would be: (1) Best for health; (2) best for peace; (3) best for respectability; (4) best for happiness. These all support the proposition. If you fear that it is not fully sustained, not proved to the satisfaction of your audience, you must add other points. If, in our argument, we should say, (5) railroad iron is cheap, (6) gold is scarce, both may be true, but do not support the proposition. Forcefulness and relevancy are essentials in all argument.

It is usually best to arrange your arguments in somewhat of a climax,- weakest first, then next less weak, closing with the strongest. Closing remarks make the deepest impression.

When through, make a clear and condensed summary of your argument. This is usually best done by stating and by numbering your subdivisions, thus: (1) best for health; (2) for peace; etc. Sometimes a few words may be added profitably, but be careful that you do not commence debating again, by either repeating old matter or inserting new.

RESPONDENT.

The first business of a respondent in debate is to answer the argument of the affirmative, i. e., show, if possible, its irrelevancy, weakness, inconclusiveness, error in statements of facts, dates, history, etc. Do not indulge in mere denials of statements, as that is puerile and worth no more than your opinion, which is likely of no more value than your opponent's.

As a rule, it is best to answer arguments in the order in which they are presented. Both you and your audience can thus follow easier. There may, of course, be times for departure from this mode, as the refutation of the third argument sometimes carries the second with it, the fourth the third, etc. In such a case there is just cause for change. Sometimes there are other reasons. Good judgment must be on the alert here as everywhere in debate.

As a

After you have answered the arguments of your opponents on the affirmative side, add your own in favor of the negative. I am aware that some say, give your own arguments first, or intersperse them with your answers. rule, I cannot agree with either of these. The arguments of the affirmative are fresh in the mind of the audience, and consequently they are likely to be saying all the while, "He cannot answer them," and so they are likely to discount your own arguments, no matter how clear or how strong. If you mingle your argument and answers, the audience may fail to distinguish between an original argument or an answer, and your force will be lost. In closing, make a summary, so far as may be, the same as did the affirmative.

Laws. The following laws for both affirmative and negative should be observed:

1. State your opponent's position fairly and honestly. Do not minify nor misrepresent his argument by saying, "He missed the question," "debated my side of the ques

tion," etc. Honesty in debate, as in business, is the best policy.

2. Do not indulge in personalities, ridicule, or sarcasm. These are not arguments, and an intelligent audience sees through them and usually through you, and will put you down as unfair, and, possibly, dishonest.

3. Let your aim be truth rather than victory. This will inspire you to hunt solid and relevant argument, and tend to lift you above tricks and strategy.

4. Your aim being truth, you should, as far as possible, never debate the side of a proposition you do not believe. Debating the wrong side tends to confuse belief, conviction, and blur the delicate lines of truth. It is said that Hume was made an infidel by just this process. Though a believer in Christianity, he was assigned the task, in debating, of finding evidences against it. Thus, started on this line of hunting proof against Christianity, he continued until he ended in bald infidelity. Hence the debater should be very cautious about arguing against his convictions.

CHAPTER VII.

REQUISITES OF, AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR, A SPEAKER.

PHYSICAL ELEMENTS.-1. Vigor. A speaker needs vigor in both the preparation and the delivery of an address. We start with the view that he must be a student, and to be a student requires a vigorous and healthy body to stand the strain of long stretches of research and thinking. Preparation often wears strength away before time of delivery. Especially is this true in the case of ministers, and more especially with the minister who writes his discourse in full. The mechanical work of writing joined to thinking is very exhausting, and the more so when this is carried right up to the point of delivery. The preacher who writes until midnight on Saturday, seriously saps the power of delivery on Sunday. Force in delivery is a great help to force of thought. The execution of the ball does not always depend upon the caliber of the gun, but often on the projectile force; so in case of a speaker. Versus this, many times the arrow falls short of the mark, not because of want of aim and direction, but because of want of strength in the arm that draws the bow; so, a feeble body often works the failure of a vigorous brain.

2. Grace.— Grace is the quality that always pleases, sometimes charms and wins. Apollo charms as much by

his grace as Hercules awes by his strength. The winning grace of that marvelous preacher, Summerfield, added much to the effectiveness of his eloquent words. Let every speaker bear in mind that this quality is not the endowment of genius, but is largely the product of attention and education. Further, it will be borne in mind that health underlies both these qualities of vigor and grace. Hence, if not in possession, it is to be most vigilantly sought; and if in possession, most carefully preserved. Mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a sound body, embodies the highest wisdom on this subject to-day, as it did two thousand years ago. Here each, in a large degree, is the keeper of his own health.

3. Personal Presence, Size.-Size operates both ways. A commanding presence wins on first presentation, but greatly disappoints if there is not mental power in proportion. On the other hand, the small body promises less, and if the intellect gives more, the contrast works greatly in one's favor. While some writers have claimed that the great orator must have a large body, we are of the opinion that this will not hold as a universal rule. While Webster, Pitt, and O'Connell were massive and commanding, Douglas, Curran, and Wilberforce were small. It is not so much the container as the thing contained. the measure of the man. It is well for a rich gem to be inclosed in an elegant casket, but it is sadly disappointing

Mind is still