Practical Argumentation | Page 3

_conviction_;
the part that consists of an emotional appeal to the people addressed is
called persuasion. If the only purpose of argumentation were to
demonstrate the truth or falsity of a hypothesis, conviction alone would
be sufficient. But its purpose is greater than this: it aims both (1) to
convince men that certain ideas are true, and also (2) to persuade them
to act in accordance with the truth presented. Neither conviction nor
persuasion can with safety be omitted. An appeal to the intellect alone
may demonstrate principles that cannot be refuted; it may prove beyond
a doubt that certain theories are logical and right, and ought to be
accepted. But this sort of argument is likely to leave the person
addressed cold and unmoved and unwilling to give up his former ideas
and practices. A purely intellectual discourse upon the evils resulting
from a high tariff would scarcely cause a life-long protectionist to
change his politics. If, however, some emotion such as duty, public
spirit, or patriotism were aroused, the desired action might result.
Again it frequently happens that before the arguer can make any appeal
to the logical faculties of those he wishes to influence, he will first have
to use persuasion in order to gain their attention and to arouse their
interest either in himself or in his subject. On the other hand,
persuasion alone is undoubtedly of even less value than conviction
alone. A purely persuasive argument can never be trusted to produce

lasting effects. As soon as the emotions have cooled, if no reasonable
conviction remains to guide future thought and action, the plea that at
first seemed so powerful is likely to be forgotten. The preacher whose
sermons are all persuasion may, for a time, have many converts, but it
will take something besides emotional ecstasy to keep them "in good
and regular standing."
The proportion of conviction and persuasion to be used in any
argumentative effort depends entirely upon the attending circumstances.
If the readers or hearers possess a high degree of intelligence and
education, conviction should predominate; for it is a generally accepted
fact that the higher man rises in the scale of civilization, the less he is
moved by emotion. A lawyer's argument before a judge contains little
except reasoning; before a jury persuasion plays an important part. In
the next place, the arguer must consider the attitude of those whom he
would move. If they are favorably disposed, he may devote most of his
time to reasoning; if they are hostile, he must use more persuasion.
Also the correct proportion varies to some extent according to the
amount of action desired. In an intercollegiate debate where little or no
action is expected to result, persuasion may almost be neglected; but
the political speech or editorial that urges men to follow its instructions
usually contains at least as much persuasion as conviction.
The aspirant for distinction in argumentation should study and acquire
certain characteristics common to all good arguers. First of all, he
should strive to gain the ability to analyze. No satisfactory discussion
can ever take place until the contestants have picked the question to
pieces and discovered just exactly what it means. The man who does
not analyze his subject is likely to seize upon ideas that are merely
connected with it, and fail to find just what is involved by the question
as a whole. The man skillful in argumentation, however, considers each
word of the proposition in the light of its definition, and only after
much thought and study decides that he has found the real meaning of
the question. But the work of analysis does not end here; every bit of
proof connected with the case must be analyzed that its value and its
relation to the matter in hand may be determined. Many an argument is
filled with what its author thought was proof, but what, upon close

inspection, turns out to be mere assertion or fallacious reasoning. This
error is surpassed only by the fault of bringing in as proof that which
has no direct bearing at all upon the question at issue. Furthermore, the
arguer must analyze not only his own side of the discussion but also the
work of his opponent, so that with a full knowledge of what is strong
and what is weak he may make his attack to the best advantage. Next to
the ability to analyze, the most important qualification for an arguer to
possess is the faculty of clearly presenting his case. New ideas, new
truths are seldom readily accepted, and it is never safe to assume that
the hearer or the reader of an argument will laboriously work his way
through a mass of obscure reasoning. Absolute clearness of expression
is essential. The method of arriving at a