Practical Argumentation | Page 6

side. Nothing in the wording of the
proposition should give either side any advantage over the other. These
principles have to do with the manner of expression; subjects will next
be considered with respect to the ideas they contain.
A common and convenient method of classification divides
propositions into two groups: propositions of policy, and propositions
of fact. The first class consists of those propositions that aim to prove
the truth of a theory, that indicate a preference for a certain policy, for a
certain method of action. The second class comprises those
propositions that affirm or deny the occurrence of an event, or the

existence of a fact. Propositions of policy usually, though not always,
contain the word should or _ought_; propositions of fact usually
contain some form of the word to be. The following illustrations will
make the distinction plainer:--
PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY.
The United States should adopt a system of bounties and subsidies for
the protection of the American merchant marine.
State laws prohibiting secular employment on Sunday should be
repealed.
A city furnishes a more desirable location for a college than the
country.
The aggressions of England in Africa are justifiable.
PROPOSITIONS OF FACT.
Homer wrote the Iliad.
Nero was guilty of burning Rome.
Mary, Queen of Scots, murdered her husband.
The most convenient method of studying propositions to see what
subjects are desirable for student debates is to consider first those
propositions that should be avoided.
1. PROPOSITIONS WITH ONLY ONE SIDE. As argumentation
presupposes a difference of opinion about a certain subject, evidently it
is impossible to argue upon a subject on which all are agreed.
Sometimes such propositions as, "_Resolved_, That Napoleon was a
great soldier," and "_Resolved_, That railroads should take every
precaution to protect the lives of their passengers," are found on the
programs of literary societies and debating clubs. In such cases mere
comment, not debate, can follow. Only subjects on which reasonable
men actually disagree are suitable for argument.

2. AMBIGUOUS PROPOSITIONS. If a proposition is capable of
several interpretations, those who choose it as a subject for an argument
are liable not to agree on what it means, and one side will debate in
accordance with one interpretation, and the other side in accordance
with a totally different interpretation. Thus the opponents will never
meet in conflict except when they explain their subject. For example, in
a certain debate on the question, "_Resolved_, That colleges should
abolish all athletic sports," the affirmative held that only interclass and
intercollegiate games were involved; while the negative maintained that
the term "athletic sports" included all forms of athletic games
participated in by college men. Manifestly the debate hinged largely on
the definition of this term; but as there was no authority to settle just
what was meant, the debate was a failure. It is usually desirable, and
frequently necessary, to explain what the subject means, for unless it
has some meaning which both sides are bound to accept, the argument
becomes a mere controversy over the definition of words. Another
ambiguous proposition would be, "Republican government in the
United States is preferable to any other." The word "republican" is open
to two legitimate definitions, and since the context does not explain
which meaning is intended, a debater is at liberty to accept either
definition that he wishes. A few alterations easily turn this proposition
into a debatable subject, "Government by the Republican party in the
United States is preferable to any other."
3. TOO GENERAL PROPOSITIONS. It is never wise for a writer or a
speaker to choose a subject which is so general or so abstract that he
cannot handle it with some degree of completeness and facility. Not
only will such work be difficult and distasteful to him, but it will be
equally distasteful and uninteresting to his audience. No student can
write good themes on such subjects as, "War," "The Power of the
Press," "Race Prejudice"; nor can he argue well on propositions like,
"_Resolved_, That wars are justifiable"; "_Resolved_, That the pen is
mightier than the sword"; or "_Resolved_, That race prejudice is
justifiable." These are entirely beyond his scope. But he can handle
restricted propositions that have to do with one phase of some concrete,
tangible event or idea. "_Resolved_, That Japan was justified in waging
war against Russia"; "_Resolved_, That Bacon wrote the plays

commonly attributed to Shakespeare"; "_Resolved_, That the
segregation of Japanese school children in San Francisco is for the best
interests of all concerned," are subjects that can be argued with success.
4. COMBINED PROPOSITIONS. It sometimes happens that several
heterogeneous ideas, each of which by itself would form an excellent
subject for argument, are embodied in a single proposition. The
difficulty of arguing on this kind of subject is apparent. It is none too