DEDICATEDTO those alles and adversaries, at olege andl schoo}, ‘at Shearman & Seng ‘and National Review, ‘on radio and television, ‘who have instructed me inthe ineartof winning arguments “in my yout," sad his father," tok tothe aw, ‘Andargued cach ease with mile; ‘And the muscular strength, which gave tomy jaw, Has ated the resto my if.” Alice in Wonderland Lewis Carol HOW TO WIN ARGUMENTS William A. Rusheroni © 19819 ‘Wan A Ruhr rat Pres Anai? I “emboe Way Lint 2006 Anighareanet Pein te Une utes of Aenea ‘Teseston bhi 95 Varo rare Aner tb seamen wih Dey & Gay rary Congres Catling in Pubcon Dat uber am A 1 ee Orgel lbs: Garden City... ‘ener , Deter bddebating, 1 Tide, PNAS HOS st Sas Av Uniersy Peso Ames bons re poston 6 ee ‘set sh exh mein anc Nara Vises uber an Rede Commision FOREWORD ‘This book i an attempt to pat between cover, informally and with appropriate stations, most of what the author hat learoed sbout argumentation inthe course of afte devoted to arguing penon- ally, proesionaly, and politely. tis not, therefore, «formal tt on lg, o a igorousslentic survey of the prinbls of thetorig replete with Latin terms foreach ‘ype of fallacy. Soch taxonomic horbocks have thee uses; but this ‘wolume is ntended to enlighten and entertain the average American, and he or she wll rarely feel comfortable-or even be efective— pointing out toa spose or employer, ot opposing debater thatthe Inter sjust been gully of (sy) an ignratio elenchi ‘My qualifations for wilting this ook are to be found in my Iie history, and they are so comprehensive that they ocesonally state ‘en me. In easly 1937, atthe age of 23, {joined and was soon run- sing my high school debating club, aply called the Filbater. At Princeton, in 1940-2, T won the Hope Freshman Prize Debate and thea became a menbur, and Golly manage, ofthe Vanity Debate ‘Team, After the war [enrolled in Harvard Law School and on gid- tution spent seven and a hal years in the ligation department of Shearman & Stelng—then as now Well Stet’ largest law Sim. ‘Nest came seventeen months as special counsel to the Internal Seca. rity Soboommitee of the United States Senate. The remsning teenty-four yeas of my fe to date have been spent a publher of [National Review, America’s lading joural of conservative opaion. Inthe later capacity Ihave had numeovs ooasion to engage in fntramuralerguments with such redoubtable gladiators ax Willa F, Buckley Jt James Burnham, and the late Frank S. Meyer In ad- dition, as spokesman fo the conservative movement, {have argued fo that caus in just about every pubic forum avalble in the Amer‘When You Make a Mistake. ‘When Your Opponent Makes « Mistake. XX Various Kinds of Arguments. "The Informal Personal Argument. Arguing with an Institution. Organized. Arguments. Informal Organized Arguments. Formal Organized Arguments. Radio and Televison Arguments, ‘Arguing with Politicians. How to Cope with « Hostile Audience, ‘Manners of Speaking, Advice from a Few Experts. Index 238 33 335 4 37 350 a5 354 356 16 374 ah 399 I ‘WHY ARGUE? ‘Many people, perhaps mod, would be happy if they never had to ane at all. Certainly many wil goto almast any length to avid an argument if they posibly ean. Partly no doubt, thsi du to something very ik feat. Arguing after al almost by definition involves disesing, and some people simply cannot bring themselves to oer another person what they cexnerve to be the front of disagreeing with him. "Then again, a distaste for arguing may be Based simply om the can victonoften derived from experience—that one i key to lose. In soc ese there may be no aversion to arguing fer se quite the con: trary Bat in an argument the outcome depends ia pat on the sk ofthe protagonist, and pean Keenly aware of his lack of sk ‘may ikea general with « poody trained army, prefer retest to de fest Finally, opposition to the idea of arguing may be purely pile sophia, o,f you prefer, temperamental. There is a srt of serene pesonaity for whom arguing 6 simply not wort the trouble. The ‘Bish author Walter Sarage Landor expreed this above itll ati- tude engagingly in the fst line of a famous quatain: 1 tov ith none, for none was woth msi [Natwo Flow; and net to nature, at. 1 aed Both hands before the feof Iie, eins nd Tm ready to depart. ‘Whether the disinciation to argue is prychological, practical, ot philosophical, however, there ndoubedly do come times when we ‘eal fored to argue The pathologcally shy penon Sands himedt ‘compelled to defend one positon and thos (at lat by implication)trace The etn! nd indepen oie SEE pas Ne dt oon Lance band tbe Sehnert wi” ns tower soy at Bene ere tno nas es Te a wt scone ed tint we nd css soy pn arg whoa mag oh ln ton te oneal weeny sy wee The mtr neta ting ns eva eter venta See ays Wl a nd pn (Ss sat pr Ty sig eof 08 Se Sei testy ot ero an wach Stttiate tore af conmsatin es dey ‘Scot nhs ce wi orbs ot “fea pala the am fr esment ater nay cam he coon fx ene ak Bey ae sl yc ay Ye ie tg See nse sy gavpt mg snd ool) coontn ht ce exter pais ager on ee eerste it en estes me SECUE alle ftagenment oo mice et Sotelo i! utc ond STARE eter Se ade eid Sr foe ‘Sia (ie Ramen ped NN, nay nr roe) TM tei cena tse ir moming,teewe sat en Des ype lo be enn how fen Tee ose ue tts eg Se oe "en thw he lees can pss ht sary oa cn egy of pao ope mh em A SSEELES bet ys ln tn nwo ee ‘tng be wih eh on TPA X nag oath ot die ese selon ik te tt so of ns ne ‘ying in wait for him at the office, ‘var aot 3 ven if his work envioamest is oe ofthe ee one in which st temeats wth peopl abre and below on’ eve a he hierarchy ‘eer ecu bee all dens are made acudng t rank, he ‘mut stil eontnd with his equ. And, depending on the nate of 1s busines, his workday wil al faa, t a eater o eae ten all sos of encounters with outside Snividals sed onan ‘ats with whom the Besies most del~ach enous canying {is om potetl for diagromnent. Tn ation tossing the abrasions nessa fveved inhi {sb Mi X-and for that mater Mi X-mas cope every ay wih ‘whales of ewie penonel of one sat rather: posts el phone repaimen, wales, edbices, ey some of them with chips sStuted very loosely on thee shel. (pe hee to nominate 2 by long os the most gente bunch I have eer encoun. teed, New York Citys cbdivs Wianlg an epuent wth one sf these can therfore be an exhilarating eperzoce indo, ut the attempt should only be made by penoes posesing an intinte Snomlege of New York geoguphy, «lw degre, a pir of leather ngs, abd 8 mean steak) ‘nother whole catego of almost inevtble dageement = vole aand our posayeoconten with Astor In one fom x note: tai op, Oty Hall Inter Reese age In Spit ofthe ed itm Bat “You eae She City Hall” hae are tine when we must. Thr are even tines when on ez win sch an aguneat. The basi techgae for arguing with the vaio che Joo of goverment ae highly specie subdivision ofthe genet set of apunentatc, hover and wil scoring be deat wih a 4 selon all hee ove, Fall to most of us there wil sone later come tine when ‘re me aie to engage in sone moe formal pe of aumentton: ‘panel dscusion atthe lel PTA «radio of TV talkshow, «bu ess “pesetatin” et. Ata mininm, most parent wl tomedny Ive to advise ther air om how to wi oat lest pantcpte re specably in some highschool bate, Soc dications are sored ‘by more or less formal rules, and knowing the rales—and how to ‘ene rom them the eseatal St step toward nteligent par tiation.4 sow 70 Wa ARGUMENTS “Ther i, then, no practical way to avoid engaging in aguments to ‘certain extent One need not (indeed, ought not to) tek out > ‘ottnitis to arg; they wll Gd ws, never feat. But when cne does eyhen an argument becomes unavoldable—it will behoove ws to know afew practical rales aboot how to win, or at est bate to a dea. Tat wit thi book i also nt Tks nota conespondence cone in formal logs or even & ‘ook on the formal scence of argumentation, careflly distin tithing the Argument from Definition and the Arguneat fom Cit. ‘umstance, or spectying precio when to use the deadly reductio of baurdum. Such works have Wer plac, but they are not the book ‘America badly needs and Uat this seks to be: useful guide for laymen through the tickets of daly argumentation. ‘Before proceeding directly to cases, howeves, itis important to clear avay tome preliminary underbros: posible alternatives to ar fuing the purpose of arguing: and the arguer at type. I ALTERNATIVES TO ARGUING Peshaps the commonest altemtive to arguing i¢ negotiation and compromise, These are not, however, polar alternatives to arging: ‘Almost every negotiation leading to compromise is preeded and/or accompanied by that “statement oft case for or aunt something” ‘whichis the very definition of argumentation. Many an argument slowly resolves as the sues become defined and the partie’ repec- tive postions ae sated, into a search for common ground on which compromise can be based. Conversely, mote than ane negotiation ‘which everyone had hoped would reel a compromise has resulted instead in rdening of postions in which al that i possible the sort of argumentation that “clair the ies” Ifthe mater 2t stake i important enough to ws, we wil often de Cie to tum the conduct of the whole controversy over to a prof sional argue: Le, a lawyer. For tat after al x what a lawyer fan Aamently is: a pen hired to argue somebody es’ case. I the English courts of the Midale Ages perion with a complaint (or someone who had been complained spans) cignally pleaded his ‘own east, Gradually, however, inarticulate or ignorant Hgats fell into the habit of seeking the help of profesional pleders who hung around the courts, thereby becoming fair with the proedares, the odes, the wets avaiable to remedy partiesar wrongs, ee Ine italy, asthe mumber and exmplesty of laweuts grew, the whcle process tended to become incresingly bareauemtized. The profs ‘onal pleader became not mecely a convenience, but 2 downright ne- cesity to his client and szarcely les, tothe fe. At lst the fds ‘would consent to hear only persons previously “adie to the bar” of the court—end lawyes: had established their monopoly.6 sow 30 wa ARNT [A modern lawyer, the, is primarily and supremely a profesional axgoer He wil listen to his len cate 2nd qucty identity ts chiet points—and its weakness, i any. He wil usally ave afar beter ‘ea than the lent of ow bet o proceeds by negotiation by 2 law- suitor by sil other means Standing abit to one side ofthe contro ‘ey, he will ndinasily be abe to ring valuable objectivity to bear ‘on it Countess ae the cients who have benefited from the wise ad- vice of experienced Iewyen—though, of coun, lawyer are fall, too, in all the ways known to out fallen race, “The beauty of putting 2 sions egument in the ands of « competent lvyer i that one i ented thereafter to fel reasonably ‘conden thatthe asgument wil be well eondocted, In al likelihood the level of ecimony will drop to near zero. Whether 2 lawsuit it Sled er not, the clin’ ze wil be analy carefully and stated as tall as the surrounding eteumetances permit. Ordinarily, the other ‘protagonist wl be tempted, or ompele, to reply onthe same dry ‘ational level, The poo wil continu i necessary nde rls Iid fdowa by the courts for sich stations, until the isucs are well etn, and all avable relevant eidence has been adduced (or is ‘muting inthe wings), and the nvyers ave made their final pess or ine realy to dos. Then, if the partis stil cannot sete thee argo sent amicably, « curt wil settle it for them. "Mich the se thing that we have soi about lawyers and courts apply to all those quastodiial groups and individuals—rbitaton ‘oar, baseball commisionas, mariage counselors ete—mbho ako specialize in refering other peoples’ arguments. By fr the most ‘ful end generally applicable variant ofthe speci, howeve, i the lwye, He isthe Inbrleant of society’ esental machinery, aking sure as far as posible that is pists mesh rather than dath, Or, 19 ‘ary the metaphor, he is sort of univer interpreter, making the swords of one speaker intligbe to another: Function truly esen- ‘il to any polyglot chviliation “However poetically we desclbe him though, the lawyer remains Dasclly a professional erguer a hie state of cases. And tempted awe might be to wish that every argument could be lft in his hand there are obviously ezcurstances in which we ourelves mst do the arguing. The disagreement may be too trv or for some caves 10 Ancor 7 ote apm fr weet mp. The ae fo tae ci oft rt ye : vc oe ob pr oad be mal ‘offended to see refered to a lawyer. 7 ™ " Sole, vbw ty ry do 0tany mate hen neti Son si eomproneofer ty asd expe fom eee fond ion seat esTr ‘THE BASIC PURPOSES OF ARGUING ‘Ths far we have proceeded on the impli astumption thatthe pu pose of arguing i to win: to state the cate for or against something $0 convincingly that we prea "Prevaling” in this context, may merely mean gaining another penon or groups asent to a given ropotiton; or it may involve inducing some patelar seton. ‘But ¢ moments refection will confi that people often have ‘other reson for arguing: unacknowledged or even uacoastoas tea tons that have ite or nothing to do with “prevaling” or winning” ‘We ounces are more sabject to imationl imposes than we usally realize or care to admit. And eve if we pesonally never argue for ny but the most pressing and jastisble of reson, we asuredly ive sna world where plenty of other people do. In order to prevail over ‘our advemy it is important to understand his real reason for argu- nga reason of which he himself may be wholly unaware. ‘One ofthe commonest restons people argc, aside from a tecous need to prea i simply to work off hei aggression. Most of us live in an environment that, in one way or another, exowés us too ‘loely from tine to time. We are surrounded by too many people, or put under to great ine pres, o cll upon to peror at level eyand ont capacity. We ere abused or treated unfaily or ee ee ee react to one of those disagreeable expences by resenting it, When the accumulated resentments reach « high enough level, we may erupt in one tection or in another: inward upon ourselves, or ont ward upon oor family, frends, and colleagues, by picking an argu tment Out acounulated resentments become displaced onto the ‘um muse Ponvoees oF sncume ° nominal subject of the srgument, which frequently tas into = shooting match, Yet afterward oae or both putes may fee! a great dal beter: The argument cleaved the ai. More acarately, i clered the bie dt. 1 myself remember engaging regully in his sot of porgative ar gument when I was serving at U.S. Ait Force Headquarters in Cl cata in apg4-g, Twas the verest havea, having worn the gold Tur ofa second lieutenant for les than ayer. The ose of my 386 tion was a major from Alabama with a bandit moustache and gen: eal cultural level refectiv shall we sy, of his Background milieu ‘We were both oppresed by Caleuti' eat, oy toe in India at al, and just generally orervweked And thus it Became a situa, st Jest fora while that every moming punetaly a nine I would wall ‘over to his den and we would ave an argument. As the junior par et in these fstivitis I took care not to path the majors patience too fa; bu it soa became clea that he wae getting as mich out of these sessions as Tyas have loag sce forgotten what ou dgptes vere nominally aboatpresunbly ome apet of rupply, which wat the chef concem of my section—but it doest mater. BY 935 We ‘nad both worked our adrenalin up to the operating level and were ready fr the dy. Some people, of couse, accumulate resentments more quicly than other and dlschage them more easly through arguments. ‘That are in aditon, plenty of people who are jst “naturally ag resi,” end employ the same technique to work of thee aparenive {impulses safely and conveniently. Yam probeby one of thes, and soother is Chris Morgen, the couly Southern iberal who was for yeas the Washington Director of the American Civil Libris Union, Fora time Chale and I were both under contract to argue reg Iuy on the “Face OF" miat-debates on ABCTV's “Good Moring, “America” One moming Charlie was aegulng some point of public paliy that gave him the opportnity to lash out atone of his favor. ite targets: business corportins I think Anyway, T recognized is tine of argument 25 one that gare im quite a bonus in jolie that had litle to do with the el mest ofthe ease, Desig to imply as such for the Benet ofthe eudience, I tuttuttd hi attack on oe-portions as penonally motivated, and then advised him esply to Work out yoot neseses om your own time” eis one measure of Challe Morgans greatness that he didnt even ‘other to deny the implication, He mecely chocled and seid st rec, “E Tid that, weed be eve al day” ‘Ately tremendous nomber of arguments then, from the house hol varity all he way upto congressional debates, ae fueled much ‘nore extensively than is sometimes realized by this ned to work off sggresions. There if nothing wrong with thy or at last nothing that can ordinaily be done to prevent i bat we ought to be quick to recognize i, fa oumeles or other, if only because it a waste of time to squander a Tot of heey loge on situations that are simply not designed to respond to purely Toil treatment. “Another frequent seton for arguing (othe than winning) ad an cremelyweful ong en order to caly an issue or problem, This ies from “earing the alt” dicused above, which involves hie the ventilating of emotions. However, many a knotty problem thas buen weflly eanied bythe process of argumentation—often, though not always, to the point where it simply dlsppeas ‘This happens all the tein those most sitwalied and systematic fall arguments: Iasi. The vast majority of lawsuits never get to ‘eal tall and this is very Inge due to the earefl procedural steps that ae preserbed before etl cn begia—aich serve to aify the isues. Let me describe these procedures; they ae not fonda ‘meatal diferent from what goes on more informally in many ass stylized argument. "The plan in typical lawsuit Sles a “complaint specifying ‘what he alleges as happened and why he ought tobe avarded aver it for money damages agnnst the defendant. The defendant les fan “answer? ordinal admitting some of the facts alleged by the Plaintiff and denying othes. He often also alleges futher facts not ‘mentioned by the plant. This process goes on, back and fort, ‘ometimes with the pleintif fiog one or more “amended com: Plains” and the defendant Sling a simflar sexes of “amendel an wer” nil the facta sues really in dispute stand out sharply. At ‘this pont if judge sated thatthe plants allegations would, 4 proved, entitle him to s judgment aginst the defendant, the press of “pleading” is considered complete, "Til i stil faraway however The next tags oriary, 2 exer of “examinations before tua” in which attorneys foreach de probe the case that wil be offered by the other: by inspeting his records, and questioning his witness under oath. The purpose hee isto 2. ceattain how sold the opponet’s case really and, ellterly, to find ont jst how weak or strong one’s own case tay be tis quite extaordinary how educational and sobering this proces canbe. A quarter of a century ago when Twas an aso in the lit tation department of Wall Stee’s largest law fim (then called ‘Shearman & Steling fe Weight), spent over three year asthe most junior member of @ theeeman team defending the National City Bank of New York against 2 Iva for $,200000 bought by Tabs: Cale, 2 Spanish corporation with vast saga and tobacn holdings in the Philppines. One of the absolutely ewentil allegations in Taba Galen's complaint guist National City was that Tabocalera hod Ind no independent leg advice concering a certain transaction. 19 the coune of our “examination before trial” of Tabacaler's wit roses and records, however—an examination far more extensive tnd intensive than Tabocalen’s own sttomeys had made—ve came upon a ele from Tabacalen's home ofc in Barcelona to its loca fice in Mana squarely quoting the avie of lawyers in Spin com cxming the transaction in queston.* "The discovery and claonure ofthat sgl cable—which was jst one of ofr twelve hundred documents we exacted from Tabacler {in the cone of a fourteen month “examination defor tial"—ended the ease: Tabacale setled the suit by paying the defendant, No tional City Bank, Svesats ofthe late?’ $0,200 counterclaim! ‘But arguing forthe purpose of carfcation—o at any rate with the consequence of elatisetion—in't confined to courtrooms. AS 8 rp pn gt “Bi cl tec es‘matter of fet, far more diggcements inthis world are based on, ‘Simple factual mirndertandings than on tre dferences of any sort, andthe former ten to evaporate swiftly when the proces of ar izing reveals and cares the misanderstanding. One ofthe very few ‘sharp veel aches [have ever had with my colleague Bil Buckley tose a3 a ret of such a misonderstanding "As owoer and editor of National Review, Buckley rightly ves his personal attention tothe magazine's color coven, which, of coun, Ihave a major effect omits looks sod impact in prey editorial tems. [hs National Review's publchec T have an equally ively interet in ‘the subject, sine both craton and advertising cn be afeted by the coves to. ‘A god many yeas ago controversy aie because certain people cover on the editorial side wanted something conceming the covers Gone in a pacar wey (Franky, I've forgotten how). The man ‘who was then onr advertising manager had what seemed to him ‘rully cogent reason for wanting it done another way. Both ses sppealed thee ease up the chain of command, until the aqoabble reached Buckley and me. At that pont Bl and I confered amis- by, amived at a attatory compromise, and forgot aboot it "A Yow days Iter the advertising manager (let's call him Jobn Jones) tld me in e fry theta cerzin editor (herinafter, Jack Smith) ad just informed him thatthe covers woud, after al, be done the editorial departments way, Buckley having thus decret that ver aftemoon Tpromply phoned Bil end tld him in my most ac tone that, if hereafter he decided to overturn such agreements between us, would appreciate the courtry of atleast being noted. [Bil replied, drop for hydrochloric drop, that he dat know what 1 ‘va talking sbout and would I care to go lie down somewhere unt I recovered my poise? I snapped back tat, insted, I woul get to the bottom of preily who was saying what to whom. Buckley: “Plewe def" We bong up simultaneously. "summoned Jones and Smith and marched both of them stright into Bocble’s ofc. ‘osm to Joss: “Did you or dia't you tell me tht Smith sid Bockey had decided thus and so?" Ses era a ares 8 2s ts ty a Ba a ee Sr, Wel ot nay Ait hy ils ec wha Day a say 5 Sh Sah ei Date Sol ure, Te te ef then nee dentin ac Se htc het oni oe tv art ay 0 wl wong Se io Soap so Sai doe hee sms he et 3 va 1 Ou ete tite sidered ey say Cbd Bos Iylet'cs ny a ems cin a tow nm cry eh sy Se apts pvt ne a pe Bee Sy pa (sw dns eg) ord ly ‘her minoseaning at sug teh ut oy ter {sled avy ong he raph aioe an tam healt oni” es um yt lhe pw of wig hen ve en ed Goto tt mate ee ee Sings ele ete fer en il ep tarot tn! dee oe theo een ef roomate po cd te ng toe ‘to ro te gy wsag tt mr fl ag Yen nay th store Magi np emer Sha sed ete any pet eed ar fo the te alg ng”Iv ‘THE ARGUER AS A TXPE ‘A peron not fond of arguing i likely to pect thst some people havea natural proclivity for argument: They enjoy it are good at it, frequently engage init and tend to “win.” How tre is thi, and—it ‘tue—what dot i imply for shse who are not “natural argues”? 1 think it best to recognize at the outst that some people do in- ded havea special Knack, of bent, for arguing. Arguing i afterall, imply one subdivision of the necessary human function of com- ‘uniting. On the law of sverages, some people wil be Detter than others at this particular subdvsion-—jost at other people wil be bet ter at other subdivisions: They become ovr orton, poets ee. For that matter, ome people wil be better communicators in general jm ae some wl be better paintes, musicians, engines, ches. That {4 no tenon (as we shall sce below) why a person not matully skilled in arguing shoald throw in the towel when confronted with ‘an adept, Its enough merely to note the fact that adep’s exist. "What makes one persona more skilful argues than another? The ‘relevant attbates fll nto two extepores: natural and acquired. ‘Among the natal tubules of skilled argues, one ofthe com- rmonest and mast important is an exceptionally quick mind. Many yeas ago Bill BueKley tld me, “I don't think [ have an excep- tionally powerful mind, bat Ido think Ihave an exceptionally quick cone” Without derogatng the power of Buckley’ mind, whichis not to be sneezed at, I believe he was comeet: His mind moves with ex ‘tsondinary mpldity through the gangla of an argument—rejecting 2 dozen altematve contentions to choot the bet, frmalatng a witty ‘aterent ofthe choten postion, and blasting off ona fresh tack be- ‘rm sac As 4 re 5 fore his bewildered advenary can comprehend, lt alone answer, his print. ‘Moreover, please note that this sort of itz has al sot of cllat- cal advantages. If by any chance the position adopted wat not the bast, or at any rate sin fact vlneable,Bueley may be mies away and regalng the audience with an anecdote before his opponent can launch an offensive against the poston. If he insits on attecking it anyray, he wil sound ilevant st wort and plodding at best. elite to this natural gift of sped, and yet ditnet frm i is what might be elle ¢“oatually wellordred mind” Some people sem to have, independently of any traning they may have receved, sins in which there is place for everything and eveything iin ts place. Suck people tend to be intellects aim and rathee vigorous, thay ae comfortably aware of where chy ae, what is happening, ane (in tes of argumentation) what the tread of the dicaion is They are the presse opposite ofthe harumscarum,bicbeaned rmentalty alloted by comediant ofthe Phylis Diller pe ‘The powesor of such a wellorered mind wil typically ella ‘wandering argument to its basic theme with some soch remark a, “Thats not the poin” or “E thought we were dieusing . "of “What ae you sying?—tafe signs slong the oad of the ane ment, a it were. “Among acquired (es ditinguished from natural) sills in argumen- tation, one may note pois, clarity of thought and expression, a basic understanding of lg process, and «wings fo state the cae fora soundly considered view. Fist, poi, The peson who comes to an argument tose, lt lone jittery, sual eked before he begin. He mast have enovgh crnfidence in his cas, and in his ablity to presenti, to enable hin to conduct his side of the debate calmly and intligently. ‘This in tur (as we shall have occasion to noe repented in the chaptes ahead) means that he wil have to know his ase well enough to think about it aly and express his thoughts about it ith equal clay. [Next «person can and mutt sequire enough basi comprehension of logial proeses to ose them corectly and effectively. Ths eet entail taking a callegeevel couse in formal logie: On the6 sow 70 wot anon cotray, that canbe positively constipating inthe rughand-tanble ‘ofa typical informal argument. Luck, mast people lear, simpy in the proces of rowing up and rattling aoond, that the fat that B Inappened after A doci'tnecessay prove that A caused B (the fl lacy ost hoo ergo propter hoe), or thatthe fact that A hime di the ering wih be cotiisB det esl jt B it (tu quogue) eventhough it may debar A personally from ig tim 8 Finally, one can acquire the sort of detemination needed to enter, pattiipt in, and win an argument, Once opin it is largely a mater ‘of confidence bat confidence based on sound training an, later, on ‘owing experience. Sure, some poople are better “natraboro” argues than other “Weare dealing afer l,wth a matter osely related to the subject of one’s overall personality. Some people are simply endowed with ‘mote natural forte than others: One sees tis in iid operation in the cae of « Napoleon or even # Hitlershort, not tpially pre: possesing men; yet when they entered 2 room even lifelong pro fexional soles forgot thelr parse and submited to thes inate suthoty. Ta much smaller way, some people ase their natural gifts, offen quite wnconeioy, to win asent of overpower opposition to their edie, A penton not gifted can recognize that fact without exo pling before fe however, beose arguing i far more a mater of fequized than inate sil Propel trained, peso with no inate talent for arguing shouldbe ale to win quite a lot of his arguments, and to bate the world champion (whoever he or she is) to draw eo peroat of the time, “That traning is what this book proposes to give you. So don't be Alsconaged if arguing isn't your fote—even if yon have lost again fund agua when you felt deep ia yoor bones that you deserved to ‘vin. HE you deserved to—beleve me—you cin. Vv ‘THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENTATION Many people who are not competent erguer,epeilly those who (pethape not ealizing that fet) are forever geting into aruments anyway and losing, epparntly tink that wining an axgument ie basically jst a mutter of luck, Another lage group reals that ‘there's more toi than lek, but secretly belies that those who de- feat them are ust little more highly skied in the black ats of or toveal trickery. Both groups ar thus often tempted to “match with Aetiny fr bees," on the theory thatthe ods re at leat neatly ‘en. Both ae quite wrong, and the fst major leon in winning uments is to undestand this, ‘Lack or trickery may of couse win an argument every now and thea, bat no serio and sucess] anger would dream of relying on fither for 2 moment, Tasted, victory inthe vast majonty of arg. ‘ments goes to the arguer who has meet thoroughly analyzed the ise oc foes, and has rooted his postion in premises that are, for one reason or another, litzally unasaable, Ina way, therefore, apuing i rater lke playing ches: Vietory belongs to the contestant who sees mast deeply into the poston. ‘An since itis observable tat in grandmaster ches there ar large umber of draws (in Karpov 1978 match with Korchooi in Manis, the wold championship was won 6 games to 5, with a1 dra! it Should not surprise us that Between two competent argue there wll befor more contests fy seared as “daw” than there will be vie tovesleptimatelyasgnable to elter ie. ‘ostomy, howere, the analogy to ches i imperfect because8 sow 30 wae anaonarers (among othe: things) chess masters geesly look fr deeper into the poston, in terms of foreable moves, than even the ablest a ges can or necds to, A better analogy to arguing, in many way that childhly simple game, ticktacktoe. Ts there anybody left who does’ realize that 2 competent player simply cannot be beaten at tek-tacktoe?—that he will ther win or ‘ray, not merely most of the time but elvays? The point is easy to ‘demonstrate If oor man makes the fst move, he merely avoids pat= ting his X none of he comer guares. Any other squat wil dye XI ‘At this point, his opponent alzeady doomed either to Tse or (at best) draw, fhe puts his mark in one of the comers ofthe same x a oot man can force a raw by occupying the center square and the {ar comer in the same row 2s his opponents Git move 1. xe be Ifthe opponent puts his mark in one ofthe comers of the far 10%, ‘oer man can sil fore 2 draw by occupying the center square and then the vacant far comer: eee ex mise mwa OF suocesi, AnorTATION 9 1f the opponent puts is mark nthe mide quae of the ow op- poste our man's X, and our man occupies the center square on his teond move, the opponent is agin forced to draw by puting his second mark in a comer square of face dite: pe XS dans: XE tas. a ae Tf the opponent puts his fist mark in the center square, our man an similarly force draw by occupying one ofthe far comer squares iat #8 5 ie Convent, if our man goes second he can alway obtain a daw, titer at above if his opponent proceeds as outlined above for the fist move or by taking care to ocupy a comer square if his oppo- rent’ fint move Isto oecupy the center square: od Fa or by taking care to occupy the center squate and then a middle ‘que if is opponent opis to start from « comer jofot ope In shart, losing a game of ticktadk-toe is prof pastve that the lose made simple mistake of sme sort; with a itl Foresight, ii ‘lina posible to dean, no matter how able one's opponent.“The Beauty of arguing (and ts attreton for many logical minds) is that precely the same ie true of am argument: Properly oom duced, am angument should theoretically alays end in, at wort, 2 faye, in diferent evaluation of principles or an unresable iagrement at tothe facts. If it dott end this way—if one side “ving’—that is invariably beouwse the other side “made 2 wrong. move" either atthe outset o inthe couse of argumentation: is, relied upon either a piniple or «key fact that the opposition was able to undermine. ‘An illartaton even snplerdhan a game of tiktacktoe wil verve to ilustate the point If Me, Jones, ooking up from his newspaper, say to hia wife one evening, "Let's go out fora sto” Max. Jones ‘may sy, "Noy" thus launching an argazent—and then win it hands own by adding, “Ts raining” I its simplest form, this was an a ‘pument won by the tguer in passion of supeiorrelevaat facts) fata, (Mr, Jones ought to have loked out the window Gr) Tf Mr, Jones gets subbom and retorts, “T lke it when i rin” ‘Mim, Jones may merely weply, "T don't” She has thereby exploit ‘whet proved to be Me. Jones's further mistake in removing the whole Ceatioreny from the alm of objective fact to one of personal pel- ference she doe’ ike rai, andi familar principe that de gu tibus non eet diputondume “There's no arguing over tastes” "Me, Jonce may ty to get tia mintargument back on the tack by contending that “Sting fm the ria is good for yoa"—and aduc. ing at factual evidence an article he's red in the paper in which some doctors asserts on allegedly sient rounds, Mis. Jones may Jet hewef be pewuaded by this new factmal datum (in which se ‘Me, Jones "wing", or she may sucessfully challenge it vay (et ing an overwhelming numberof css, from Wiliam Henry Haron ‘on down, in which inclement weather proved fatal), or she may just ett sand on her own preference inthe matter. In the fist of the Teter to situations, Me, Jones loses on fatal grounds again, in the seoond, he lees ecatse ofthe principle that his preference hat no higher standing than his wife’ ‘Simple a it i thistle contretemps states the base stroctare of most, if not all arguments: A case to be argued pro and oon; the declaration of relevant principles the binging forward of facts! data relevant to am nteligent decision in the mat and the vi tte relation ofthe cantoven, ether bythe presataton of evr pnp andr acs, or by the retton of the ramen fo ‘le! inubenble to eter. Of cone, most argument ae atleast slightly more compited than the above but ther ompleity Hes ony in hr ever burden of relennt pines and/or fact data, An exelent example of fn arpuneat involving an almost incmectably Inge and compler aay of elevant factual data ite one over the SALT I ety. ‘The SALT I! argument parc interting era both Sides shared the same bs prince: A treaty with the Sot Union initing ste arm na bana! Gon woud be Ja tg bt the securty ofthe United Stats mast be protected a all coms in any tat catered into, Thee a tobe sie postions eds wth thi one a both etemes ofthe pot =petram. Some Conseratives would gue quite Srey tat the Unite Stats sme Diy owt neve, ply as mater of monly (i, pene), to foter into a wety with + Communist power. On the oter hand, there ar ulate! dsurmament advocates (1 once actually met one) who favor the United Stats jetsoning its whole armory of tlensve and defensive weapons ia the seo condense tat thi Youle asuage the fea ofthe Soviet Union tt woud flow suit, We may dag with ether or both ofthese pasitns, Bot thee int mech point sung oer hen Iie Mi. Jon's dite {or mi, they do not raond t dsreanetthey singly dey "The argument would in ether ese theoretically end in a daw, ere that the extreme ators of the conservatives pcp and the eid: ih quality ofthe wt faith wil a heey of many, pa thet hoe ov of out (Tis emo ws, ines, that 1 ually nt sient to beat erat to jst any old principle or alge fact, and ci they a technical ea inthe aagument ifthe objet ofthe age met in queion is “win by convincing ame tid indvideal or froup—ea. inthe case of SALT Th, the U8. Sete. The pine ive must have fat amount of appeal the facto, he cae of the uniter, the prdition—mrst ave some ered. I fd Mrs. Joes had submited thee dipte to some thd ary,wn amemgs ee cpa ee mhee nomen eT etoer ee Somiesen eres So cate Sar ene sereeee ana Sabin mivastmenats ee loa Sarasota Poptart Snr nc omeee Sea atre tees Screens Sreeteune Stone Sean eet eee seteseeetee: routes casa Sosa eats Sieyente hoon mare icaetanliy cary ero aos Seer SS e ar See genre See emieeee strating that Mrs. Jones's factual objection (“It’s raining”) may be seo ienrasecdeit one Soe ett amrtorae rae eae sere iterates on coe SS eae Saneret et sootentcansaace eer cari rec Se ese ‘Tm nisi FUNCEFLE oF suoeHsere,anctnemTATION 2 foot pale Either they are cared away by ther ow laid ent siasm for the point they wih to argu, or they sly gamble that their opponent wil not have the factual o pilosophies eilley to gn them down. This is roughly as sensible as attacking a burglar on the chance that he ig't armed. ‘What the above boils down to isa rule absotely basic to winning rgumeats: Never undertake to epue « case whoce fundementel principles and fotul support ae not known fo you i alvence, to De ufiont to guarentee ether victory o, at the very leat, «drew. ‘Winning an argument, then, i not ort any mate oh na oe, ren slightly w matter of lek or tickary. Every ease involves bast. cally two types of argumentation: Argumentation based upon funda mental piniples of one sort or another (whic, i valid and applica: ‘be, mast preva and whose validity and eppliability are thos the only dictions from which they can be stacked), and argumen tation based upon relevant factual data (which simiany canbe at tacked a either inacouate or imelevant). The competent arget wil have analyed the structure of his case, and will know which base principles he proposes to rest it on, and what factual data ae aval De in ts support: This will atomatclly tell him what the weak points of his cate are—and, of cous, both the weak and strong Points ofthe opposition. To the extent that ea, he wil sec to liminate any weak points in bis own case fhe cannot do soto 2 suficent extent, he wil modify or if necessary sbundoa the ese at the outset, rather than lose the argument once it hat bepon ‘A competent argue, therefore i ented to fala catinsereity before the argument even bepins. That is because the argument he hus chosen to enter is one he understands fly, and whose condet he is prepared for, with ufeient factual support or (i the faes do ‘ot point definitively in any one direction) on the bass of valid and ype pring Between two adverstes, without the need to persuade a third party the facts alone may da the job: Le, conve an opponent who started out feling otherwise. If they da't—if the Bate ofthe Facts is inconlusive—then the argument wil usually end in an "agreement to disagree” since neither side wil ordinarily yield omits rings,4 sow ro wt ancunanes ‘Where there is a third party to be pesuade, the facts may (again) be dese; bot if they are not, then everthing & Iikly to depend on how the third party evaluates the respective fit prin ples appealed to. Here agai, the competent axgur wil be condent ‘ofthe road appeal (tothe tied party) of the priacpes on which he bases his case. “Like the competent ticetschtoe player, the competent angoer hes left nothing to chance: He ents the arena knowing—end choose in ‘advance only arenas where he knows—that be can ether win of oo ‘Bat how doer he choose the areas? VI DEFINING THE ISSUE If choosing the postion wisely i the hey to sccusfal agumer tation then defining dhe ise the Sat and most important step in the argumentation process itl: ie, in the communications be tween the argues. It is probable that fall go pret of all argu tents are forall practical purposes over when this step bas been completed At that pont, whether bis opponent realizes it or not, the competent erguer has taken his stand on tetry he know to be lmpregnable, His principles ace valid and applicable; his fats are fclevant and true, All hat remains i to asatan how well Bs oppor rent has chosen. IF wisely, the argument is bound to end in what Ioounts to a draw—arually difference of opinion as to which of tvo vali peinciples ough to petal over the other. f unwise, then our competent sigur wil suify exploit the weaknesses in his oppo nents positon, and wi. Defining the isos, therefore, is obviously cial, ‘A god many years ago, when the coutrovesy over the Commu nt Party, the John Birch Society, ete, was at its peak, an organi tation in New York City inguned whether I woold be wiling to Achat Jcob Javits, the bere Republican senator from New York, ‘on the general subject. replied that I would be happy todo so. Fu ther negotiations through intermediary reveled that Javits too was ‘ot unwilling, povided the topic was, "s the Hard Right a Dangee to Amecca"—ith Javits presumably taking the afirmative, and me the vegative. Probably 2 good many people would ave accepted that formula tion ofthe topio—rth fatal results, For it petted only two poss ‘le outcomes: Hither the hard vght war a danger to America (ia6 ow 0 WN ANGUS which ease Javits won), or Ht was't—it was by implication merely 2 Irinor factor, whether malignant or Deniga, of no importance in any ‘ase. Tn the latter event, fr all practical parpoes, Javits at worst svould have achieved something like 2 draw, and ina sense might ‘ren be sai to have “won” Heads be won tal 1 lst! Or, to pat it in football tems it wat to be agreed in advance that the whole debate would take place between the soya line and my end zone. Jivits could sore if he was ale or lucky enough. 1 couldn't pos: ‘bly do beter than ld him scoreless. ‘Aecordingly, I reponded by dedining to debate the proposed topic, but ofered to debate intend the felling question: "Is the Heard Right or Hard Left the Greater Danger to Amesica?" Tis was far more evely balanced, since it gave me an equal chance to g0 ‘over to the offensive: to any the war into Javit’ tenitor, 20 to ‘pet, by contending thatthe hard left was a greater danger than the ard ight. Javits prompt desined to debate this topie—proving whatever ee it demonattated, that he woderstood very well the Gference between a balaned question and a lopsided pushover, ‘On another craion about that same time, 2 college Young Re- publican Clob on a Long sland campus asked me ifT would agree fo debate some iberal (tobe remit later) on that campus during ‘Academie Freedom Week. I sd T would, and noted the propo Gate on my calendar, In few day the YR's were back on the ‘phove, withthe good news that «table opponent had been found, the topic” the young man on the phone told me, “wil be ‘Acs demic Freedom’ He wil ake the afirmative, and you wil take the esti” “Whol” I practically shouted. “Tl do no soch thing. 'm not aupinst academe freedom, and I don't Inow any conservative who ‘The question op for dscasion thee dee is, how much academic freedom? Or tome vaiaton ofthat theme. For example, should an vowed (or unevowed) Communit be permitted to tach” Evento: flys formulation was agred on, but here again note how neay I ‘yeh maneuvered all anocenc, Iai sre, as fr a8 the YR spon ors were concerned into sprecing to defend an indefensible ps Ts absolutely fascinating to see how wooly many people ap- beroee nme see _ proach the formulation of interesting and important questions, Not too long ago former Senator Eugene McCarthy and I were sked to Aebate ata welEnowa southern college onthe topis, "The United ‘States in the 1980.” I promptly called Gene and teasinly peoposed that T take the affirmative: “TH! be forthe United States in the tos. You be against it” But Gene was't 9 easly lured, We icused ways of reshaping the tope 40 a to produce 2 balanced debate. I soeeste in view of the obvious typecsting by ou hots that we might argue “Is Liberal or Conseratim the Best Course for the United States in the 18a?" I fle perfelly at home with that formolation, but Gene did't. Whatever his position bad been inthe midg6ee, he did not now want to be charged with the tak of recommending Hbealsm, pure and simple, ab the course for “Aime inthe soos. Finally we agreed to dtu “Is Consent the Bat Couse for Ameria inthe 196” In a sense MeCthy (a he conceded) would have the better side ofthis sug since I would be commited to aguing fr a patcular viewpoint, with all the ac companying danges of seeming narow, parti, and gil ideclog- fea, wheres Gene cou attack me from any diction or combing- tion of directions he cose, including (but not exlsvely confined to) ler, Bot I felt this disadvantage was patilly coun- teralanced by having the entize bated shite, 0 to speak, in my dieton. Iwas in this respect in roughly the same potion Sena- tor Javits hadhsought to achiev for himsel: The whole game woald be played between the soyurd line nd my opponent’ end mone. MeCarthy might have acquired all the advantages of a defensive stance, bt it was hard fo See how he could score afmatively. My ‘own biggest danger, psnly, would be that implication of rigid ideo Joga party ia my own stance; T mould bate to overcome it by tonal tresses on my sexsonablenest. OF course, when a sponsor proposes 2 detate on “The United Sates inthe 198s" he often snot contemplating a debate per se. If pres, he wil frequently reply that he hadnt ceally intended to have“ formal debeto” (an argument, for heavens sake!) but eather something more like a panel ora dscuion-trating to the well ‘own (o at least esumed)diferenes between MeCarty's general views and mine to produce » peppery touch of dissgrement.8 ow 0 wit aucune ‘When I encounter that srt of respons, I know Tam in the pes ence of another xample of ou curent national diate for ought ftsetions. The sme fame of mind that precedes evry statement wrth the softening, peedosilicing “Like” and accompanies it vith a ingratiating “Jou know," shriaks from “a formal debate” in Imhich two worthy opponents square of and take pecsly opposite ‘des of carefully formulated question, Bot, the ast chapter dem ‘stated, modded thinking is not rely an effective Iobeiant for Giferences of opinion, Far more dagreemeats aise from muddled thinking then are ever resolved By it “That is why the old research arector of Generel Motor, Chris -F. "Bou" Kettering wa fond of saying, “A problem well sated is 2 problem half solved” In pare loi, that is technically not trae: Po {nga question well may prepare ifr scution, much a a patent in 4 bospial is carefully prepared for an operation, but it dosn't even ‘esin the aetoal procest of solving it. Nonetheless, experience had taught Kettering that an imprecise verbal formulation ofa problem crak be a deadly obtacle to what might otherwise be x compare tively simple solution. "An arming historical epiode will eve to lltrate thi point. ta the nineteenth century Britain spent goed deal of blood and tear te trying to free Ching, under its Manchu dynasty, to accept com- ‘mercial and other relations. The Chinese fought back stobborly. 2 her exelent book, The Dragon Empres, Marina Wamer some: ‘where remarks that the clision between the two great empires ‘ested on motual misonceptions: The British, drawing on thet ex perience of leer breeds” insted on treating the Chines as colo- Dial, while the Chines, acestomed to thinking of China as “the (Cental Kingdom,” regarded the Britsh as ebels, There never was, and in the dreamstanees pecbaby eould not be a mutally aged ‘pon and accurate statement ofthe problem, which was tht a tech: nologialy advanced European power in the ood tide ofits vigor tex secking highly erative commercial pregatves in 2 China raed by a comapt and desyng dyoarty. But if there had bee, it might have helped to seve the problem, Fortunately, most arguments thet the average penn is likely to te into are more wscepible of an agreed and precise formulation, ennene rm msc » ‘Without it, many a "panel discusion” dite into a limbo where the participant nd they agree on all basi pints (which i supposed to ‘be god) and the anience sony falls sleep (which & plainly bad). Without if, in fact, many arguments—especily the kind that ‘thresten to end in avout preaceupy the ager hough long days ar even year, with comespondingly high costs of one sort ot another, rom time to time, of couse, the sheer vagueness ofa topic will ‘be wed by one of the eget ta sort of refge. Unable or unwilling to defend any gen postion, he takes the feld in the hope tha it vl remain shrouded inthe dslectialequialent of a peasoup fog in which with litle apy he can remain present, yet intact For al ofthese reasons, the competent argue will ait yon its being desided, atthe very outset, presely wht pation he himselé {sto ange for—and he wil alo init, a least Sn mast ese, upon Jnowing exactly what postion he sdvenary is undertaking to de fend, A few examples, drawn from the sty “Advocates” programs in ‘which Ihave patipted, wil estete tome of the probes that “The Advocates” i of couse, the well kaw hourlong discus sion program that Sowithed on the Public Brosdeastng System from 16-94, wat revived in 1978, and has been vsbe on PBS, at least occasionally, each season since thea, was the regal advo: «ate forthe comserative position on public sus fom 1570-73 (my libel opponent usually being Howaed Miller, Iter president ofthe Los Angeles Borrd of Eduction), and have appeared intemittntly in sobequent seasons. “The Advocate” is x super training ground fr th as of agents, bet he rer sel 0 pce for an arate. ‘The format is, very lotely, that of a courzoom, in which some publicise is in fect gated. There fa “moderator” (core sponding tothe ode) and two “advocates (the storeys), who cal “witnses” (ay experts on the subjet). When the program is over the television audience (the jury) i invited to send int vert on the sue, The two advocates are not neces infact lawyers (aed indeod cannot beso described, in deference tothe sensibilities ofthe Jeg profession), but they very often ae, as one might expect on 2 progrm devoted to systematic argumentation,» ow ro WN aRGUAEETS In view of what bas aleady been ssid about the importance of defining the ine the reader ca safely assume that I always gave my ‘most careful attention to the phraseology ofthe question to be de- bated, Both Miler and badly wanted to wi, and a tremendous mount depended on what we were fored—or could force exch fother—to contend, Ie was gothing unusual foros to kage for hows ‘over the enact wording ofa quetion—face to face, then by phone with each other and the prodacers of the show (who, Iam sue, hought me were both demented), and often face to face yet ain Boh being ler, we saw many tings aliko—even to sharing very ‘olten the same assessment of some propos’ topi’s possiblities and dangers. Lock there was wsully no problem in Gnding a "basi of ‘zagreement,"s0 to speak I was and stil am, nse and out, Cen- lua Casting’ notion of the prototypical conservative; Miler was (1 cannot speak for him today) a ibe! of hue so pore and wnpollute that I often suspected he spent his nights sloping under a bl ja in the National Bureau of Standards. Te was tactly undestod that ne ther of ws woskl be required to defend any poston with which we felt uoomfortzbe Te was the almost invariable practice of “The Advocate” gues for the puporr of uniformity and fous, to phrase every question in the form ofa proposal for some form of goverment action: ©, “Should the Federal Government regiter votes for Presidential eles- tions” or “Should Congres approve import quotas on textiles and shoes?” In away, this custom itself skewed the progam in favor of tan activist government: We were always debating whether gover- Ient ought to be doing something more—asully something brand rew—wvith comparatively litle chance to discuss whether tought to be doing les. "Nevertheles, the forma a least tended to focus the debate on something concrete, "Should America have national heath insur ‘noi? would have been hopelsy vage topie: what kind of asa foe? how mach of 12 paid for by whom? insured by whom? But “Should the Federal Goverament guarantee comprehensive media! care for all Americans?” is «good deal beter, and when iti agret (asit was, om the program on this subject) that the two sides would mane a ee * confine themssves to debating the KennedyConman Bil, one had, ‘whether pro or con, meting specie to grapple with. Glancing ove alist of the long series of questions I debated, ‘ote that ne of the most important by-prodets ofa prtclr form of a question was to determine who had the efemative and thos vent fist. Going Sst ean be teal or not, depending on ciram- ances; but ona progam tht is forever aking whether goverment oupht to do something new, the conservative advocate i obvotly| key to wind up taking the negative far mor often than not. As the egutive side beg, in my Sit season (1970-72, to win wha the Show's prodecers deemed an inordinate number of the debates—at least at determined by the votes of the TV avdience—they began tinkering wth the questions to ty to make sae that Iwas obliged to take the afirmative occasionally. Their working hypothesis was that there might be some hitherto undiscovered dsadvantage to having the afimatve ofa proposal ger se. (Pechaps people were ast mato rally more apn than fer.) Iam happy to report eat when the pro acer commisioned an objective study ofthis possiblity, ther ana- Int glumly reported that while the negative di inded sem to have 4 mysterios inherent advantage, i was markedly Tee when Iwas a signed to the afirmative. In any event, the Ist of tops demonstrates how readily inter- changeable the’'afimative and negative sides of a question often “Should Congress approve import quotas on textiles and shoes” ives the affimatie (including the right to go fist) to the side ‘defending quotas. “Should Congres relet (ot eliminate] import ‘quotas on teil and shoe?” reverses therles, giving the opponent of quotas the airmatve. Usui, though, i is considered bad form ot at lest stylistically lny—to proce the opposite result merely ‘by replacing the word “approve” with « word auch as “jet.” This is because what might be called the “toe afirmatve” on such an issue is whatever proposes a change from the status quo. If atthe time ofthe debate, there are no quotas on textiles and shor, then the “re afirmatie the sie that popores such quotas If thre fore there is some compeling reason for wanting th other sde to have the afzmative its ually best to revamp the entire question,» sow so wnt ances 8 in, "Would import quotas on tees and shoes injure the US. ‘canomy?” This gives the quote opponent a more genuine aims tive, and exable him to led off with a sonorous hymn to the (afimative) concept of the free market, which import quotas to some extent necessarily violate, Even then, however, since the sate is the defender ofthe status quo (asming there ae, fact, no such quota), a strong ease cane made that the neatve's roosts has the “tre afimatie” side of the qustion. Howeve, liking the whole ise to a higher plane (eg. “free maket basi cally prefenble to a protected one?) would give the opponent of ‘quotas the “tue afimative” It iavalves 2 clash of principles in which neither side neoesaly represents the status quo, but the ‘gota for's answer to the question as phased i, "Yee" (Le, afrma- tive). But “The Advocate" preference for debating concrete po ‘potas for change usually prevented it from raking the dieustion to fuch rrefed level ‘Ofcourse if import quotes on shoes and textes actually eit at the time ofthe debate, the roles are reversed and the opponent of such quotas atthe supporter ofa change inthe status quo, has the ove afirmative” ‘Occasionally proposal fora change in the sates quo gives the affmative to a basically negative position, This was the case when "The Advocates” decided to debate the Daniel Elisherg ("Pentagon apes") problem, The queton could theoretically have been pt in ‘many nays: “Wes Elsberg justed im handing over the Pentagon Papers tothe pena” "Should secutity take precedence over the peo- let ight to now?" “Should the Government have prosecated i= bare” Ete. Since Eisbrgsprosection was already underway, how cet the program inguired more topical, “Sbould the Goverment Giop the charges aginst Daniel Elsberg?"—ths giving the aims: tive to the side that mae surely closer to the “tre negative” since it ‘opposed Esher’ proseeution, "Then there ate topics that can be pat either way with equal pro piety, “Should strikers be denied wellre benefits” might jot as fasly have been phrased, "Should strikers be ented to welfare ‘eels? Both formulations were about equally fir and jstifable in terms of the status quo sine at the time of the debate roughly ermane rar ss 3 twenty large and heavily indusiaized sates allowed such benebis to ster, while some thirty smaller eater didn't ‘The pits in defining the lsu are by no teas bind ws, how- vet, when we have finally agreed on which side has the affrmative td therefore should go ft. Take the question debated on “The ‘Advocate in March 1972: “Should the Contituion be amended to probit the asignment of school children on the bass of race" ‘This was les than a year after the Supreme Court had sanctioned forced busing to fiat the asigament of children to spciic Schools onthe basis oftheir ace, end the efirmative ofthe propos tion was thus maintained by the side that opposed forced basing. Bat if the selfsame question had been debated prior tothe Supreme Cours 2954 desson in Brown vs. Boord of Education, it would have seemed clear that libemls favored the affrmativ, since the whole thrust ofthat momentous dean was to bar the asgament| ‘of schoolchildren on the Dass of race. The intervening two decades 3d caved the liberal viewpoint forvard toa new postion that was the exact opposite ofthe oe previously held. Tis caused no conf sion in 197, but the same question, debated (se) fn 3962 of 2968, right have presented seus questions of basic meaning. Trery now and then the formulation af « question may include swords that, deliberstely or othervite, to some degree sant the ques tion shetotialy. That scemed—and still seems—to me to be the trouble with, “Should lg corporation be diven out of farming?” which "The Advocates” debated in 2972, The basi question was a prety leytimate one: whether lege corporations (“sbusings”) ‘ought to be permitted to engage in farming, or whether farming ‘ought tobe confined bylaw to relatively smal enters: ndvidal families end small conporatons. It was, 2 to spk, the agile ‘quialent ofthe old philosophical dispute over upermatkets versus comer grocery store, But why “driven out"? The phrase unnecessiy (and in my opinion unjsiably) trought to mind the image of Jess diving the moneychangen from the Temple. One could usta ely have auked, “Should lage corerations be prohibited from engiging in farming?” and avoided the pejorative tone, Iti imposible to kaow how many viewers, asked to vote on the question, found themselves“ ow 70 wt AncoMMES tempted toward the afomative (which won the postcard tall) by that rigorous, sully righteous formalation, On the other hand, i is true that some viewers may lave been turned off by it In faies to the proces ofthe show, I should etre that Iam sue their we of that particle formation wet determined only by what they felt wwe ts commendably theatre ring. ‘One of the most important steps in formulating any ise &, of cours defining any potentially ambiguous tems that ae employed fn the formulation. “If you would argue with me, define your terms,” suid Socrates, and the old gentleman knew what he was talking about. In even the simples argument it wil pay to make sre thatthe Key words mean the seme thing to everyone. What, for ex- ample, does “immediately” mean? Added to the sentence, “What etd isa dink,” t probably means within half an hou atthe out fide; added to, “This country should build a mucear iat eae” 4 obviocaly dels in many months, if not years (On one oceaion “The Advocate” decided to devote two suctes- sive pogiams to the question of US. policy toward South Aft, ‘The formulation of one obvious question presented no particular problem: “Should the US. dicourageiavestment in South Afi?” But the prodvcer also wanted to discos apartheid in one way or an othe. The problem was that the word “apartheid” is wed in this ‘country to refer promiseuouly to either of two quite diferent things? the mumerous poliir of the South Adin Government that mandate racial seprepation ia Ting quarters, hoo, job, etc, and the specie plan ofthe South African Government to promote "separate homelands” forthe nine maloe black tnibes, each of which 4s akimately envisioned nder the plan as becoming technically sovereign and independent nation. (Fourthe Transkei, Bophutat wane, Venda and Ciskei—beve, i fet, subsequently done s,) "Now, one may oppose one ofthese policies or both (or T suppose theoretically neither) The great majrty of Americans today, suey, vould oppo the former, and theres certainly a powerful case to be sade against the Iter. Bt Sher is also a perfectly respectable and ‘by mo means necessarily “rac” ese to be made ia fever ofthe It termi, in favor ofthe basic concept of "separate development” of the resin South fic, either long the Kes aid down bythe pre ernene nan sme at goverment or along other lines more genera i their provision for the country’s Backs. Bat whatever one i for or against, there wat certainly no point to lying to debate these two quite diferent plier ia one hourlong ‘progr. In addition the pretent climate of Amevean opinion made 4 debate on the mes o segregation in daly ifeslmostpointless— that poli has vetwlly no public support in the United States today Far move debatable, in the ene of having more to be sid for ‘both sides, was the question of the “separate homelands” policy. But how could his be dsc asa distinct ie without abandoning the word “apartheld” which the show's producers undestandably wanted to retain in the title becuse ofits established ability to at tract attention and arouse controversy? Fortunately, there was sation, based on Soath Aves’ own expe tiene in using the term. Where the coatet does't make pain which policy i being refered to, South Aficans themselves refer to the various policies of rail seperation in daily living ax “petty put” and call the “separate homelands” policy “grand apart: hid” So the question, as nally formolated on “The Advocates,” wat: “Is and apartheid a poiey worthy of US. support?” This stil reflected the produces’ preference for posing questions in terms of U.S. Goverment policy, wheres actully the sue of the desi bility or nondesiabaity of grand apartheid is pefectly debatable ‘without sng that partealar peg, Bat the unnecessary arerction did 10 particular ham, and the question war alo vindicated as legs imately debatable witen mote than a third of the TV audience who Voted cast ballots masked, "Yeu" have already tached in dscsing the pers of misformuaton, ‘on the way in which a paticlar fomlation of a question may shift the ground on which combat ean take place toward or away frm your on (or your adversary) objective Sentor Javits, fing in the ely 1960 to debate, Is the Hard Right a Danger to Ami?” vas seeking to focus the dicusion onthe pel ofthe hard vght snd spare himself any obligation to defend ot minimize the hard et. In my debate with Gene McCarthy on “I Content the (Couse fr the US. in the 198s?” I waived any companble right to blabor the liberal lterative because I was conSident tht T could6 ow 70 wnt ances rake an appeaiog ete for conseratism—hereas I had no inten tion or dee to make one for rightwing extemim. Its time, how ter, to note more generally what thee illustrations have alresty emonstted: Le, that one extremely important xpect of defining ‘any fave forthe purpore of debating i to age om what © pro- posed formulation permits, and doss not pemat toe diseased. "The point can arise ina family conte just as easly asin the fics of "The Advootte” Traveling in Argentina some yens ago, I ‘meta charming Midwestern couple i their Gos who had only begun traveling extensively lat in life, T asked the Indy bow she came to dose Argentina a a dvtination, “Wel,” she replied with a twine He, “two year ago when we Sst decided we could afford to tre, sy husband atked me, ‘Would you rather go to England or South ‘America?’ T hove England, Lait year he asked me, ‘Would yoo rather goto western Euwope or South Ametca?™and T chote west era Europe, This year he aked me, “How would you like to come to ‘South America with me?" “lr husband clea knew how to formulate a question so to ramow the options efectvely! ‘One diferent level a ciend tld me back in the 25508, “When the drive opens to recognize Red China, those favoring it wll pot the quetion this way: ‘Should our poli tard China be lebe or inlele?” Th put i it almost impesbe to gve any reply at the obvious one—the question ie vitally shetorcal. An opponent of reoognition tng the pinball machine ually far inthe othe dire tion, might have suggested debating “Shal our policy toward China bbe governed by principle or expediency?” ‘OF course inthe cae of "The Advocates” or simile relatively for smal debates, the sheer need to publics the event in avance wil ‘often amet compel a resonably far and pecs formulation of the (guestion at the very outet of planning. In less formal arguments, however. inthe bome or ofe—the dispute wil often ars in ‘way that do not cll nitty for such a formulation. In that ese the portes may ovelook this important deal altogether—oaly to sae, hours or day later—that they have boen “aking at cos purpose Le, have fundamentally mitundentod exch others con- tention (rather like the two deaf Englishmen on the bus: “I say, is rn mx oe ” this Went Nh Tad? By Jove am It Lat ‘off and have a drink”), adie aon (ne tere hd ay nee o tend oh mater of fovea een nth None equa. The rng ur ton aly pot ome sch way my" 900 sig Cos row egg, "Do yon meta tte me =) ot yous Contato At nto ct these an oe re Spt de of tor een set on gust elope