of what you believe so that it shall be for other people both convincing and persuasive. For success in this it is necessary to understand structure (brief-drawing), the presentation of evidence, and the principles of persuasion. The first step, then, in argumentation is to master analysis.

1. Contentiousness. Let each student select from a cm-rent periodical or newspaper and bring to the class room a brief contentious speech or article.

2. Argumentation. Discuss with the class how some of these selections, or others chosen by the teacher, may be turned into argument.

3. Conviction and persuasion. Discuss with the class parts or the whole of Beeoher's Liverpool speech ^ or of Lord Erstine's " Defense of Lord George Gordon," ^ examining especially those parts in which conviction and persuasion are blended.

1 For illustration of Direct Proof and Refutation see Appendix. ^Specimens of Argumentation, pp. 154-178. ^ Idem. pp. 86-153.

Section 1 — What Analysis is

The true stating and settling of a case conduceth much to the right answer of it. — Sir Robert Berkeley, Justice of the King's Bench. State Trials. Howell. Vol. Ill, col. 1090.

Definition of analysis in argumentation. Analysis in argumentation is a process of investigation for a central idea or group of ideas. To analyze well, therefore, one must possess the power to make " an instinctive just estimate of things as they pass." Most men of the past and the present distinguished for argumentative skill have had this power so to grasp a subject as to see quickly and correctly the issues involved.

The importance of analysis. This analytical power was the chief cause of President Lincoln's early success as a lawyer and his later astonishing ability to understand mihtary situations and what they demanded. Mr. Lincoln's mind, it is said, " ran back behind facts, principles, and all things, to their origin and first cause, — to that point where forces act at once as effect and cause. He would stop in the street and analyze a machine. He would whittle a thing to a point, and then count the numberless inclined planes and their pitch making the point. . . . Clocks, omnibuses, language, paddle-wheels, and idioms never escaped his observation and analysis. Before he could form an idea

THE IMPORTANCE OF ANALYSIS 15

of anything, before he would express his opinion on a subject, he must know its origin and history^ in substance and quality, in magnitude and gravity. He must know it inside and outside, upside and downside. . . . He was remorseless in his analysis of facts and principles. When all these exhaustive processes had been gone through with he could form an idea and express it, but no sooner. He had no faith and no respect for 'say so's,' come though they might from tradition or authority. Thus everything had to run through the crucible and be tested by the fires of his analytic mind ; and when at last he did speak, his utterances rang out with the clear and keen ring of gold upon the counters of the understanding. He reasoned logically through analogy and comparison. All opponents dreaded his originality of idea, his condensation, definition and force of expression; and woe be to the man who hugged to his bosom a secret error if Lincoln got on the chase of it. . . . Time could hide the error in no nook or corner of space in which he would not detect and expose it." ^

Of Chief Justice Marshall's mind one writer says : " It is not very richly stored with knowledge, but it is so creative, so well organized by nature, or disciplined by early education and constant habits of systematic thinking, that he embraces every subject with the clearness and facility of one prepared by previous study to comprehend and explain it. So perfect is his analysis that he extracts the whole matter, the kernel of inquiry, unbroken, clean, and entire. In this process, such are the instinctive neatness and precision of his mind that no superfluous thought