Advocacy and Debate Fifth Edition

(2016) - eBook PDF

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/advocacy-and-debate-fifth-edition-2016-ebook-pdf
/
 Douglas J. Kresse

Education

:
|
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2022 with funding trom
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/ison_ 9781259868436
 Apvocacy
nc DEBATE.

Fifth Edition

Douglas J. Kresse
Fullerton College

Graw
Hill
Education
 Education

Copyright © 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education LLC. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as
permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in
any form or by any means, or stored in a data base retrieval system, without prior written permission of the publisher.

D2 US 4 TEI 23722 21.20

ISBN-13: 978-1-259-86843-6
ISBN-10: 1-259-86843-5

Solutions Program Manager: Joyce Berendes

Project Manager: Tina Bower
CONTENTS

Overview: Reasons for arguing. What is argument?

Toulmin model
Warrants; Aristotle (Ethos, pathos, logos)
Backing and Argument fields
Qualifier & Rebuttal
Evidence standards
Brockriede: Model, Configural Argument, Enthymeme
Rhetorical process—Advocacy
Communication Model (Model)
Anxiety
Canon-Invention
Organization
Style & delivery
Nonverbal communication
Language & meaning
Memory & ELM
Perelman
Narrative & Tipping Point
Metaphor
Social Judgment Theory, Fear Appeals
Inoculation; Compliance-Gaining Strategies
Self-Persuasion; Social Learning; Reasoned Action
Burke |
Listening-Memory
Public Speaking Review
Debate & Format
Ethics
Stasis—Fact-Value Policy Propositions
Resolution
Affirmative
Negative
Refutation
Guidelines: Presumption; Burden of proof; Burden of Rebuttals
Voting
Cross-examination; Flowing; Presentation
Definitions
Bibliography
Templates

Communication model illustration by Hirofumi Matsuoka.

 = ’

RE
mn
oe
_——-

B
~

(amuaentomeeuit et
) =e ao
MBa@yaansM
nil
ni" oxy 4 oitere Ee
crush 2 |
rs 6 (Cal Penpall ee 62
SAGE GOS oneagnay :roieanent Te
(0 @ eee Grad Sa nokmaree ee 608

ca wa “a
emeA Avac]
ee ee a Ye +0 —eante bes
a 2
“rm
os

apes oc-@ Svc

@ ame “2am

~eenh attest thea

=a e
Va
saga?te
7S) Say aap & <
oat _eey VS epoi
ee leper
| a (Pi 2—
ADVOCACY AND DEBATE: PERSPECTIVES ON ARGUMENT

Kenneth Burke (1950) tells us that people communicate in order to coordinate meanings and
action. Our youngest daughter's first words ("I wanna straw") came on an occasion when mere
pointing to an object (we were supposed to make sense of those gestures) was inadequate to
create common meaning and to gain our compliance.

Burke writes that communication (rhetoric) is the "symbolic means of inducing cooperation by
beings that by nature respond to symbols" (1950, p. 43). Humans use language and gestures
to communicate because we seek to gain common understanding, coordinate meaning and
action, and organize society (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Reasoning is an inherent part of the
communication process. This text approaches communication—in particular, advocacy and
debate—from an argumentative perspective.

First, our production of rhetoric (discourse) is an argumentative act. We communicate for a

reason. We organize our ideas in a certain way that reflects some reason. We select words
and deliver them in a certain style for a reason. Reasoning is inherent in communication from
the perspective of an advocate.

Second, the process of understanding and knowing involves reasoning. Sense-making is a

process of organizing information and drawing inferences from that information: the process of
listening and making sense of what we hear is inherently argumentative (Fisher, 1985, p. 517).

Finally, Our responses to communication manifest our reasoning. What we hear affects our
understanding. It helps us develop an or/entation towards something. Kenneth Burke (1965)
explains that humans act toward these orientations. We respond because of reasons. Human
interaction is inherently argumentative.

This book considers many fundamental concepts of argument, advocacy and debate. It begins
by covering some of the reasons why we argue and debate. It then considers some basic
issues fundamental to understanding argument. the functions of argument, argument models,
ethics of arguing, and standards for good reasoning. The book concludes with the process of
creating speeches and debates--from generating ideas to delivery and evaluation of
arguments.

REASONS FOR ARGUING

The ability to debate ideas openly—and safely—is a hallmark of a democracy where human
rights are honored. Debate and advocacy also offer peaceful means of altering a policy or
judgment. There is no guarantee that every decision made by discussion and debate will be
wise or effective. But there are numerous examples where inadequate debate leads to policy
failures. Additionally, the failure to allow civil debate in societies had been ascribed as a cause
for destructive political culture and violence (Makiya, 1993; Conquest, 2001).

Public discourse has other advantages. Forcing decision-makers to be accountable to the

scrutiny of open debate is a necessary check on powers that leaders have. The proverb that

3
"power corrupts" was accepted by our Founding Fathers, who devised a system of government
where decision makers in executive positions, legislatures, and courts would need to debate
issues. To the degree that we fail to have adequate deliberation in our courts, legislatures, or
executive branches, we can expect to have abuses of power and poor quality decisions. Open
advocacy and debate that extends to every able citizen also ensures that we all assume a
necessary level of responsibility for our society.

WHAT IS ARGUMENT?
Argumentation scholar Wayne Brockriede observed that if there was only one way of looking at
things, we wouldn't need to argue or debate—we wouldn't need to give reasons for our view on
things (1985). But there usually are differing ways of looking at things, and when that
happens, it invites us to communicate in order to explain or resolve or manage those
differences.

Answering "what is argument?" needs to take into consideration that there are different
perspectives on looking at argument. We can look at argument in three ways: as individual
reasons ("logical product"), as the process of influencing others ("rhetorical process,") and as
discussion and debate ("Dialectical method").

This text first examines models of argument "products": individual "good reasons." We will
examine argument models (Toulmin, Brockriede), evidence standards, and the underlying
authority for arguments. The book next examines argument as rhetoric. The development of
persuasive message—from conceiving and organizing a speech to its delivery—is surveyed.
Means of adapting messages to audiences—persuasive strategies—are included here. Finally,
the book examines debate: ethics, developing cases, and responding to arguments.

LOGICAL PRODUCT: THE TOULMIN MODEL OF ARGUMENT

One way of looking at argument is to view it as a "logical product": a reason that people use in
communication. Argument as product can be seen as any justified belief we hold.

Arguments are comprised of claims we make, evidence to support them, and a justified
"inferential leap" between evidence and claim.

Perhaps the clearest example of an "argument product" is Stephen Toulmin's model (1958),
advanced in his book, The Uses of Argument. Before Toulmin, scholars had used sy/logisms
as a primary means of diagramming arguments. Perhaps the most familiar syllogism is:

All men are mortal.

Socrates /§ a man.
Therefore, Socrates /s mortal.

Walter Fisher has observed that the weakness in this model is the lack of any meaningful leap
of inference between the premises and the conclusion; once you accept the first two
statements, you're locked into the conclusion. Brockriede wrote that "[because] in a syllogism
4
the conclusion is entailed by the premises, no inferential leap is required: nothing is said in the
conclusion not already said in the premises" (Ehninger & Brockriede, 1978, p. 23).

When we argue, the conclusion isn't predestined as it is in a formal syllogism. Fisher writes
"the syllogism is a verbal maneuver in terms of which have no necessary connection with real
things" (1989, p. 33). Toulmin offered his model as a more realistic explanation of the things
we use when we reason: arguments.

DATA, WARRANT, CLAIM: THE CORE OF TOULMIN’S MODEL

When we reason, we explain wAy we think the way we do. Toulmin's model reflects this.
There are three basic parts of Toulmin's model: a claim, evidence, and a warrant.

The claim is the idea you want people to accept or to give assent. Evidence is what you
provide to support that claim. The warrant authorizes the connection between claim and
evidence.

When you go to a job interview, you want the employer to accept one basic claim: you are the
person for the job. Imagine you walk into the employment office, tell them "I'm the person for
your job!" and then you leave. This isn't likely: you're a reasonable person, and so are they.
They want you to provide a reason why you're the person for the job. To illustrate, let's start
with just the claim and its support (evidence—also called "data" or "grounds") (Toulmin,
Rieke & Janik, 1984).

EVIDENCE/ DATA/ GROUNDS CLAIM

Work experience You should hire me for this job.

Interpersonal skills
Educational background

"Evidence" and "claim" are the "expressed" parts of most arguments. When you are analyzing
arguments—in writings or speeches—most of the time, all you'll see or hear are evidence and
claim. Warrants generally exist in the minds of speakers and audiences. They seldom are
explicit.

But look at another basic argument along the same lines:

EVIDENCE/ DATA/ GROUNDS CLAIM

| was born in Oregon. You should hire me for this job.

| like chocolate.

You still have an argument. But is it reasonable? There is movement from the evidence to
the claim—an "inferential leap." But is it reasonable? Is it warranted? Probably not. The
2)
third major part of Toulmin's model is the warrant: that which justifies or legitimizes the
inferential movement from data (evidence) to claim.

One can look at the inferential leap as moving from claim to data, or from data to claim. When
you make an assertion—a claim, then you are expected to provide a reason for the claim.
Providing evidence that fits with a claim is the basic part of an argument product. We can
also argue from data to claim. We do this all the time when we make sense of information
around us, and draw a conclusion from that evidence.

Medical doctors do this every day. At an office visit, I will tell the doctor the symptoms I'm
feeling. "I feel tired. My throat is sore. My nose is plugged up." I expect the doctor to
make an inferential leap—to organize that evidence, and make some inference from it.

DATA CLAIM

| feel tired. You are sick!

My head is all clogged up.
| have a sore throat.
"Cough!"

WARRANT

These are signs of the flu.

Here we see the third part of Toulmin's model: the warrant. It asks you "why" the evidence
leads to the claim, or why you make the claim based on the evidence.

What does Toulmin's model have to do with advocacy and debate? First, what we're doing in a
debate is advancing arguments—series of data-warrant-claims. Not every claim we hear is
legitimate. Toulmin's model provides a means of judging arguments. Second, the model
reminds us of key responsibilities in making good reasons. This helps us in researching and
crafting arguments.

WARRANTS

Warrants are simply our explanation of why it's reasonable to move from evidence to a
conclusion (c/a/m). We can all think of situations where people draw the wrong conclusion from
some evidence; warrants help us explain why we made good or bad inferences.

There are a number of ways of classifying or making sense of those things that justify
inferential leaps: warrants. These are provided to help in constructing and evaluating
arguments. It's important to realize that warrants function most importantly in the mind of

6
audiences as they connect data and claim. There is no reason we need to see any argument as
being justified by just one sort of warrant; Brockriede (1978) argues that multiple warrants
may function to link claim and evidence.

ARISTOTLE'S PROOFS as WARRANTS

One way to approach warrants is to use Aristotle’s proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos. Each or
all can be used to make the connection between evidence and claim. Warrants are rarely
overtly stated—instead, warrants represent the audience's perception of why the evidence and
claim "fit" together.

ETHOS: AUTHORITATIVE PROOFS

Ethos (or credibility) functions to justify the inferential leap because of the believability of the
arguer. If someone writes you a letter of recommendation, here is how we could diagram that
argument—where a doctor prescribes medication following a thorough examination:

DATA CLAIM

Results from You should take this

diagnostic medicine.

gable WARRANT-- ETHOS

The doctor is credible. |

trust my doctor.

Arguments are persuasive to the degree that they—and the persons arguing them—are
credible. We accept arguments often because we have confidence and trust in the advocates.

There are some common guidelines of evaluating the credibility of others’ statements
(Walton, 1997, p. 258). These include:

Is the expert an authority in the field?

Is the expert a reliable source?
Is the person's testimony consistent with that of other authorities?
Is the person's opinion based upon evidence?
What motives affected the person's testimony?
Has the person made statements in the past that undermine this opinion?
eS Was this witness in a good position to observe or judge events?
ee)
eee

These issues often become critical factors in public and academic debates. It is not uncommon
to see critical debates where authorities disagree with each other.
You're probably familiar with testimonials offered for unconventional medical treatments,
remedies, and the like. Social Psychologist Carol Tavris (2001, B11) notes that not all medical
testimonials (in print or TV) are credible: "no matter what kind of therapy is involved, clients
are motivated to tell you it worked well."

The issue of credibility goes beyond whether we are qualified in offering our opinions to
whether we are presenting arguments and evidence /Aonest/y. Two journalists—former New
Republic writer Stephen Glass and New York Times writer Jayson Blair were made famous by
their repeated acts of plagiarism (Kurtz, 2003 May 8; Shafer 2003; Barnes 2002). Emory
history Professor Michael Bellesiles wrote an award-winning book (Arming America) where he
argued that the Founding Fathers couldn't have meant the Second Amendment to mean
individuals had a right to bear arms. He argued that research indicated that few people actually
owned guns at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The problem with Bellesiles
argument was his research was fabricated (Skinner, 2002). (Eventually, his awards were
withdrawn, and he no longer works at Emory.)

Francis Fukuyama's book Trust makes clear, society must operate on high levels of trust of
others if it is to function efficiently. Everything we say and do is filtered through a lens of
"ethos." Trust /s an all-important organizing principle by which we all operate.

In summary, authoritative warrants function when we trust an authority's assertion that there is
a connection between evidence and claim. When a doctor says, "you've got a possible case of
skin cancer we need to take care of—this mole looks suspicious," it is enough for most of us to
trust the doctor and to act on that argument. We make the connection between an observable
piece of data (a mole on the skin) and its meaning ("this is a sign you may be at risk for
cancer") because we recognize the doctor as a trustworthy authority. In an academic debate,
a judge or audience may not understand all of the evidence you present—and sometimes may
not understand the link between evidence and your claims. But they may be willing to accept
your arguments because they view you as credible—as authoritative.

PATHOS: MOTIVATIONAL WARRANTS

Values function as underlying foundations that legitimize our judgments and actions. We
consider here the role that "pathos"—emotional or evaluative appeals—play in reasoning.

Some have viewed "pathos" as "mere emotion'"—not rational. But pathos can be understood to
signify one's values or motives. There is no separation from rationality here—although not all
values or motives are admirable. If somebody does say, "they're acting on emotion," there’s
nothing inherently wrong with that. It's impossible NOT to act in concert with our emotions or
values. There is no motivational vacuum in argument, and we would do well to address the
core concerns of others (Haidt, 2012).

Douglas Walton observes that emotion plays a major role in legitimate argument.
First, effective argument assumes some degree of empathy—our ability to put ourselves in an
"opponent's position in an argument" (1992, p. 255). It is an essential aspect of arguing
ethically that we see an issue beyond our own perspective—to also consider perspectives of

8
others (Brockriede, 1972). Arguments also assume core values or emotions: fear, pity, or
other values. It is only when values (biases) lead to our overlooking facts, or to "succumb to ...
vested interests" that pathos becomes problematic" (Walton, 1992, p. 264).

Here, we “connect the dots” by seeing a connection between facts we observe (“children are
starving”), a core value (“concern for others”) and action (“You should contribute to our
charity”):

DATA/ EVIDENCE CLAIM

Children are starving. You should contribute to our charity.

WARRANT

You are concerned for others.

You value life.
(Values justify claim)

As the above illustration suggests, values or "pathos" explain the inferential move from data to
claim. If someone asks people to adopt a policy—to act in a certain way—there are always
values we use to justify those policies. We are moved to action by values (Haidt, 2012).

Appeals to emotions are important in moving people to action. The University of Oregon's Paul
Slovic has studied what motivates people to action on humanitarian disasters such as the
tragedy in Darfur. He argues that merely using statistics fails to stir the emotions that move us
to act: "We know that genocide in Darfur is real, but we do not ‘feel’ that reality" (2007). Slovic
suggests instead that we use concrete examples—narratives—that help people visualize the
problem and "feel" compassion.

LOGOS: SUBSTANTIVE JUSTIFICATION

Our brain organizes information by organized patterns (Hawkins, 2004). Logos refers to
patterns of data organization by which we make sense of reality. Ehninger and Brockriede
called these "substantive warrants" (1978). There are four common types of warrants
considered here: generalizations, analogies, signs, and cause-and-effect.

ARGUMENT BY GENERALIZATION

If you've ever made a batch of cookies for someone, you probably sampled a couple of the
cookies to make sure things turned out right. Based on a small sampling, you can be secure
that the rest of the batch is edible. We daily make these sorts of generalizations where we
base a judgment on a large group of things based upon small (but representative) samples.
In dating, we make generalizations about others. How many dates do you have to go on until
you know what the other person is really like? During the job interview process, employers try
to collect enough examples of information to make a credible decision. All these are
generalizations: making an inference about a larger whole from representative samples.

Surveys that sample segments of the population (it's too costly to survey everyone) help us
understand how the entire nation feels on issues. One needs to ask: are these examples
representative? Are they adequate in sample size? Are there counter-examples?

DATA CLAIM
We should hire Biff.
Resume.
Interview.
Letters of recommendation.
Internship.

WARRANT

Generalization
(These represent the norm)

While some may agree with this generalization, it has some limits. People are hired for jobs
based on some information—but not exhaustive knowledge. We only know a fragment about a
person before hiring. The question is: is the information representative of that person? Or is
this information not typical—was the person putting on “a good show” that wasn’t
representative?

We are familiar with stereotypes of different groups. Stereotypes are a form of generalization.
Often, these generalizations may have been based on too small a sample. The fallacy, “hasty
generalization,” is any flawed generalization argument.

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
Policy makers must decide on actions to take, and the information is never fully complete. If
we enact a policy—adopt health care reform, give foreign aid to some country, or revise our
education system, we’re never fully sure how things will turn out. One way to make sense of
things—and manage uncertainty—is to refer to similar experiences: analogies.

An argument by analogy—where the warrant linking data and claim relies on an analogy—seeks
to make a comparison between two things. Since argument involves an inferential leap from
the known to the uncertain, the comparison involves one thing that is known, and the other
that will be clarified.
10
Analogies are very powerful. They give the listener a sense that they understand the issue
clearly, and are therefore more likely to act on that understanding. That's why when arguing
by analogy, one needs to make sure the things compared are alike in essential ways.

As this text is being revised, there has been a long and disastrous civil war in Syria. Hundreds
of thousands have died. Millions have been displaced, and Europe has seen a flood of refugees
unmatched since World War 2. How should the United States Act? One proposal has been to
implement a no-fly zone that would protect Syrian civilians from air attacks by the Syrian
military (Mueller, 2015). Proponents of the move—for United States and other air forces to
create a “no-fly zone” blocking Syrian attacks—is an effective strategy: a similar intervention
was effective at blocking Saddam Hussein from attacking the Kurds in Northern Iraq from 1991-
2003. It protected the Kurds, and stopped an exodus of refugees. Opponents argue that
conditions are different, and that a no-fly zone now would be excessively risky—and ineffective.

The key issue to ask is whether this link—this comparison—is justified? For analogies to be
acceptable, the comparison needs to be understandable and fair. If you use an analogy that
the audience isn't familiar with, it won't have the persuasive effect you desire. Analogies need
to be between things that are comparable—alike in essential qualities—to be fair. Otherwise,
you may be accused of "comparing apples and oranges."

DATA/ EVIDENCE CLAIM

The “no-fly zone” We should establish a “no fly zone”
worked in Iraq from
1991-2003

WARRANT

Analogy:
[comparable]

ARGUMENT BY SIGN
Argument by sign suggests another pattern make a connection between things: that something
is an indicator of something else. You've heard of the saying, “where there’s smoke, there’s
fire.” That is an example of argument by sign.

Health professionals regularly use argument by sign, looking for symptoms of illness or injury.
Mechanics working on automobiles look for indications of mechanical failure or wear. The
question one asks in sign reasoning is: are these adequate indicators? Are there alternative
interpretations of this sign?

1
 EVIDENCE/GROUNDS

Billowing blue exhaust

smoke.

His car is about to

Metallic grinding noises
come from the expire.
transmission.

Oil seems to vanish each

trip.

SIGN

These are indicators of

costly repairs.

Criminal investigators rely heavily on argument by sign to bring to justice perpetrators of

crimes. Profilers narrow the range of suspects based upon indicators of personality,
demographics, and other key variables (see Nicholas Kristof's arguments regarding the 2001
anthrax killings). CNN reported that a man walked into a Naples, Florida Wal-Mart; alert
workers called the police

after a blood-soaked man walked into the store and bought some clothes,
bandages, and trash bags around 4 a.m. He paid with a $ 100 bill that also
appeared to be bloodstained... and drove off in a pickup. (2004, June 26).

You probably figured something was wrong with this situation. You're right. The man was
shortly arrested for murder. Here, you (and the workers at Wal-Mart) employed reasoning by
sign to infer something was rotten in Naples.

We've all learned the lesson that you can’t always “judge a book by its cover.” Sometimes
outward appearances can be misleading.

12
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT
The causal warrant asks you to make a connection between two events: one a cause, and the
other an effect. If you watch ads on TV (“before and after” ads), they show you two events
that they hope you will see a connection.

We aren't always right about cause-and-effect arguing. Medical science has had to change
some of its judgments when new causes of disease are discovered. You may invest a lot of
money repairing a car or home because the root of the problem has been misidentified. In
arguing from cause-to-effect (or visa versa), one needs to be careful that the cause is sufficient
to produce the effect, and that alternative explanations of causality are considered.

EVIDENCE
CLAIM
| weigh ten pounds less
Seer ears SSGAaape i
Slim-EEZ diets work great!
C = ie |?

ago.

WARRANT

There is a cause-and-effect
relation here.

The argument looks OK. But we aren’t sure if Slim-EEZ really was the cause of the weight loss.
Did the person increase their exercise? Did they change their diet otherwise? If we can
eliminate other explanations to this cause-and-effect argument, then it seems reasonable. But
there is an open door here for other explanations.

The fallacy”post hoc ergo propter hoc’ (or the shortened "post hoc” refers to any flawed
cause-and-effect argument.

BACKING and ARGUMENT FIELDS

The process of justifying claims has to stop at some time—and for Toulmin, Brockriede, and
others, that final support for the inferential process is found in the backing. The backing is
the underlying authority that legitimizes the entire argument. The backing specifically
authorizes the warrant—but serves as a foundation for the entire argument.

13
There needs to be some final "backing" for an argument—some resting or stopping place during
the inferential process. Otherwise, the process of asking "why" could go on forever. Final
authorities for argument include what philosophers term worldviews, presuppositions
paradigms, and for Toulmin, argument fields (Toulmin, 1958; Kuhn, 1972; Kresse, 1988).
Fields can function as backing or warrants (Toulmin, 1958; Ehninger & Brockriede, 1978).

A fundamental element of arguing is the establishment and exercise of authority. We argue

and debate in order to establish legitimacy for policies or judgments. Argument fields are the
outcomes of debate: the authority/hierarchy of our legal system, or any similar structure
(artistic authority, scientific authority, economic authority) emerges out of debate. These fields
set standards for what are "authorized" practices and beliefs.

How do you know if a source—publication or author—are credible? Communities of experts set

up standards and pass judgment on what constitutes credible sources. In many disciplines—
science, business and economics, law—journals are refereed. Each published article comes
under critical scrutiny. It is a major crisis in a field when this gatekeeping function fails to
screen out faulty or fabricated research (Altman, 2006). Fields function to legitimize approved
persons, practices, and ideas.

Argument fields serve as filters—authorizing the legitimacy of policy and practitioners. Think of
medicine, where certain procedures are either approved or prohibited. There are practices (like
"bloodletting" patients—something common two hundred years ago) that are no longer
common practice. Medical journals make it more likely that articles have been carefully and
correctly researched and reasoned. Fields not only gatekeep ideas and sources, but also act to
authorize practitioners. Doctors and lawyers must pass examinations and meet other standards
before they are accepted. In courtroom trials, the ‘field’ authorizes certain means of obtaining
evidence, while forbidding the admission of evidence gained by methods that in earlier times
acceptable (for example, torture).

As you become acquainted with a given discipline or field, you will become familiar with what
the field views as credible sources, scholars, and leaders. You'll also become familiar with
sources, ideas, and persons not considered credible.

Ehninger and Brockriede (1978) isolated three key characteristics or determinants of argument
fields: ideas, social dimensions, and situational or contextual dimensions. The fields
of law, economics, political science, and religion each have issues that differentiate those areas
of study.

One defining characteristic of argument fields are the ideas arguers discuss. You would expect
(and would find) the subject matter discussed in law journals, medical journals, and economic
journals to have overlap, but to have differences. B/opsies, operations, transfusions, and
Viruses, are common terminology in medicine, just as defendant, stare decisis, plaintiff, and
misdemeanor are common to the field of law. Ideas--often set apart by specialized language--
help establish the boundaries of a field.

Fields are also set apart by social relations. Indeed, knowledge is social. Knowledge
evolves through social interaction as persons advance justified arguments, encounter criticism,
14
and revise judgments (Berger & Luckmann 1967). Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi in
his book, Personal Knowledge, describes just how dependent knowledge is on social interaction:

Any attempt to define the body of science more closely comes up against the
fact that the knowledge comprised by science is not known to any single person.
Indeed, nobody knows more than a tiny fragment of science well enough to
Justify its validity and value at first hand. For the rest he has to rely on views
accepted at second hand on authority of a community of people accredited as
scientists. But this accrediting depends in turn on a complex organization.
(1958, p. 163)

Perhaps the most obvious is an order or "hierarchy" within any organization or discipline: one
that establishes lines of authority. Fields have standards for persons qualifying as "experts"—
people whose opinions are granted greater weight in arguments. Social relations within fields
establish rules for interaction. For example, in some fields, it's all right to talk most any time.
In a court of law, there are fairly rigid rules for speaking turns, time limits, and who is allowed
to speak (in law, again, fairly rigid rules). People who violate these norms may be severely
disciplined. That is one of the functions and field has: to maintain orderly practice and identity.

Situational factors are also important determinants of fields. Situational factors include the
purpose of the argument/debate; time constraints; and architectural constraints. Some fields
have constructed special forums that reinforce rules of argument. If you think of how a
courtroom is structured, in order to reinforce an adversarial "testing" of an issue, there is a set
place for a judge to hear opposing sides (prosecution and defense) who are pre-assigned their
"territory" in the hearings.

In the British Parliament, opposing members of Parliament are seated directly across from each
other to create clash between the majority party (led by the Prime Minister) and the opposition
party(ies). There are lines in front of the seats on either side which separate the sides—I'm
informed that this was done to keep either side from injuring opponents with swords! Time
constraints are quite common in many argument forums: think of limits on televised political
speeches and debates.

How does this apply for students in college speech and debate classes? First, being a
competent arguer assumes that one has some knowledge about the field grounding the
debate. Arguments at the extremes may be legitimate, but one standard for judges should be:
would this argument be considered seriously in this field? In some debates, cases are
presented that would not be viewed as legitimate. What about the evidence advanced? Are
debaters quoting recognized authorities? In the end, judges and debaters ground arguments
on standards established by argument fields.

A recent book by William Weber (2008) chronicles the evolution of musical taste—and how
older works of music have enjoyed higher status. Up until "the early 19" century... no body of
European music was viewed as innately superior to another" (Penrose, 2008, A13). New works
were more popular with audiences than old compositions—which often faded to oblivion. If you
went to a concert, new artists were popular; old composers had faded into obscurity. But
during the 19" century, the field of music saw a shift to where older works enjoyed preference
15
to newer creations. Weber writes that in the field of music, this preference in taste has
established a music canon where the top composers are those you now recognize: Beethoven,
Bach, Mozart. What's considered ‘great music’ are the classics.

Look at this argument. "Bach is the greatest composer of Western music." Why? One might
argue that Back's works reflect compositional skills, beautiful melodies, and structure that make
it sound above the rest. And, it's endured. The warrant here could be these are signs of
superior artistry. Backing that up is the argument field of music.

EVIDENCE CLAIM

Compositional skills
Bach is the best!
Melodies
Structure
Endures over time

WARRANT

Signs

BACKING

Field of music

If you look at the evidence here, one support for Bach's greatness—that his work has withstood
the test of time—rests upon the assumption that older works are superior. It would exclude the
newest compositions. The argument field establishes the underlying foundations for what
constitutes good evidence, good argument process, and other factors relevant to argument.

At some point when we argue, we have to stop this process of justification—otherwise we're
faced with what philosophers call "infinite regress"—an infinite asking of "why?" Arguers need
to have some common judgments they accept to successfully communicate.

QUALIFIER AND REBUTTAL

There are two remaining parts of the Toulmin model: the qualifier and rebuttals (or
reservations). Almost no argument we make is 100% certain; we tend not to dispute things
we all Know for certain. The qualifier just notes what degree of certainty we have in masking
the argument. Think of a trial: what degree of proof do you need before you would convict
somebody? 10%? 50%? 99%?

16
All argument involves some degree of uncertainty—otherwise we probably wouldn't be arguing
about a given issue. Often, the inferences we draw are based on ambiguous information.
Harvard's Jerome Groopman's book, How Doctors Think (2007) details the daily decisions
physicians must make—diagnosing illnesses and prescribing remedies—that are inherently filled
with uncertainty. Medical practitioners seek to reduce uncertainty by gathering relevant
information, but decisions must be made eventually—with less than total certainty.

The amount of uncertainty one tolerates often depends on the consequences of making (or not
making) a decision. I still remember watching on television the agonizing final moments of the
Space Shuttle Columbia as NASA ground controllers vainly attempted to make radio contact
with it. The subsequent investigation discovered that shortly after the launch, there were
numerous "missed opportunities" to gather pictures that would have revealed the severe
damage done to Columbia's wing at liftoff (Stein, 2003, p. Al). Lower-level engineers had
requested the use of military satellites and telescopes to obtain pictures that would have shown
what the existing liftoff pictures hadn't seen: that a frozen block of insulation "smashed a hole
in the spacecraft's left wing" (Hotz, 2003, Ai). Although a group of NASA engineers and
contractors unanimously supported gaining additional information to assess the problem, in the
end, the matter was not pursued—in part because members thought “that raising contrary
points of view about Shuttle mission safety, they would be singled out for possible ridicule by
their peers and managers" (Stein, 2003). The failure of NASA to properly appreciate
uncertainty had tragic consequences.

Generally, people have certain levels of risk with which they are willing to accept—and levels
that they view as too unsafe to proceed. In decision making, it is important for persons to
consider what the levels of tolerable risk are (and aren't). In the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of
1961, President Kennedy was told by advisors that the mission to depose of Fidel Castro "stood
a ‘fair chance’ of success" (Neustadt & May, 1986, p. 142). What did "fair chance" mean? To
the advisors, it meant "3 to one against." Kennedy, in the meantime, understood "fair chance"
to mean a "good chance" (Neustadt & May).

The next part of Toulmin’s model is the rebuttal (or "reservation") is an argument that could
challenge the main argument diagrammed. Is there an explanation that undermines your
evidence? That's a rebuttal. Opposing responses constitute rebuttals or reservations: "yes, but"
statements that in some way counter assertions.

The use of rebuttals in Toulmin's argument functions to locate differing perspectives that may
have generated an argument—at minimum, it locates differing viewpoints which arguers need
to consider. Listing rebuttals in a diagram makes critics aware of the relative strength of any
given line of reasoning.

Toulmin's model can be useful in guiding any decision process. It reminds us that we should
have adequate support for claims we advance. Toulmin’s model should prompt us to consider
the quality of evidence used. Whether in making judgments or arguing over policy, Toulmin’s
model’s “rebuttal” suggests we look at issues from multiple perspectives, and consider contrary
evidence and arguments. Finally, it reminds us that for any argument, we operate in some
degree of uncertainty.

sy
 EVIDENCE CLAIM

Less pollution than

Nuclear power is
coal
safest option

Risks and global

warming

WARRANT QUALIFIER REBUTTAL

Generalization or
Cause-Effect Possibly Except for disposal
problems and
accidents

BACKING

Field of science

EVIDENCE STANDARDS

We use evidence in presentations to provide support for claims we make. If you've watched
courtroom trials or Senate hearings, you've seen experts even including evidence from other
sources to back up their arguments. Reliance on good evidence is likely to enhance our
credibility. If we use flawed evidence, it can damage credibility.

Argument fields generally determine standards for evidence. That is, an expert or authority one
field recognizes may not be recognized in a different field. Fields operate to authorize what
constitutes credible sources—as well as to sanction or exclude what it considers non-credible
sources. Argument fields aren't infallible in these judgments. Indeed, fields undergo revisions
in what are held as legitimate theories and evidence (Kuhn, 1970; Toulmin, 1972).

Nevertheless, there are some common standards for evidence—as well as standards common
to academic advocacy or debate—that are worth remembering.

18
1. Present persuasive evidence that supports the claim. The evidence used to support
a Claim needs to relate to the claim and be persuasive: that is, when merged with the claim,
audiences should be able to make sense of the claim, to see how it's logical. It should motivate
the audience, be comprehensible, and should provide solid support for the claim (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1981).

2. Evidence should be credible. Does the evidence build trust in the overall argument? Try
to gather and use evidence that will withstand scrutiny. Is the source unduly biased? Is the
evidence recent enough? Is the source a superior authority on the issue? Would experts in the
field view this evidence as credible?

Fields provide filters to screen out bogus sources. Internet searches tap into thousands of
sites—many of which are not credible. Stanford's Geoffrey Nunberg (2005) writes that even
college students can be deceived by bogus websites. He explains that instead of checking the
credibility of the sites' authors, we all-too-often judge websites by at their appearance.

3. The evidence should be clear. If you introduce statistics, make sure they are
comprehensible and not confusing. Often, it helps if you explain ("debrief") the evidence you
share. The evidence should be vivid so that the audience can "see" what you're talking about.

Overly long quotations have the effect of confusing listeners. Audiences can lose track of the
point you're trying to make. They may not see the connection between the claim and your
evidence. And they may not know where you start and your quotation ends. That's confusing.

Don't expect another author to make your arguments for you. Evidence is supposed to support
your claim. It's not supposed to Be your claim.

4, It is often appropriate to use the entire quotation; have the quotation accessible
for inspection. This is not always the rule in public argument. But audiences should know
when you are quoting your own work--and when you are quoting others. Including a full
quotation (usually a sentence or two) allows listeners the ability to examine the evidence for
accuracy. Properly setting apart--and citing--sources avoids confusion.

5. Include adequate source citations. During competitive speeches and debates, each
quote should have the following: the verbatim quotation (generally, 1-2 sentences long), the
author or authors, the date of publication, and the source of publication. If the author isn't
known by all, then introduce his or her qualifications.

19
(sample evidence card)

Parents should read to their children (main idea or 'tag')

Perri Klass (August 17, 2015) (author and date)

(Professor of Journalism & Pediatrics, NYU) (qualifications)
New York Times D-6 (Source and page number)

So reading picture books with young children may means that they hear more words, while at
the same time, their brains practice creating the images associated with those words—and with
the more complex sentences and rhymes that make up even simple stories. (quotation)

6. Be ethical. Sometimes quotes that are bogus sneak into the "food chain." You might be
familiar with an oft-cited quotation by French historian and author of the classic, Democracy in
America, Alexis de Tocqueville:

I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors
and her ample rivers—and it was not there.... in her fertile fields and boundless
forests, and it was not there...in her democratic Congress and her matchless
Constitution—and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America
and heard her pulpits fame with righteousness did I understand the secret of
her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America
ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.

A beautiful quotation. But bogus. It's not from Tocqueville. It's not in his writings. But it's
been used for 50 years by American Presidents, politicians, and leaders. It's also in numerous
textbooks. But it's not "real."

John Pitney's November 13, 1999 Week/y Standard exposé explains that the quotation possibly
was written by a speechwriter for President Eisenhower, wasn't checked, and has been
surviving through the food chain of American political discourse ever since. Just because you
see a quotation used by somebody else, don't assume they are correct.

The value of your introducing evidence and citing others as credible sources is that it adds to
the believability of your arguments. Paying attention to detail—including careful fact-checking
of evidence—bolsters confidence and guards against embarrassing errors.

WAYNE BROCKRIEDE’S MODEL of ARGUMENT

Wayne Brockriede has been recognized as one of the 20" century's leading scholars on
argumentation (Fisher, 1987). He was instrumental! to introducing the Toulmin model to the

20
speech and debate community in 1960. Brockriede pioneered the notion that argument should
be seen from multiple perspectives. He advanced an important treatise on argument ethics.
Brockriede helped re-establish argumentation as an /nterpersona/ venture. And he broadened
our understanding into the nature of what argument is.

Brockriede's seminal 1975 essay "Where is argument" can be viewed as an elaboration on

Toulmin's model. But it also broadened the understanding of argument: not just a thing—a
product, but also a process and perspective.

Brockriede listed six dimensions of argument. They serve as guidelines for generating and
evaluating arguments, as well as for the interaction of arguing. I will be using language
borrowed from Brockriede's essay reprinted in Decision by Debate (1978), co-authored with
Douglas Ehninger:

1, Argument implies an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or
the reinforcement of an old one.
Here, for an argument to exist, there must be some movement in thought from evidence people
accept to a conclusion. Brockriede notes that we don't waste our time arguing over the
obvious. We usually don't argue about what our name is, or other obvious things. People that
do argue about such things are generally seen as fools.

On the other hand, the leap must be reasonable. I'm sure you've encountered people who
start arguing something that they expect you to believe, and your first thought is "how do I get
out of here?" Again, argument is reasoning, and it helps to be reasonable in reasoning.

An example of when there is no inferential leap is a c/rcu/ar argument. when the claim is
slightly reworded and rerun as the evidence. Imagine this family argument: "Why do you need
go to bed at 11:00? Because you need to go to sleep!" The data and claim look pretty much
the same. Maybe in the mind of the speaker, they are different. When you are debating,
make sure the claims people make are well supported, and that the evidence is not a mere
rewording of the claim. There's no inferential leap. No reason. Just an assertion.

2. Argument implies a perceived rationale sufficient to support an inferential leap. This relates
to the concerns Toulmin expressed with his warrant and data. Arguers need to ask: is there
adequate support for my claim? Is the evidence timely, clear, and credible? Does the audience
understand the connection between my evidence and claim?

3. Argument implies a choice among two or more competing claims.

Again, nobody really needs to argue much if there's only one way of looking at things. But
generally, there are multiple ways of looking at things. The point of ethical argument is to
realize that others can have differing views. We need to craft our arguments in consideration of
those alternatives.

4, Argument implies a regulation of uncertainty.

Argument involves is making connections between things—linking data and warrant and claim.
We do this in an effort to persuade others that this organization of reality is acceptable or
preferable. In doing so, we take a bundle of facts—a disconnected chaos—and create
Zi
meaning: we reduce uncertainty. What arguers do is to present a preferred interpretation of
things: "Here's how you ought to look at this issue." Arguers give reasons for others to see
things, believe things, or do things.

Think of a complex murder trial. A prosecutor will tie all sorts of information together—to
explain how various facts fit together to create a compelling "story" of why the defendant is
guilty. The defense attorney will try to create a different interpretation of those facts; show
you how the facts can fit together in a different story—or at least make the connections the
prosecutor tried to make seem less reasonable. One party is trying to reduce uncertainty (the
defendant /s guilty) while the defense is trying to increase uncertainty ("Maybe he's not guilty.
You aren't very sure.")

5. Argument implies a willingness to risk confrontation

Arguers assume risk at two levels. At one level, they risk getting their ideas rejected. At
another level, they risk being personally rejected. That's because we are associated with the
ideas we hold. Argument involves people willing to be corrected.

6. Argument implies a frame of reference shared optimally.

There has to be enough of a difference to make argument necessary. There has to be enough
common ground for persons to argue. Some shared ability to communicate (a common
language), shared ideas of history, common views of reality ("World view"), common values—
these are needed for successful argument.

Brockriede's "model" can be used to evaluate arguments as "products." Later, we'll see how
these ideas can be applied to argument as rhetorical process, and as_ dialectical
method/procedure.

In addition to advancing the above 6-dimension model of argument, Brockriede advanced

several other concepts on how we can view argument.

BROCKRIEDE'S CONFIGURAL ARGUMENT

Communication has changed a lot since Aristotle, Cicero, and other Greek and Roman scholars
wrote about argument thousands of years ago. The advent of new media has created
challenges for persons wanting to understand how to make sense of argument when they are
bombarded by multi-media persuasive campaigns and the like.

In Decision by Debate (1978), Ehninger and Brockriede offer a different "model": configural
argument. If you look at the Toulmin model, or a syllogism, there is a certain "linear" chain
of reasoning. Toulmin, for example, has written that one can picture a chain or series of
Toulmin-model arguments—where one conclusion becomes the evidence for a new claim, which
later becomes evidence for a new claim. Here, there is a linear sequence—a "chain of
reasoning."

Configural argument focuses on the fact that an audience has to "put together" all kinds of
information to create a "good reason." There isn't an obvious inferential leap—there is a fusion

22
of information, values, judgments, and people may internally and/or socially construct new
meanings from that fusion. Brockriede writes:

[Its] elements are likely to be less explicitly present to guide the arguer's
movement from one idea to another. Because the parts of an argument are less
obvious, the respondent or coarguer must participate more actively in
constructing (configurizing) the experience and consequently may have more
freedom of choice than does an arguer responding to more linear forms. (1978,
gos)

If you watch a political candidate's TV ad, you are bombarded by a flurry of images, sounds,
and words (what we call non-discursive and discursive communication). You see any given ad
inthe context of an avalanche of other ads, or feelings of economic and _ political
undercurrents—all which influence your judgment. It is unlikely we graph all these out in some
linear fashion. But we have "data," we make inferences, and we have some rationale for that
inference. It's just that we have many layers of communication being processed in a very
disorderly manner. Brockriede's "configural" argument seems to fit nicely (see Kresse, 1991;
Barbatsis, 1996).

ENTHYMEME AND CONFIGURAL ARGUMENT

Configural argument mirrors a model of argument advanced by Aristotle—the enthymeme.

Arguments are socially constructed, probable (rather than certain), and persuasive. Petty and
Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Mode/ (1981) suggests that when we hear a message, our
means of organizing arguments are configural. When we hear messages, we mix those
thoughts with previous experience and ideas—arguments we've already heard—and then
reorganize information to form new judgments. This process may be idiosyncratic and
unpredictable: we don't process information like machines, and how people make sense of our
speech may not reflect our intentions.

ARGUMENT AS RHETORICAL PROCESS

Argument as a rhetorical process focuses on how we argue to persuade others. Kenneth Burke
observes that the function of all communication—rhetoric—s to adjust to the fact that there are
differences and divisions between persons. Burke argues that we wouldn't need to
communicate if we were "not apart from one another" (1955, p. 22). But we are divided—by
what we know, our values, our status in society. To manage those divisions, we communicate
(1955; 1945).

For Burke, the term identification constitutes the essence of communication, or persuasion, or
rhetoric: "Here is perhaps the simplest case of persuasion. You persuade a man only insofar
as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea,
identifying your ways with his" (1955, p. 55). Burke saw communication—rhetoric—as the
means by which we organize society, adjusting our interaction with others. Rhetoric is used to
create social order—hierarchy. It is the means by which we organize our understanding of the
world: how we generate and share knowledge.
23
Rhetoric assumes that people can reason. Burke writes that rhetoric is "the use of language as
a symbolic means of inducing cooperation" (1955, p. 43). Audiences choose to respond to
messages—Wayne Booth calls this the "rhetoric of assent" (1974). And they choose because
there are perceived to be "good reasons’ to change beliefs, attitudes, or policies (Wallace,
1963).

The scope of argument functioning as rhetoric—or persuasion—is very broad. This section
focuses on several theories that help us appreciate the function of argument as persuasion: as
a process of influencing others.

ADVOCACY AS ARGUMENT

This section of the book focuses on arguments presented outside of formal debate contexts—
although information on debate generally applies to public speaking, and visa versa. Two
thousand years ago, Roman scholars such as Quintillian and Cicero advanced the notion of
canon—the five major elements of the process of public speaking. These elements are:
invention (/nventio), organization (disposition), style (e/locutio), delivery (pronunciato), and
memory (memoria). In preparing for public speaking, this section analyzes a communication
model, examines public speaking as advocacy, surveys communication anxiety, and finally
reviews the canon and its application to public speaking.

Communication Model

Below is a model of human communication. While there are numerous models of human
communication, this model is fairly popular and contains key components that will help our
understanding of how communication operates.

Kenneth Burke describes communication as a process of influence—of "inducing cooperation"

(1955, p. 43). Humans use symbols and gestures to accomplish this goal of coordinating
meaning and actions. We communicate to create social organization: to make, alter, or dissolve
social relations. We transfer information through communication—and what counts as
knowledge is achieved, maintained, and altered by communication (Berger & Luckmann,
1967; Toulmin, 1990; 2001).

The fundamental elements of this most basic model are: speakers/receivers, messages,
feedback, medium, and situation/context. These interact simultaneously in the process of
communication.

24
 Message

: (Medium)

Sender Nonverbal Communication Receiver

Feedback

(Medium)

Matsuoka, 2004

Senders/receivers are persons who interact together through symbols and gestures.
Communication is the "glue" that holds together relations. Our relationship is constructed by
and helps govern our communication.

Messages are words and "nonverbals" (gestures and more) that we employ to convey
meaning. Messages operate on two levels: content and relationship. So when I say "hi" to
you, I'm using a word to express greetings, but I'm also saying or writing this word in a certain
style that expressed additional meanings and conveys qualities of our relationship: an
enthusiastic “Hi!” contrasted to sighed “hi.” One means “I’m glad to see you.” Another means
“I’m busy.”

Feedback is a special kind of message: it is a response to a previous message. Russian

scholar Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) argues that a// communication is dialogic—responsive to some
previous utterance.

Feedback is vital in any relationship. In business, failure to ascertain the pulse of the public can
result in failure. As you know, most products—including movies—are not widely distributed
until a certain amount of market research has been conducted to discover whether the product
is acceptable. We can assist whatever social institutions we belong to—school, business,
religious institution, or family—if we provide constructive feedback. When auto workers are
encouraged to provide timely input on how to make the assembly process more efficient—or on
making vehicles of higher quality, auto companies produce better products and save money
(Ingrassia & White, 1994; Maynard, 2003).

25
If organizations create a climate where workers are afraid to give timely feedback, or if
messages get routed to "dead ends" and never reach the intended recipients, you can expect
problems. That is precisely what happened when NASA ignored warning from engineers in
1986 and launched the ill-fated Challenger Shuttle (Gouran, Hirokawa & Martz, 1986; Vaughn,
1996). Large organizations create hierarchies that can restrict information, so it takes effort by
members to make sure feedback is encouraged, given, and received. The European School of
Management's Isaac Getz has written that feedback can save money, improve efficiency and
bolster morale in organizations. He recounts how an Air Force mechanic suggested reforms to
his colonel; the first suggestions were small changes (installing a speed bump; fixing a base
payphone) that were quickly implemented. The third suggestion (still classified by the military)
has saved the Air Force tens of millions of dollars a year (Carney, 2004).

Feedback is important. During the 2004 Presidential Campaign, Howard Dean is

remembered—rightly or wrongly—for his concession speech the January 19 Iowa Caucus.
What viewers saw on TV was Dean, after a disappointing third-place finish to John Kerry, trying
to marshal supporters. The supporters were cheering, but Dean's microphone was designed to
pick up his voice--not the voice of the cheering crowd. So you heard Dean—and not the
frenzied crowd—screaming:

We're going to California and Texas and New York and we'te going to South
Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan! And then we're going to
Washington, DC, to take back the White House. Yeah!(Matthews, 2004)

Dean's yelling to project above the screaming crowd was viewed out-of-context. NBC's
Campbell Brown noted the first impression this left on many: "this is the first thing you see, him
going crazy? Well, boom, done. This guy's whacked" (Matthews, 2004). Dean became the
target of late night comedians: Jay Leno said "It's always a bad sign when at the end of your
speech, your aide is shooting you with a tranquilizer gun" (Morrison, 2004).

When you speak, you may think you sound fine. But you should check how you sound to
others. The problem is common when rock bands perform. I've been to a number of concerts
where you could barely hear (in some cases, couldn't hear at all) the vocals: they were
drowned out by drums and guitars. Musicians don't hear the same sounds as the audience:
they get feedback from headphones or a speaker directed towards them, but it's not the same
sound the audience gets. In some venues, speakers in certain parts of the room may not
capture vocals the same as what people other sections of the room would hear. That task of
coordinating sound is left to a soundperson. In too many cases, the mixing is uneven. And all
too often, musicians simply overlook the need to get adequate feedback on how they sound.
For speakers, it's helpful to do sound checks in new venues, or to solicit feedback from
members of the audience, so that you can adjust to them.

Getting feedback is important—for musicians, managers, and speakers. Too often, we fail to
give feedback. In businesses and other organizations, it's not uncommon for complaints to be
passed throughout the "grapevine" because they're afraid bosses will ignore or punish
feedback. Too often, that's an accurate assumption. Isaac Getz recommends employers solicit
direct feedback to immediate superiors who can implement ideas—and whether adopted or not,
feedback should be met with respect (Carney, 2005).
26
Messages are transmitted through some medium. If you're writing, you use the printed page
as a medium or channe/. Media affect the communication of messages by leaving their imprint
on our communication. Canadian scholar Marshall McLuhan is famous for the saying "The
medium /s the message" (1964). You probably find a message more personal if it is hand-
written than typed or sent by e-mail. Television creates a greater sense of immediacy.
Politicians with a natural, conversational style appear more attractive (Epstein, 2001;
Greenfield, 2001).

Watching television is a different sort of experience than, say, reading. Compressed time
allocated for TV news shows has resulted in transformation of the language in reporting: verbs
are often deleted from stories, since you can make sense of stories with words missing (don't
try this on written assignments!) (Newshour, 2001). Fox News' Shepard Smith explains:

You sort of eliminate the things that get in your way in this era of multitasking,
and sometimes the verbs just aren't necessary. It's, “President Bush in
Washington today." I don't need to say, "He is in Washington today." "President
Bush in Washington today, talking with Colin Powell, getting ready for a trip
overseas. Telling others yesterday about what happened when, dah, dah, dah,
dah." You don't need all of those verbs. (Newshour, 2001)

The final aspect of this communication model is the situation or context. Stephen Toulmin
(1972; 1958) argues that the situation sets demands over what kinds of arguments occur and
when they occur. The setting of a funeral calls for different sorts of communication than does a
victory celebration. Our choices in words and gestures, the volume of voice... all are
constrained by the context. The situation also creates needs for communication (Bitzer, 1958).

Advocacy and argument: Informing and Persuading

This text does not make a distinction between /nformative and persuasive speeches. This is a
distinctly minority view in communication texts: every public speaking book I've ever seen has
distinct categories of informative and persuasive speeches, and both high school and college
forensics tournaments have designated categories of informative (expository) and persuasive
(oratory) speeches. So why no division here?

From a pragmatic perspective, there is no difference. The ELM model (and other models)
informs us that once utterances leave the mouths of speakers, they're under the control of
listeners who re-construct them in the process of listening and understanding. If I give a
speech on "mad cow disease" that is meant to be informative, I suspect I will tell you about the
origins of mad cow disease and how humans contract it. Once you hear the word "beef" and
"mad cow" in the same sentence, how are you likely to react? I'm not sure, but I do know that
some people are vegetarians because of the connection they made.

Kenneth Burke explains in his book, Permanence and Change, that the process of organizing a
message and the process of interpreting a message are inherently rhetorical—inherently
persuasive. First, when we communicate, we organize our words and sentences in a certain
manner. That organization reflects certain ways of seeing the world—a world view and all the
judgments inherent in a given perspective:
27
 In this sense, any new way of putting the characters of events together is an
attempt to convert people, regardless of whether it go by the name of
religion, psychotherapy, or science. It is impious, by our definition, insofar as
it attacks the kinds of linkages already established. It attempts, by
rationalization, to alter the nature of our responses. (Burke, 1965, pp. 86-
87).

Any time you accuse somebody of trying to convert somebody, the implication is a deep-level
of persuasion.

Second, there is little if any evidence that messages are intrinsically neutral. Rhetorical scholar
Richard Weaver wrote an essay entitled Language is Sermonic (1970), where he argued that
the language we use reflects a particular perspective (or worldview). Richards argued that our
discourses advocates or "preaches" that perspective.

Finally, the process of interpretation is inherently rhetorical. Modern persuasion theory

Suggests that we process information through "perceptual filters" or "terministic screens"—and
that we personally or socially re-construct information according to those perspectives (Petty &
Cacioppo; Burke, 1966; Weick, 1979). Those orientations—that "socially constructed reality"—
what we then act upon (Burke, 1965, p. 14).

COMMUNICATION ANXIETY
We all experience anxiety. This happens when we're in situations where we're expected to
perform, and where people can see us make mistakes. This section will examine an overview
of communication anxiety, symptoms of anxiety, causes of anxiety, and means of managing it.

People who face uncertain situations, and are observed, feel anxiety. Performance anxiety
occurs when people take examinations (think of driver's license examinations), go through job
interviews. It is common among musicians, actors, and athletes. One band member of the
musical group, Wi/co, described the anxiety experienced by singer Jeff Tweedy just before the
band opened at a large concert in Italy: "He's pale, they call the medic, they're giving him
oxygen, he's shaking.... He's having a severe anxiety attack, bawling his eyes out.
And somehow he gets it together just in time, five minutes before he has to go on." (in Klein,
2004, p. 13).

Most of us have been in a school play or musical, gotten stage fright, and forgotten our lines.
And we've seen—or heard—of athletes "choking."

The first time I debated in high school, our team faced two female debaters from Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho; I was mildly prepared to debate. My partner, who had debate experience,
thought it wise for me to go first (not a good idea), so after the other team's first speaker have
her speech, I got up. I remember looking at the judge, the two debaters from Coeur d'Alene,
my partner, and then trying to say something. One or two words came out, and then things
stopped--abruptly. It didn't occur to me that I could quit right there, so again I tried
speaking—several times. In what seemed like an eternity up there, I could see my partner
28
looking nervous (probably second-guessing his putting me up there first). But miraculously,
words started coming out of my mouth, I finished the speech, and we actually won the debate.

Moderate levels of anxiety are natural for many performances (Brownell & Katula, 1984).
Being nervous can be helpful. You're more likely to prepare for an activity if you want to avoid
embarrassment or failure. So moderate anxiety can be good. Having that nervous energy can
help you look more excited or animated when you talk, too. A few errors in speaking make you
appear natura/ (compare that to infomercial salespersons whose speeches are flawless).

Most of the time we have communication anxiety, we know we are nervous, but others around
us probably perceive us as perfectly normal. Often that's because there are no visible
symptoms of our being nervous. But it's also likely that even if you display signs of
nervousness, most people will never notice. We tend to grossly exaggerate how much people
notice us (Carey, 2003).

There are signs of nervousness we see or feel. One sign is communication avoidance. People
may avoid situations where they have to give speeches (Richmond & McCroskey, 1998).
People sometimes select careers that have limited public speaking requirements if they have
high communication apprehension. There are visible signs during speech performances.
Fluency breaks or fillers ("er," "um," "uh," "like," and "ya know") may indicate nervousness and
a desire to avoid "dead air" with some sort of utterance. High levels of stress may lead to
memory lapses (Gorman, 2002). Because the digestive system slows down, one may feel some
queasiness or "butterflies"; the slowed initial phase of digestion (production of saliva in the
mouth) often causes "dry mouth.” Increased pulse can cause higher body temperature and
subsequent perspiration as the body tries to cool down. Tightened muscles can lead to
changes in pitch and a quivering voice. Speakers aware of these signs may shift attention away
from the "basics," make mistakes, and have symptoms (and mistakes) snowball.

WHAT CAUSES COMMUNICATION ANXIETY?

There are numerous factors that can make us nervous. First, most speaking situations have
high levels of uncertainty Most of us don't like surprises: we like stability and order (Berger &
Bradac, 1982). Public speaking and debating are inherently fraught with uncertainty. Arthur
Koestler (1967) writes that novel situations are problematic. We aren't sure how to act on our
first date, first dance, first job interview, or first anything. That lack of skills encompasses the
entire range of what every communicator does in any context: appraise the rhetorical situation,
invent a message and organize it, and adapt the communication for subsequent interaction.

Part of why we have communication anxiety is because we are too preoccupied with ourselves.
We exaggerate how much attention people are paying towards us. If we are focusing on
ourselves, we are sure to notice errors simply because no performance is perfect.

Finally, we might be expecting the worst. Maybe we've had past experiences that weren't
positive. It's natural to be affected by that. But speaking is something we get a lot of chances
to do.

29
HOW CAN WE MANAGE COMMUNICATION ANXIETY?
There are a number of things that can help us feel more confident and less nervous. The
process of creating a speech, presenting it, and adapting to future interaction involves skill:
skill in Knowing how to find a topic, how to research, how to organize, and how to strengthen
effective delivery. This class and other structured experiences can help develop effective
communication skills. Knowing that you don't have adequate skills is a sure-fire way to
justifiably be nervous.

Practice also helps. Remember the first time you ever drove a car? You were probably
nervous. Later, you probably weren't nervous driving. Top athletes or performers in any
activity have developed skills enough so that they don't have to deliberately think about each
and everything they do. Arthur Koestler (1967) lists a sequence of steps in acquiring learning—
something that applies to driving a car or hitting a tennis ball. The first step is acquisition of
skills. This step involves deliberate concentration on each step of the activity. The next step is
practice. We now know that we actually rewire the brain with repeated activities; parts of
musicians' and athletes’ brains are developed more than others who don't practice the skills
these experts do (Gladwell, 2000 August; Schwartz & Begley, 2003)

Repeated practice is key to developing skills—and reducing anxiety. University of

Virginia psychology professor Daniel Willingham has done research on cognition and motor
skills. Apparently, we have two "tracks" that our brain uses: a "mindful" track (we are thinking
about our thinking and action) and an "scripted" track. If you've ever learned something like
playing the piano, playing tennis, or playing basketball, then you know that after awhile you're
able to "play" without concentrating on every move. In fact, only novices do that. These all
demand a lot of coordination of motion—and fairly rapid body movement. When athletes
"choke," they make errors, focus on those errors, and shift from "implicit" to "explicit" learning
and action. (Willingham & Goedert-Eschmann, 1999). Malcolm Gladwell wrote of one athlete
who had a meltdown in the finals at Wimbledon. With a large lead and just a few points from
victory, she began to make small errors: hitting the ball into the net repeatedly, losing form...
all while watching her lead disappear into a loss:

Under conditions of stress, however, the explicit system sometimes takes over.
That's what it means to choke. When Jana Novotna faltered at Wimbledon, it
was because she began thinking about her shots again. She lost her fluidity, her
touch. She double-faulted on her serves and mis-hit her overheads, the shots
that demand the greatest sensitivity in force and timing. She seemed like a
different person--playing with the slow, cautious deliberation of a beginner--
because, in a sense, she was a beginner again: she was relying on a learning
system that she hadnt used to hit serves and overhead forehands and volleys
since she was first taught tennis, as a Child. (Gladwell, 2000, August)

Practice makes better. If you get to select a doctor for surgery, you'd like one with a high
success rate. Dr. Atul Gawane (2003), in his book Complications, writes about a clinic in
Toronto that focuses on one sort of surgery: hernia operations. Hernia operations have a 10-
15% failure rate—and the operation often must be repeated. But the Shouldice Hospital is

30
world famous—deservedly so. It has a recurrence rate of surgery of /ess than one-percent!
Gawane explains:

What's the secret of that clinic's success? The short answer Is that the dozen
surgeons at Shouldice do hernia operations and nothing else. Each surgeon
repairs between 600 and 800 hernias a year—more than most general surgeons
do in a /ifetime.... Shouldice's staff is better trained and has more experience
than anyone else. But there's another way to formulate the reason for its
success, Which is that repetition changes the way we think. As Lucien Leape, a
Harvard pediatric surgeon who has made a study of mechanic error, explains: "a
defining trait of experts is that they move more and more problem-solving into
an automatic mode." With repetition, a lot of mental functioning becomes
automatic and effortless, as when you drive a car to work. (pp. 38-39)

Skilled doctors, pilots, athletes musicians—and speakers—have the flexibility to adapt to novel
situations effectively to the degree that they don't have to deliberately concentrate on "basic"
knowledge. Practice may not make perfect, but it helps you to think better in stressful
situations. While giving speeches isn't brain (or hernia) surgery, practicing any skill pays
dividends. Daniel Kahneman has described this ability to make make decisions and act skillfully
based on extensive practice in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow (2011). You'll probably
experience reduced anxiety if you practice and prepare thoroughly.

Developing skills is important. Scholars like Cicero and Quintillian recognized basic elements of
speeches called the rhetorical canon. These are skills we still need to develop for speeches we
deliver or papers we write: 1) invention (coming up with the research and ideas for the
speech); 2) organization, 3) style; 4) delivery; and 5) memory. In addition to getting
information from this text and other books, students are advised to consult faculty or other
students for assistance on these facets of a speech. Not knowing what to do is bound to make
you nervous. As a teacher and as a graduate student, I've seen (and experienced) a "writers
block" in trying to complete projects; sometimes it's because I haven't done the research;
sometimes it's because I don't know what to do. If that happens to you, ask for help.

Communication anxiety is normal. Part of managing it is accepting it as normal. Research

indicates that students experience the highest levels of anxiety shortly before their speech and
during the first moments of the speech (Brownell and Katula, 1984). This is comparable to
what you experience during job interviews, too. We can do some things to adapt to that
"spiking" of anxiety at the beginning of speeches. First, Know the introduction thoroughly. In
part because you are unsure of audience reaction, it's perfectly normal to feel high levels of
stress here. Fumbling the introduction because you haven't practiced it will likely generate poor
audience response and worsen your feelings. Be sure to have your notes in order; fumbling
with cards in the beginning or elsewhere breaks the flow of the speech and disrupts your ability
to concentrate. Go over the "big picture" of the speech. Finally, don't read the introduction.
You lose eye contact with the audience, so when you do look up, two things have happened.
First, the audience hasn't given you any positive responses (which weakens your performance).
Second, some (or many) are likely to have diverted their attention elsewhere; you'll see that,
probably feel bad, and become more anxious.

emt
Finally, don't focus on yourself. Focus on the speech and the audience. In the numerous
accounts of athletes and others suffering "meltdowns" during stressful performances, I observe
one constant: the person starts to focus on themselves. I'm not suggesting you should totally
ignore how you look, but I think we pay too much attention to ourselves. That's not going to
make us less nervous. When I was in high school, our assistant wrestling coach—Mike
Kostecka—had two sons on our wrestling team. They were varsity wrestlers, and during their
matches, it was often more entertaining to watch Mr. Kostecka than anything else. Normally
calm, he was totally focused on seeing his sons succeed, and was screaming and jumping and
acting like a true fan—not our history teacher. But Mr. Kostecka didn't care how he looked. He
was focused on his sons. If you're focused on the speech and audience, you'll probably feel
much less anxious. In fact, research indicates that once you get past that initial period of
maximum discomfort, you might actually enjoy speaking in public! (Brownell & Katula, 1984;
Richmond & McCroskey, 1998).

CANON & ADVOCACY: THE PROCESS OF PERSUASION

This section surveys the steps of putting together a speech. While discussing /nvention,
organization, style, delivery, and memory, guidelines for adapting to audiences, constructing
speeches, and improving delivery will be advanced.

INVENTION
Maybe the hardest part of any task is starting. Creating a speech might be easier if we begin
by examining what happens when one "creates" a speech. There is no necessary starting point
that works for everyone. Beginning a speech is somewhat complex because you need to do
several things—simultaneously. First, you need to analyze your audience. You need to find a
topic. And you need to gather information to create your speech.

Analyzing Your Audience and situation

Political campaigns go to great lengths to craft messages for campaign ads. In campaigns,
each word used in a 30-second ad may be tested in focus groups for suitability. When
television shows are made, audience responsiveness to every few seconds of the show can be
measured (Gladwell, 2000). Hollywood tests movies before general release to ascertain
audience responses, and makes alterations in movies accordingly (Goldstein, 2005).

A number of audience concerns are in play in any speech. Is the topic relevant to the
audience? Is your audience responsible for this information? Do they know enough about the
topic to make sense of your speech? Does their prior knowledge mean you have to adapt to
their hostility towards the topic, or indifference to the issue? Each of these questions should be
considered throughout the process of crafting a speech (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).

As a debate and speech coach, I've helped many students develop speeches relating to health
issues (a perennial favorite for competitive speeches). In each case, we tried to keep the
ae
speech dignified—using medical terminology frequently. The effect was a dignified speech. But
I can think of speeches where students didn't do that, and the speeches came across as
crude.

Students generally have ample opportunity to meet with faculty to discuss projects. It's a good
habit to begin if you don't already do it. Since instructors will be evaluating the speech, this
gives you an opportunity to discover their expectations and preferences. It's also harder for an
instructor to justify giving you a poor grade when you meet expectations. It's also prudent to
form study groups for most classes. They serve as good sounding boards for your speeches.

Topic Selection

Topic selection works in conjunction with the audience. Having said that, how do you find
interesting things to discuss? The best suggestions I have are: read, watch the news, and
keep informed. In today's information age, your education and career are likely to be enhanced
if you keep well informed. Most news magazines have sections on national and international
news, style, health, law, sports, transportation, and entertainment.

Finding a good topic is easy if you expose yourself to leading news magazines, news programs,
and the like. I can remember going to a speech and debate tournament, and watching a news
show on ABC that night with some of the debaters. One show we watched featured a segment
on zombies—yes, zombies!! A person featured on the show was an anthropologist and biologist
from Harvard, who had done research on zombies in Haiti. Our student, Brian Holland, and I
thought this would be a great topic. He went to various journals, read up about zombies, and
won numerous college speech tournaments with a thrilling speech on zombies!

My oldest daughter has similar success competing with a speech on eating insects. She began
the speech by holding out a cooked cricket—and then ate it. Unusual topics may be inherently
interesting, but I've had students succeed with rather ordinary topics—like sneezing. What
appear to be mundane topics may be important—and often overlooked. In either case, it's up
to the speaker to make a case for why the topic is relevant and important.

Gathering Information

Researching a speech is similar—if not the same—as researching a debate. Putting together a
speech requires you know enough about the topic to give an accurate description of the key
issues and, when relevant, provide sound evaluations and suggestions.

Think about visiting a doctor. How does she—or he—know what to do when it comes to
diagnosing and treating you? Medical knowledge involves prior education, research,
experience, and constant updating of information. Doctors subscribe to medical journals, read
on-line reports, receive information at conventions and workshops, and conversations with
colleagues. The amount of expertise you have on a subject will be in direct proportion to the
effort you take studying that topic.

33
 For speeches in college classes, you have the demand of researching four to six topics over a
fairly short period of time (one semester or less). Assuming you know something about the
topic already, most speeches can be researched adequately by reading newspapers, magazines,
web sites, reports from think tanks, reviewing television transcripts, or reading books. There's
no exact formula for prescribing how much one has to read to do an adequate job. If you face
a hostile audience that is well informed, research demands will be higher than if you speak to a
supportive audience.

My experience in forensics is that most speakers read at least six and up to a dozen relevant
articles for most competitive speeches. Demands on the quantity of research vary from class to
class.

The Italian scholar, Giambattista Vico, (Verene, 1988) wrote that rhetoric has the ability to
recreate the past, present, future—or all three—before the audience. The following are ways to
helps audience imagination:

e Concrete examples- If you are trying to get an idea across, avoid the use of clichés.
Help the audience to "see" or "touch" the concept.
e Narratives- Concise anecdotes can be dramatic and convey ideas powerfully.
e Testimonies- Borrow expertise from other authorities. Eyewitness accounts may be
particularly persuasive.
e Analogies- Apt comparisons help the audience understand by presenting a similar
concept.
e Statistics and graphs- These are powerful. Avoid overwhelming audiences with
statistics. Often it's most effective to personalize the statistic. If 30% of people
suffer a disease, note that one out of three people in the room are vulnerable.

Remember, speeches can be boring if you don't make them come alive with clear examples.
Narrative accounts that illustrate themes in your speech can be found in magazines or books.
Inclusion of quotations from authorities can enhance the credibility of your arguments. I get to
hear many speeches each semester, and what I don't like hearing are weird arguments based
on dubious sources. Generally, that doesn't work in the real world—at least it shouldn't.

ORGANIZATION
Whether you are organized or not, your audience will try to make sense of your speech. To the
degree that you present a sensibly-structured speech, you increase the likelihood your audience
can process the message to both your and their satisfaction.

Introductions

The audience begins processing your speech with your presenting the introduction of your
speech. The introduction of a speech has at least three functions. First, you need to get the
attention of your audience. Second, you need to communicate the purpose (theme) of the
speech. Finally, you need to set up the rest of the speech with a preview of the body of the
speech.
34
There are four means of beginning speeches I recommend. The first is to begin with an
anecdote or narrative. Narratives capture the attention of audiences, concisely convey the
key themes and issues of the speech, and are a psychologically powerful way of connecting
with deeply-rooted cultural values (Fisher, 1987; Burke, 1955). We grow up hearing our
parents convey morals and wisdom through stories such as Little Red Riding Hood (moral: don't
talk to strangers). We are primed to respond to narratives, and that's one reason why they are
so effective. Many essays in news magazines and newspapers begin with narratives.

A second way of beginning a speech is to ask a question. Questions engage the audience.
Questions bring interactivity to a speech, and can be used throughout the body as well. They
should be somewhat relevant to the theme, and in good taste.

A third way to begin a speech is with a relevant quotation. Editorials frequently begin with
quotations. The use of a quotation helps begin to establish your authority (in part because it
shows you have researched the topic). As a college undergraduate suffering writer's block, I
frequently turned to a book of quotations to begin papers. The key is to get started on a
positive note, and quotations can do that.

Finally, speeches can begin with dramatic facts or statistics. If you watch TV news
programs, they often have a "hook" at the very beginning of the show—some startling
disclosure—that grabs your attention. Again, good taste needs to be considered.

After the attention-phase of the introduction, there are two other objectives to achieve. First,
the speaker generally advances a clear, single theme or thesis (purpose) to the speech.
Given that you usually have less than ten minutes to present a speech in tournament or class
settings, a single theme guarantees adequate depth of analysis. A clearly stated thesis also
helps focus the audience's attention where you want it.

Next, a preview of the key points of the body (usually three or four) helps prepare the
audience to anticipate lines of reasoning and helps them organize your speech mentally.
Previews provide a roadmap of where the speech is going; it helps listeners keep from getting
lost.

Example of INTRODUCTION (outline):

TOPIC: Avoid food allergies

I. INTRODUCTION

A. (Attention) (Death of Scottish hurdler Ross Bailie). Scottish hurdler Ross Bailie was, at
21, one of the top-ranked 110 meter hurdlers in the world. Just a year from competing in the
2000 Summer Olympics, Ross and a friend had lunch after morning workouts. Unknown to
Ross, the chicken sandwich he had bitten into contained a peanut sauce. Within seconds
Ross's tongue began to swell. Choking, gasping for air, he passed out. Although rushed
immediately to a nearby hospital, the BBC reported Ross Bailie never regained consciousness.
35
(BBC News, 1999) Did you know a peanut—a single peanut—could be a lethal weapon? It is, if
you suffer certain allergies.

B. (Thesis) Each year, over 150 people die in the United States alone as a result of food
allergies. These deaths can be prevented.

C. (Preview) Just what causes these fatal allergic reactions to food? What kinds of food put
at most at risk? And what remedies are there to allergic reactions?

The introduction above does several things. First, it captures audience attention with a dramatic
narrative. Second, it clearly states the topic of the speech: food allergies. Finally, it sets up
the rest of the speech by previewing the three main sections of the body of the speech.

THE BODY OF THE SPEECH

Ideally, there should be some logical reason why one format for organizing a speech is chosen
over an alternative. If I give a speech on how to perform an operation, I probably will choose a
chronological format, for example. Sometimes topics can be organized around any number of
formats successfully. In that case, you may choose a format that is novel, or has maximum
clarity, or is easiest to remember. A key question to ask in choosing a format is: does this
make sense structured in this way? The following are suggestions (with examples) of
organizational formats:

CHRONOLOGICAL FORMAT

Chronological formats organize an issue around a time sequence. Many health and beauty ads
on television are arranged with a before/after structure. Chronological formats (past-present-
future) are fairly easy to conceptualize. Just like movies are not always linear in time-sequence,
speeches can begin with the present or future and then shift to past, etc. Not all chronological
speeches need to be rigidly past-present-future.

If one gives a speech on American Presidents, one could use this chronological sequence:

A.George Washington
B. Abraham Lincoln
C.Franklin Roosevelt
D.Ronald Reagan
E. Barack Obama

Once you have the basic structure of a time sequence, it can be expanded and adapted. The
outline below is of a chronological speech of the risks people have with allergies to some foods:
anaphylactic shock. This is an allergic over-reaction that sometimes is fatal. This condition
affects some people with food allergies, or insect-bite allergies (BBC, 2003, February 8).

36
Anaphylactic Shock (body of speech outline)

A. The body is exposed to a foreign substance (insect venom, some food)

B. The body’s immune system over-reacts to a perceived threat
C. As a defense-mechanism, it produces vast quantities of A/stamines.
D. Sequence of bodily responses to histamines:
1. muscle contractions; skin swelling and rash
2. throat constricts; difficulty breathing
3. blood vessels dilate with resulting blood pressure drop
4. may cause fainting or unconsciousness, and sometimes death.

Chronological formats can be effective in persuasion. The audience undoubtedly wants to avoid
the consequences of this allergic reaction; this provides a motive for them to take precautionary
measures. You can see the persuasive power of chronological organization by noticing TV or
print ads that show "before-and-after" pictures of people. Generally, people don't try to look
like the "before."

SPATIAL FORMAT

Spatial formats have to do with space... distance... proximity. Think of following directions on a
map. When you follow a road map (especially one from the internet), you follow spatia/
pattern. One of my favorite videos I play to students is Dr. Ben Carson's address to the 1997
Presidential Prayer Breakfast. Carson recounted the amazing story of his life—from being a
failing student to achieving success as one of the world's great neurosurgeons. At one point in
his speech, he recounted the process of how we hear sounds and respond. Carson retraced the
steps—from the sound waves hitting the eardrum to the sequences of brain processes, to the
act of raising one's hand in the air. Carson's use of a spatial structure—from eardrum to brain
to arm—demonstrated the complexity of simple actions.

For the sample outline, here, I will use the example of describing traveling from Los Angles to
Seattle—from south to north.

Los Angeles (start)

Sacramento
Salem
Portland
Olympia
oe Seattle (finish)
Oa
Ge
0).
BU
got

PROBLEM-SOLUTION FORMAT

Please refer to the "stock issues for policy debate" section in this text. Many speeches call for a
plan to implement. There are several basic parts in most formats for "policy" speeches. These

37
boil down to a problem (or advantage) linked to a solution (plan). Often, arguers will explain
why the current situation isn't producing these benefits or solving problems (this is known as
"inherency"—the root cause of the problem or an explanation why a proposal results in unique
advantages). Next, arguers suggest a plan to achieve desired results. Finally, an explanation is
given of how the plan achieves the desired results. The order of these elements may vary;
sometimes the person may propose a plan ("vote for me") and then spend the rest of the
speech arguing that the plan achieves valuable rewards ("I'll cut taxes, improve education, and
end poverty.").

1. Problem / Advantage
2. Cause
3. Solution / plan
4. Plan achieves advantage or solves problem

Topic: Why you should buy a hybrid automobile.

A. (Harm) Gasoline prices are high and will get worse.

B. (Inherency) Your current vehicle gets poor mileage because it is heavy and has a huge gas-
gulping engine.
C. (Plan) Buy a hybrid!
D. (Plan solves) With power generated during braking and a thrifty motor, tests indicate you
can cut gas bills by 40%.

TOPICAL FORMAT
Often there isn't a clear—or compelling—structure to frame your speech. A topjca/ format
simply finds two, three, or more dimensions of your speech and divides the topic into those
categories. For example, if you're giving your speech on "innovations from automobile racing,"
you could arrange the speech chronologically (1950s—disk brakes, 1960s—aerodynamic
stabilizers, 1970s—"ground effects") or spatially (underside of car: ground effects; front of car:
headlight innovations; rear of car: spoilers) or by topics. Note that the sequence of these
topics could be altered without any major effect.

Below is a sample outline of “Olympic Sports Events.” The list could focus on summer or winter
Olympics, team sports, water sports, or other variations. As long as they fit under the theme of
Olympic events, they can be effective topical patterns of organization.

TOPIC: OLYMPIC SPORTS

A.(winter) curling
B.(winter) cross country skiing
C.(summer) track and field
D.(summer) swimming
38
COMPARISON-CONTRAST FORMAT
Sometimes a topic makes sense—or makes more sense—when it is held up in comparison (or
contrast) to something else. If you're an international student, or a student from a different
region of this country, you probably understand your "home" culture better as a result of living
in a different place. This page is an example of contrast: if everything were black (or white)
there would be little meaning. Your height means something compared to somebody else. If
the whole world is 7-feet tall, then what does it mean to be "tall"?

Comparison-contrast speeches explain key features of two objects or ideas—and then show the
relationships (comparing or contrasting). During the speech, or at the end of the speech,
inferences can be drawn as to the meanings of these comparisons and contrasts.

TOPIC: Marriage rituals in the world.

A. Arranged marriages.
B. Non-arranged ("choice" or "love") marriages
C. Which is best?

The above speech was patterned after an actual speech a student gave in one of my classes
recently. The speech gave us insights into different cultures, and generated numerous
questions students asked after the speech.

REFUTATIONAL FORMAT

In most topics, there is more than one way of looking at a given topic. When an informed
audience hears you speak, they often appreciate your handling some of the complexities of the
topic. Often, you give speeches in front of people who disagree with you. The comparison-
contrast and refutational formats allow you to look at multiple perspectives of an issue in a
single speech.

A major concern with complex topics is to keep things clear (simple) without being simplistic. I
encourage students to give partisan speeches, but I expect them to address the fact that others
hold differing views. Audiences actively argue with—or against—you when you talk. Ever hear
somebody say something on TV or the radio and you felt like saying "Oh yeah?!" Figure that
your audience might feel the same way.

A common means of structuring this sort of speech is to advance the arguments of an

opponent, then give "your side of the story." The 4-point refutational method of structuring
responses in debate can be helpful here: state your opponent's claim, disagree, support your
claim, and show the impact of your argument.

39
TOPIC: Coffee is good for you; eat, drink, and be merry!

A. People say coffee is bad for you. (State the claim you will refute.)
B. Coffee reduces risks of Parkinson's disease, cancer, and diabetes (Present your counter-
argument.)
C. New studies show benefits and insignificant risks. (Support your claim)
D. Impact. (Explain how the audience should respond to this information.)

Two sided, refutational speeches allow you to be more effective in persuading informed or
hostile audiences (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). You look credible, since you acknowledge
competing ideas. You deal with those conflicting ideas or information. And you give what
appear to be fair arguments to your listeners.

TRANSITIONS: BRIDGES BETWEEN IDEAS

Just as written papers need transitions between paragraphs (and sometimes within longer
paragraphs), oral communication needs transitions to tie ideas together. Transitions provide
links between what otherwise seem disconnected thoughts.

A helpful rule on transitions: try to have variety. "Next" is a perfectly good transition, but you
sound like you have a limited vocabulary if it's the only transition you use. I can remember
speeches where every sentence (almost!) began with "and." You probably have memorized
lists of transitions from junior high; just in case, here's a short list:

Therefore
Later
Earlier
Afterwards
Finally
First, second, third (signposting)
On the other hand
In comparison (in contrast)
This leads to
(Pause... take short transitional step)

INTERNAL SUMMARIES AND REVIEWS

It is difficult to process oral communication—often much more difficult than written
communication. The listener can't "skim" a speech (those that try it—just listen for highlights—
are likely to miss key ideas and wind up with inferences different than those desired by the
speaker). It's also hard to review an idea. I remember in graduate school reading—and re-
reading—some paragraphs of essays by scholars that made little sense. This is very hard to do
in spoken communication (I have had foreign students that tape my presentations, but you can

40
see how time-consuming that would be!). Because audiences might not always catch what you
Say, and because they help summarize ideas that have been argued, it is advisable to build
internal summaries into speeches... as well as to provide /nterna/ previews to "shift gears" and
set up forthcoming paraphrase of thought.

In presenting internal reviews, you might say something like "We've just seen three reasons to
avoid allergic foods"—phrasing that concisely reviews the key points discussed. Internal
previews often follow internal reviews "Now that we've seen the harms of allergic foods, what
are steps we can take to avoid risks?"

The key thing to remember about internal previews and reviews is this: your audience has to
follow your thoughts—often without the benefit of taking notes. You can provide them a
roadmap—of where you've been, and where you're going—that helps them listen to your
speech better.

Conclusions to Speeches
There is no definitive rule on how to make speeches, but there are general expectations as to
what should happen during /ntroductions and conclusions. The general purpose of an
introduction is capturing attention and priming people to hear the body of the speech. The
conclusion summarizes the body and sets up people for whatever post-speech action is desired.

The first thing you want to do is signal that this is the ending. Transitions like "finally" are
effective ("in conclusion" gets overused in speech class); it's often effective just to pause, take
a short transitional step, and then move into the review of the body.

The review of the body is also important. If you've been talking for five-to-ten minutes, this
gives you a chance to refresh the ideas in people's minds. This tells the audience what you
think is vital to remember—including the big idea or thesis... and any action you want the
audience to remember to do.

While it's not mandatory, it's aesthetically pleasing to link the intro and conclusion by referring
to the introduction at the end of your speech. One of the best speeches I remember was a
speech a student gave on the merits of organ donations. She began with a narrative about a
little girl who'd been in the news: Jamie Fiske:

At a recent Congressional hearing on organ donations, Charles Fiske addressed the

committee by recounting how he tucks his little daughter, Jamie, into bed each night.
Mr. Fiske continued: "T sing to her, 'You are my sunshine/My only Sunshine/You make
me happy/When skies are gray/Youlll never know dear/How much I love you...." Just
then, Mr. Fiske’s eyes welled up with tears, and he cried out, "Won't somebody help my
baby?!"

This narrative captured the audience's attention, frames the rest of the speech on organ
donations, and then was referred to in the conclusion:

We've seen the urgent need for organ donations, and just how each of us an be
involved—especially by registering when we renew our licenses. I think Jamie Fiske
would agree. She got her new kidney in time. And just last year, she finished her first
year of school, Because people cared.
41
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right,
parent of light and lord of light in this world, and the source of truth
and reason in the other: this is the first great cause which he, who
would act rationally either in public or private life, must behold.”
To the Sophist, who follows the opinion of the many instead of
regarding fixed principles of truth, he pays his respects with the
searching satire of a Carlyle.

His theology, which is a part of his philosophy, has many striking

features that have commanded the astonishment of the Christian
world. “God the Creator changes not; He deceives not.” It is wrong to
do good to friends and injure enemies, for the injury of another can
be in no case just. If you have a quarrel with any one, become
reconciled before you sleep. In heaven is the pattern of the perfect
city. All things will work together for good to the just. He advocates
the severest abstract piety that, as in the conduct of the sternest
Roman or the severest Puritan, swerves not from duty. The myth of
Er, the Armenian, reminds us in many points of the judgment day;
and his exhortation to pursue the heavenly way that it may be well
with us here and hereafter, may be our salvation if we are obedient,
is one of the most striking in the history of religious belief.
In the fifth book of the “Laws” is an exhortation to right living that
partakes of the spirit of the Christian philosophy. Every man is to
honor his own soul with an honor that regards divine good, to value
principle higher than life, to place virtue above all gold, to glory in
following the better course, to count reverence in children a greater
heritage than riches, to regard a contract as a holy thing, to avoid
excess of self-love and to adhere to the truth as the beginning of
every good. We need no further illustration of the fact that Platonism
was naturally welcomed by the early Christian Church.
 The ethical ideals of Plato are the most valuable phase of his
writings. In the First Book of the “Republic,” Thrasymachus, in a
dialogue with Socrates, defines justice to be Sublime Simplicity, and
argues that the unjust are discreet and wise, as some may argue to-
day that shrewd dishonesty is commendable. The ethics of Plato is
the opposite pole of this philosophy, and as such stands for the
rational and moral order of the world. His system is not hedonistic,
but ideal. It aims at a good, but the good is attained by a life of virtue.
In a famous passage of the “Republic,” the transcendently just
man is described. He is to be clothed in justice only. Being the best
of men, he is to be esteemed the worst, and so continue to the hour
of his death. He is to be bound, scourged, and suffer every kind of
evil, and even be crucified; still he is to be just for righteousness’
sake. No wonder some Christian fathers believed this referred to
Him who was to come, as described in the celebrated chapter of
Isaiah. The best man is also the happiest, whether seen or unseen
by gods and men. In the “Crito” Socrates will not escape from prison
if it is not right, though he suffer death or any other calamity. “Virtue
is the health and beauty and well-being of the soul, and vice is the
disease and weakness and deformity of the soul.” He is a fool who
laughs at aught but folly and vice. The possession of the whole world
is of no value without the good. No pleasure except that of the wise
is quite true and pure. “Is not the noble that which subjects the beast
to the man, or rather to the god in man?” “How would a man profit if
he received gold and silver on the condition that he was to enslave
the noblest part of him to the worst?” “The Holy is loved of God
because it is Holy.” Not pleasure, but wisdom and knowledge and
right opinions and true reasonings are better, both now and forever.
The good ruler considers not his own interest, but that of the state.
The governing class are to be told that gold and silver they have
from God; the divine metal is in them.
Any one who finds in these views a doctrine of pleasure must seek
with a prejudiced eye. Plato, as usual, anticipates later ethical
discussions, and points to the fact that there is a quality in pleasure;
and quality in conduct is the very contention of absolute moralists.
He speaks of the soul whose dye of good quality is washed out by
pleasure. The attainment of genuine well-being, the development of
divine qualities within men, was the aim, and the consciousness of
this priceless possession of rational manhood was the incidental
reward. His doctrine places before men abstract ideals of Truth,
Beauty, and Goodness, which invite the better nature by their
supreme excellence.
Plato enumerates four virtues: Wisdom, Courage, Temperance,
Justice. Professor Green interprets them in modern form, and
maintains their fixed standard of excellence and universal
application. Any modern analysis of the principles of conduct which
contribute to health of soul and are favorable to success in life,
would confirm the enumeration of the Greek virtues. Professor
Green says: The Good Will is the will (1) to know what is true and to
make what is beautiful; (2) to endure pain and fear; (3) to resist the
allurements of pleasure; (4) to take for one’s self and to give to
others, not what one is inclined to, but what is due. Not only does he
enjoin the spirit of justice, but the cultivation of moral courage, and,
as contrasted with lazy ignorance, the growth in wisdom which is
realization of virtue.
Wisdom played a peculiar and important part in the Greek ethics.
Vice was ignorance, because the wise man could but live according
to his best knowledge. And the Greeks, properly interpreted, were
right. Did we see virtue in all its truth and beauty, and vice in all its
deformity, we could but choose the best. Growth in wisdom was a
gradual realization in the soul of the heavenly ideas that were the
true heritage of man, and in this development the soul was gradually
perfected. This beautiful and satisfying philosophy reappears to-day
in some of the most ennobling systems of ethics the world has
produced. It makes individual and race progress an increase in
consciousness of the knowledge of truth and virtue, a revelation of
the divine within us.
The Jewish and the Christian conception of divine law as binding
man to the performance of his moral obligations was not strongly
characteristic of the Greek mind. But responsibility, without which
conduct can have no ethical significance, was by no means foreign
to Plato’s system. In the myth of Er the soul has its choice of the lot
of life, and its condition at the end of the earthly career is a requital
for the deeds done in the body. Throughout Plato’s writings the
implications of personal merit or guilt are prominent.
It is a doctrine of virtue rather than of duty. He who sees the right
and does not do it is a fool, but that is his matter. He is not bound by
any moral law to be wise. If he is virtuous it is well; if not, so much
the worse for him. Love of God is the essential of the Christian
ethics; knowledge of the Good, of the Greek. To pursue the Good
was virtue, and virtue he sets forth in world-wide contrast with vice.
Plato’s conception of justice, or right, was so exalted that some have
thought he attained in later years an insight into the nature of
conscience, or the Moral Faculty.
The Greek idea of beauty must be touched in passing. The wise
life was a beautiful life. The Beautiful was an attribute of the Deity.
They had the love of Beauty which Goethe possessed when he had
become fascinated with the study of Greek art, and exclaimed, “The
Beautiful is greater than the Good, for it includes the Good, and adds
something to it.” Plato calls the Beautiful the splendor of the True.
The youth should learn to love beautiful forms, first a single form,
then all beautiful forms and beauty wherever found; then he will turn
to beauty of mind, of institutions and laws, and sciences, and he will
gradually draw toward the great sea of beauty, and create and
contemplate many fair thoughts, and he will become conscious of
absolute beauty, and come near to God, who is transcendent beauty
and goodness.

Plato’s philosophy makes education a process of developing the

power and knowledge latent in the mind, rather than a process of
teaching. The Socratic method of drawing out is one of time-honored
use among pedagogues. Plato defines a good education as “That
which gives to the body and to the soul all the beauty and all the
perfection of which they are capable.” The ideal aim is the
harmonious or symmetrical development of the physical, mental, and
moral powers. Physical training is for the health of the soul, as well
as for the strength and grace of the body. The training of the reason
is of first importance. The æsthetic emotions are to be cultivated as a
means of moral and religious education. Memory is little
emphasized.
The artisans and laborers were simply to learn a trade; the warrior
class were to be trained in gymnastics and music. The complete
education of the highest class, or the magistrates, was to include
music and literature, gymnastics, arithmetic, geometry and
astronomy, and finally philosophy. All this was to be supplemented
by practical acquaintance with the details of civil and military
functions.
Education is the foundation of the state, and in the “Laws” he
would make it compulsory. The women are to receive the same
training as the men. Children are to be taught to honor their parents
and respect their elders. The direction in which education starts a
man will determine his future life. In early childhood education is to
be made attractive, although to unduly honor the likings of children is
to spoil them. The tales which children are permitted to hear must be
models of virtuous thought. Harmful tales concerning the gods and
heroes are prohibited, but noble traits and deeds of endurance are to
be emphasized. Youth should imitate no baseness, but what is
temperate, holy, free, and courageous; for “imitations, beginning in
early youth, at last sink into the constitution and become a second
nature.” Children must not be frightened with ghost stories and
reference to the infernal world.
Excessive athletics makes men stupid and subject to disease. The
kinds of music employed in education must inspire courage,
reverence, freedom, and temperance. Art should present true beauty
and grace, to draw the soul of childhood into harmony with the
beauty of reason. “Rhythm and harmony find their way into the
secret places of the soul, making the soul graceful of him who is
rightly educated.” Good language and music and grace and rhythm
depend on simplicity.
Arithmetic cultivates quickness, and teaches abstract number and
necessary truth. Geometry deals with axiomatic knowledge and will
draw the soul toward truth. Astronomy compels the mind to look
upward. It is to be studied not so much for practical use, as in
navigation, but because the mind is purified and illumined thereby. In
this connection Plato maintains his position against those who carp
at the so-called useless studies.
Plato’s ideal state offends the thought of conservative men more
than all else in his writings, but it was conceived in view of the
highest ideas of virtue and justice. It was simply bad psychology. He
enumerates and describes five kinds of states and the corresponding
five types of individual character. Indeed he studies justice first in the
ideal state, and then in the individual. The three impulses of the soul
are compared with the three classes of citizens in the state, and to
each he ascribes its excellence, thus forming his list of virtues. But
we cannot dwell upon this phase of Plato’s teachings. We may,
however, refer to his caricature of extreme democracy; it has a
useful modern application.
In this state the father descends to his son and fears him, and the
son is on a level with his father and does not fear him. The alien is
equal to the citizen, and the slave to the master. The master fears
and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters. The
young man is on a level with the old, and old men, for fear of
seeming morose and authoritative, condescend to the young and are
full of pleasantry and gayety. Even the animals in the democracy
show the spirit of equality, and the horses and asses march along
the streets with all the rights and dignities of freemen, and will run at
you if you do not get out of their way, and everything is just ready to
burst with liberty. The citizens become sensitive and chafe at
authority, and cease to care for the laws. Surely the statesman can
turn to Plato for wisdom, for out of this condition grows tyranny.
And, correspondingly, the democratical young man, a kind of fin de
siècle type, is described. Insolence he terms breeding, and anarchy
liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage.
No wonder Plato saw that his ideal state would not be realized
until kings became philosophers, that is to say—never. Modern
dreamers might profit by his wise predictions.
 Plato’s doctrine is one of ideas and idealism as contrasted with
sensations and sensationalism. It is spiritualism as contrasted with
materialism. The higher produces the lower, instead of the lower the
higher. It is the doctrine that recognizes the rational order of the
world, the transcendent nature of conscious man, and his ethical
aim. It places ideals before man, in the attaining of which he comes
to realization of his true being. It is a doctrine of rational explanation
of man’s existence. As such it has always strongly invited the
adherence of philosophers and Christians. The founders of the
church regarded Plato as directly inspired or as having derived
inspiration from the Hebrew scriptures.
The doctrine of Universals may be taken with allowance, but we
may believe that it represents the right side of philosophical thought.
It matters not much whether we hold to the view of Plato’s ideas or
native truths of the mind developed by experience or the creative
activity of the mind in knowing the outer world or the doctrine of
participation in the divine nature and divine thought or the power to
generalize from the facts of subjective and objective nature, a power
above, and not of, material nature—all these views imply man’s
spiritual and ideal character. Behind man and behind nature is the
same reality. In some sense (not the pantheistic, as commonly
understood) both are manifestations of that reality. Hence the power
of man to know the world, because it is a rational world, and
manifestation answers to manifestation, thought to thought. He who
claims that all knowledge is founded in sensation is partly right; for to
know the outer realm is to realize the inner and to know, in part, the
truth of the Universe.
Subjective ideas, in some form, must be retained in philosophy.
Our world, as a world of evolution, is orderly and has a progressive
plan; hence, according to all human conception, is the product of
ideas worked out through what are called the laws of nature.
Men have always asked what is the use of philosophy, and to-day
they repeat the question with emphasis. We appreciate the state of
mind that rejoices in consciousness of standing on the solid earth,
the courageous patience that works out with guarded induction
scientific truth, the honesty that will not substitute hasty conjecture
for fact, and the faith that works toward results to be fully realized
only in the distant future. But many scientific men are coming to
regard biological and psychological sciences as great laboratories
for philosophy. We may believe the coming problems will be solved
by the coöperation of philosophy and science. Science studies the
objective side and philosophy the subjective side of the same reality.
Philosophy has a use as an attempt to satisfy the imperative need
of men to ask the meaning of their being. It has a use as forming a
rational hypothesis concerning a First Cause, and a Final Aim. It is a
ground of belief in ideals. All speculative philosophy has been
inspired more or less by Platonism, and has given the world the
noblest, most hopeful, useful, and influential systems of ethics.
Philosophical training gives the power to view comprehensively,
connectedly, and logically any group of facts. It contains the
presuppositions of science and of our very existence. The
investigator in the forest learns many valuable details; if he ascends
the mountains, he views the landscape as a whole, and, as it were,
finds himself. Finally philosophy represents the supreme, the
spiritual, interests of man and aims at essential truth.
Will it be relegated to the shelves of archæology? The signs of to-
day appear to answer no. In the whole history of philosophy, the
mind has never been able to rest permanently in any extreme or
one-sided position or in any position that is inadequate to explain
essential facts of existence. Hence it cannot rest permanently in
materialism. A recent writer speaks of the history of philosophy as
“preëminently a record of remarkable returns of the human intellect
to ancient follies and dreams, long since outgrown and supposed to
have been consigned to oblivion.” Well! It is strange indeed if nature
has evolved a product whose needs, instincts, and native beliefs are
a lie, a product without aim or rational ground for existence. If it is so,
then pessimism is our philosophy and annihilation our best solution
of the problem of conscious life. Most men are too respectful
believers in evolution to ascribe to nature any such satanic irony.
 At any rate one likes to take an excursion in this field; he feels
benefited by the trip. Men still like to seek the great fountain head of
philosophy, and take a dip in the Castalian spring—a mental bath of
this sort is a good and useful thing. They like to sit in the shady
groves of the Academy and listen to Plato or walk with Aristotle in
the environs of the Gymnasium. The mighty minds of the past have
marked out the broad outlines of truth; it is our work to fill in, to
correct. The ethical conceptions were furnished by the ancients. The
modern world has merely made them richer in content and broader
in application. The deeper meaning of any philosophy or science is
learned by the historic method, which gives us the trend of events.

The closing words of the “Republic” are an appropriate ending to

the discussion of Plato: “And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved
and has not perished, and may be our salvation, if we are obedient
to the spoken word; and we shall pass safely over the river of
Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my counsel
is that we hold fast to the heavenly way and follow after justice and
virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to
endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live,
dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and
when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we
receive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in
the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been reciting.”

“Plato, thou reasonest well!—

Else whence this pleasing hope, this fond desire,
This longing after immortality?

’Tis the divinity that stirs within us;

’Tis heaven itself that points out an hereafter,
And intimates eternity to man.”
 SECONDARY EDUCATION: A REVIEW.[1]

The manner of investigation of the Committee of Ten took a

somewhat different turn from what was anticipated when the original
report which led to the undertaking was made, but no one now
doubts the wisdom of the plan finally adopted. It would be difficult to
find groups of men in America better fitted than the members of the
conferences appointed by the Committee to discuss the specific
subjects assigned them; and their recommendations as to choice of
matter for secondary schools, the time element, place of studies in
the curriculum, and the best methods constitute a most valuable
contribution to the educational literature of the period. In the main,
they represent the best thought of practical educators.
We shall not enter into a discussion of the details of these
conference reports; each report and, in many instances, each
section of a report is in itself a large theme. The summary of results
and the recommendations of the Committee of Ten will occupy the
time allotted.
It was expected that the report as a whole would excite much
discussion and invite extensive criticism; and if no other result is
attained than the sharpening of wits in controversy, the existence of
the report has sufficient warrant.
It is impossible to say of any opinions that they are final, and of
any methods that they are the best. Some hold that the eternal
verities are to be discovered in the consciousness of the few
geniuses, and that obtaining a consensus of opinion is not the way to
reach wise conclusions. If we are Hegelian in our philosophy of
history, we shall hold to the law of development, shall believe that
each stage of thought is a necessary one, that the best light is
obtained by the historic method, and that the highest evolution of
thought is to be found in the belief and practice of the advanced
representatives of any line of investigation. The work of the
conferences was to correlate the parts of each subject by the
method of applying reason to history; it was the work of the
committee proper to correlate these results by the same method.
Whether the committee was large and varied enough to represent all
sides is to be decided by the discussions of those best fitted to form
opinions.

After a careful review of the work of our committee, I venture to

make a formal list of opinions presented, most of which, I think,
should be heartily indorsed, reserving till later the discussion of a few
of them:
1. That work in many secondary-school studies should be begun
earlier.
2. That each subject should be made to help every other, as, for
example, history should contribute to the study of English, and
natural history should be correlated with language, drawing,
literature, and geography.
3. That every subject should be taught in the same way, whether
in preparation for college or as part of a finishing course.
4. That more highly trained teachers are needed, especially for
subjects that are receiving increased attention, as the various
sciences and history.
5. That in all scientific subjects, laboratory work should be
extended and improved.
6. That for some studies special instructors should be employed to
guide the work of teachers in elementary and secondary schools.
7. That all pupils should pursue a given subject in the same way,
and to the same extent, as long as they study it at all.
8. That every study should be made a serious subject of
instruction, and should cultivate the pupil’s powers of observation,
memory, expression, and reasoning.
 9. That the choice between the classical course and the Latin-
scientific course should be postponed as long as possible, until the
taste and power of the pupil have been tested, and he has been able
to determine his future aim.
10. That twenty periods per week should be adopted as the
standard, providing that five of these periods be given to unprepared
work.
11. That parallel programmes should be identical in as many of
their parts as possible.
12. That drawing should be largely employed in connection with
most of the studies.
13. The omission of industrial and commercial subjects. This is
mentioned without comment.
14. That more field work should be required for certain sciences.
15. The desirability of uniformity. Not definitely recommended in
the report.
16. That the function of the high schools should be to prepare for
the duties of life as well as to fit for college.
17. That colleges and scientific schools should accept any one of
the courses of study as preparation for admission.
18. That a good course in English should be required of all pupils
entering college.
19. That many teachers should employ various means for better
preparation, such as summer schools, special courses of instruction
given by college professors, and instruction of school
superintendents, principals of high schools, or specially equipped
teachers.
20. That the colleges should take a larger interest in secondary
and elementary schools.
21. That technological and professional schools should require for
admission a complete secondary-school education.
 22. That each study pursued should be given continuous time
adequate to securing from it good results.

The points of the report which I should question are as follows:

1. That Latin should be begun much earlier than now. (This is a
conference recommendation.)
2. That English should be given as much time as Latin.
(Conference recommendation.)
3. The large number of science subjects recommended, with loss
of adequate time for each.
4. The omission of a careful analysis of the value of each subject,
absolute and relative, preparatory to tabulating courses.
5. The apparent implication that the multiplying of courses is
advisable.
6. The implications that the choice of subjects by the pupils may
be a matter of comparative indifference—the doctrine of equivalence
of studies.
7. Some parts of the model programmes made by the committee.

An examination of tabulated results of the investigations of the

conferences will show that in their opinion the following studies
should be begun below the high school:
English literature.
German or French.
Elementary algebra and concrete geometry.
Natural phenomena.
 Natural history.
Biography and mythology, civil government, and Greek and
Roman history.
Physical geography.
There has been much discussion within a few years as to
improvements in elementary courses of study, with a growing
tendency toward important modifications. Rigid and mechanical
methods and an exaggerated notion of thoroughness in every detail
have often become a hindrance to the progress of the pupils in
elementary schools. The mind of the child is susceptible of a more
mature development at the age of fourteen than is usually attained.
There are numerous examples of pupils in graded schools, who, with
very limited school terms, prepare for the high school at the age of
fourteen. Under the guidance of painstaking and intelligent parents
or private tutors, children cover, in a very brief time, the studies of
the grammar school. All have noted, under favoring conditions, a
surprising development, at an early age, in understanding of history,
literature, and common phenomena, a growth far beyond that
reached at the same age in the schools. These facts simply show
the possibilities of the period of elementary education. We
understand that ultimately those best prepared to judge must
determine the modifications, if any are needed, of the elementary
courses. Some say the courses are already overcrowded, it is
impossible to add anything. Is it not true, however, that by placing
less stress upon a few things, by arousing mental activity through the
stimulus of the scientific method, and by improving the skill of the
teachers, the work suggested by these conferences may be easily
accomplished? All these experiments are already old in many
schools in the country.
Consider the logical order of studies. Each child, almost from the
dawn of consciousness, recognizes relations of number and space,
observes phenomena and draws crude inferences, records in his
mind the daily deeds of his associates, and employs language to
express his thought, often with large use of imagination. Already has
begun the spontaneous development in mathematics, science,
history, and literature. Nature points the way and we should follow
the direction. These subjects in their various forms should be
pursued from the first. Hill’s “True Order of Studies” shows that there
are some five parallel, upward-running lines representing the
divisions of knowledge, and that development may be compared to
the encircling, onward movement of a spiral, which, at each turn,
cuts off a portion of all the lines. If we accept this view, we must
grant that geometry on its concrete side belongs to the earliest
period of education; that the observation of natural phenomena with
simple inferences will be a most attractive study to the child; that the
importance of observation of objects of natural history is
foreshadowed by the spontaneous interest taken in them before the
school period; that tales of ancient heroes, and the pleasing myths of
antiquity, together with the striking characters and incidents of Greek
and Roman history, belong to the early period of historic knowledge;
that the whole world of substance and phenomena that constitutes
our environment should be the subject of study under the head of
physiography or physical geography; that the thoughts of literature,
ethical and imaginative, appeal readily to the child’s mind. We may
add that the taste of children may be early cultivated, and that the
glory which the child discovers in nature makes possible the art idea
and the religious sentiment. The reason for beginning a foreign
language early is somewhat independent, but all agree that early
study of a living language is desirable.
Should we not reconsider our analysis of the elementary courses?
Superintendents and teachers will find the necessary changes not
impossible but easy. The sum of all that is recommended for the
elementary schools by the conferences is not so formidable as at
first appears.

In the conference reports to the Committee of Ten are some views

that have a bearing upon the subject of the high-school period. The
Latin Conference hopes for a modification of the grammar-school
courses, that the high-school course may be begun earlier. The
Greek Conference voted that the average age at which pupils enter
college should be lowered. The Conference on English was of the
opinion that English work during the last two years of the grammar-
school course should be in the hands of a special teacher or
teachers. The Conference on Modern Languages holds that
whenever competent teachers can be secured the grammar school
should have an elective course in French or German. The Physics
Conference recommended that “Whenever it is possible, special
science teachers or superintendents should be appointed to instruct
teachers of elementary schools in the methods of teaching natural
phenomena.” The History Conference thought it desirable that in all
schools history should be taught by teachers who have a fondness
for historical studies and have paid special attention to effective
methods of imparting instruction. One member of the conference
was almost ready to advise omitting history from school programmes
because of so much rote, text-book teaching.
These opinions are additional evidence of need of modifications in
grammar-school work, and some think that ultimately the best
solution will be found in extending the high-school period downward
to include part of the elementary period.
It was agreed in the Committee of Ten that their task would be less
difficult did the high-school period begin, say two years earlier; and
the reason why the recommendation of the conferences, that certain
studies be introduced below the high school, was viewed with
suspicion was the impossibility, with the present organization of the
schools, of securing good instruction in these studies.
The following view of the high-school period is expressed by a
prominent high-school principal: “My opinion is that it would be much
better for our boys and girls to begin their preparation for college at
least two years earlier than they now do. If our high schools could
receive the pupils at eleven or twelve, instead of fourteen,
preparation for college would be completed at sixteen instead of
eighteen, as is now generally the case.”
The custom in European countries supports the view that high-
school methods should reach down into the grades. In Prussia only
three years of elementary work precede the gymnasium, and the
pupil can enter the gymnasium at the age of nine. The gymnasium
itself covers a period of nine years, extending five years below the
period of our high schools. Examining the course of the Prussian
gymnasium, we find in the first five years, or before the age of
fourteen, Latin, Greek, French, history, geometry, natural history; and
it is conceded by many educators that more is attained by the age of
eighteen in Germany than in this country; that at the age of fourteen
in Germany the development of the pupil is more mature, and that in
essential features of education he has made more desirable
progress.
If our high schools should be made equivalent in length and rank
to the Prussian gymnasium, the change would involve the entire
reconstruction of our school system, from the primary school to the
end of the university. The high schools would become colleges, and
the colleges would become high schools, and the graduates from
them would enter the university prepared to take up professional or
other special university work. That there are many leading educators
who advocate these changes for the universities is well known, and
there are some strong tendencies toward the German system. On
the other hand, many deplore the possibility of losing the American
college, which is an institution somewhat peculiar to this country.
They think that its broad, general education and superior culture are
worth retaining, and that specialization should begin at a late period.
One significant fact stares us in the face, namely, that the average
American boy no longer will spend four years beyond the high school
in general education, and then pass four years more at the
professional school or three years in the graduate course.
Somewhere the work must be shortened, in either the elementary
school, the high school, or the college.
The whole subject is of great interest and importance, but at the
present stage of inquiry no definite conclusions can be reached.
 The relation of the mind to a study is determined by the nature of
the mind and the nature of the study, and there seems to be no
reason in psychology why a college-preparatory subject should be
taught differently to one fitting for the duties of life. Besides, it is
economy to make identical the work of different courses, as far as
possible. There was perfect unanimity in the opinion that the same
studies should be pursued by all in the same way, as far as taken.
Every one knows that many teachers are unskilled to present in
the elementary schools the beginnings of geometry, science, history,
or literature, and that the failures in this work are due to the
mechanical efforts of those who have had no higher or special
training. The demands of present methods are imperative for
improved power in instruction. Science is not well taught in all
schools. There is a school which teaches biology from a manual
without specimen, microscope, or illustrations. It was a humiliating
confession of the committee that the classical course is superior, for
the reason that it is difficult to find enough instructors competent to
teach modern subjects by modern methods.
A very important point, recognized by the committee, is the
advantage of postponing as long as possible the necessity of making
a final choice of courses. In this country we have no fixed conditions
of rank, and the poor man’s son has the same privileges as the sons
of position and wealth. Hence, the station in life is not determined by
the differentiation in courses at an early period. Very few parents
decide upon the final character of the child’s instruction much before
the beginning of the college period.
For these reasons many would not agree with the conference
recommendation to begin Latin at an earlier period. It would not be
economy; there is enough else that belongs to the elementary stage
of education, and no plan is feasible that is founded upon the foreign
view of caste and fixed condition in life.
 Uniformity in requirements for admission to college was the
subject of the report that finally led to this investigation. Although
uniformity is not prominently urged in the report of the Committee of
Ten, doubtless the logical outcome of the latter report will be a
tendency toward some kind of uniformity. There is a vigorous conflict
of opinion to-day as to nationalism and individualism, with a strong
tendency, especially in education, toward individualism. In the
opinion of many there exists a harmful slavery of the high and
preparatory schools to the erratic and varied demands of different
colleges, and also a slavery to ignorance and caprice in some
schools themselves, which would be removed by a general
agreement to uniformity. Men are not enslaved, but are
emancipated, by organization, and freedom of the individual is found
in the good order of society and government. In a facetious criticism
of the committee’s report, arguing for extreme individualism in choice
of studies, appears the following query: “Please tell us if you and
your colleagues on the conference considered any methods for the
encouragement of cranks?” No; for the encouragement neither of
cranks, nor of crankiness, but for the encouragement of the best kind
of rational education. While there are a few wise, independent
investigators who need no enforced uniformity, and will not be bound
by the recommendations of others, many of the schools are largely
imitators, or, worse, are working independently with limited insight,
and these schools would be vastly improved by adopting courses
and methods growing from a consensus of the best opinions of the
country. The lowest would thereby tend to rise to the highest, and
from that plane a new advance could be made. Meantime the
original thinkers would be free to push forward toward higher results,
to be generally adopted later. Through contact of various ideas some
principles are settled, and the world is free to move on toward fresh
discovery.
The selection of studies is to be determined largely by the nature
of the mind and by the universal character of natural and civil
environments, and this fact points toward the possibility of uniformity.
The period of secondary education is not the period for specializing,
and even if it were, there should be some uniformity in differentiation.
In the United States there is, broadly speaking, uniformity of
tradition, of government, of civilization, and the educated youth of
San Francisco bears about the same relation to the world as the
educated youth of Boston; hence, so far as elementary and
secondary education is pursued, there is no reason why it should not
be substantially the same in various schools—not in details
belonging to the individual teacher, but in paper requirements and
important features of methods.

Nothing in the whole report is more important than the proposed

closer connection between high schools and colleges, and this is
clearly and forcibly urged. Whatever course of study properly
belongs to a secondary school is also a good preparation for higher
education, else either secondary or higher education is seriously in
error. Whenever a youth decides to take a college course, he should
find himself on the road toward it. No one can doubt that in the
coming years pupils having pursued properly arranged high-school
courses must be admitted to corresponding courses in higher
education. The divorcement between higher education and all lower
grade work, except the classical, has been a fatal defect in the past.
The entire course of education should be a practical interest of
college professors, and there should be a hearty coöperation
between them and school superintendents and principals in
considering all educational problems.
It is a fact of significance that a committee, on which some leading
institutions are represented, urges the professional schools of the
country to place their standard of admission as high as that of the
colleges; and we hope that aid will thus be given the institutions
endeavoring to raise the requirements of law, medical, and divinity
schools.
The reports of most of the conferences asked for continuous and
adequate work for each subject, that it might become a source of
discipline and of valuable insight. No doubt part of the work in high
schools is too brief and fragmentary to gain from it the best results.