he cannot rise? For more than two hundred years heretics were burned, and not by mobs, not by lynch law, but by the decrees of councils, at the instigation of theologians, and with the sanction of the laws and religions of nations; and was this a reason for keeping up the fires, that they had burned two hundred years? In the Eastern world, successive despots, not for two hundred years, but for twice two thousand, have claimed the right of life and death over millions, and, with no law but their own will, have beheaded, bowstrung, starved, tortured unhappy men without number who have incurred their wrath; and does the lapse of so many centuries sanctify murder and ferocious power?"

4. Patrick Henry in the Virginia House of Representatives:

"Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell [cries of 'Treason, Treason, and let George III profit by their example."

5. From Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech:

"Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the government, upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free states.

"Bearing this in mind and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it."

6. Webster in the White Murder Trial:

"The prisoner's counsel catch at supposed flaws of evidence, or bad character of witnesses, without meeting the case. If the fact is

out, why not meet it? Do they mean to deny that Captain White is dead? One would almost have supposed even that, from some remarks that have been made. Do they mean to deny the conspiracy? Or, admitting a conspiracy, do they mean to deny only that Frank Knapp, the prisoner at the bar, was abetting in the murder, being present, and so deny that he was a principal? If the conspiracy is proved, it bears closely upon every subsequent subject of inquiry. Why do they not come to the fact? Here the defense is wholly indistinct. The counsel neither take the ground nor abandon it. They neither fly nor light. They hover. But they must come to a closer mode of contest. They must meet the facts and either deny or admit them."

7. Speech in the House of Representatives, February 1, 1894, by Thomas B. Reed:

"Mr. Pinchot compared our present consumption of wood to the case of a man in an open boat at sea, cut adrift from some shipwreck and with but a few days' supply of water on board. He drinks all the water the first day, simply because he is thirsty, though he knows that the water will not last long. The American people know that their wood supply will last but a few decades. Yet they shut their eyes to the facts."

Introduction.

CHAPTER XV

PROOF AND ITS TESTS

Students sometimes have the mistaken idea that debate consists of affirmations on one side and denials on the other. This attitude was humorously illustrated by a cartoon sketched by a student to advertise a public debate. Two disreputable looking characters were depicted, each shaking his fist in the face of the other. One was saying, ""Tis," and the other, ""Tain't." When the debaters themselves take this attitude, the contest descends from the level of a debate to that of a dispute.

We who have studied this text, however, have already learned something of the importance of proof. We have learned that the burden of proof rests at the beginning of the debate upon the affirmative; that he must not only state that his plan is a good one, but must also prove it. We have found that, if the affirmative proves his plan to be a good one, the burden of proof is thereby shifted to the negative, and that he, in turn, must not only deny his opponent's claim but also disprove it. It is quite evident from these facts that the one who finally fails to shift back the burden of proof loses the debate.

When we look further into the nature of proof, we find that it is made up of two elements: (1) facts and (2) reasoning about facts. In attempting to refute the proof of an opponent, we may either question the facts or admit

the facts and question the reasoning about the facts. The latter method was a favorite with Lincoln. If a student would be a successful debater he must question, or test, his own facts and reasonings as well as those of his opponent.

In this chapter we shall learn: (1) how to test facts (to find whether or not they are true), (2) how to test reasoning (to find whether or not it is sound), and (3) how to test statements which are unsupported either by fact or by reason.

Knowledge.

I. HOW TO TEST FACTS

We should first ask, "Is the authority for the fact in a position to have an exact knowledge of the subject?" Let us suppose, for example, that the discussion concerns the ability of the Filipinos for self-government. The testimony of a traveler who had passed but a few days in the Philippine Islands would be less reliable than that of a missionary who had resided there for a dozen years.

Prejudice. We should next ask, "Is the authority for the fact unprejudiced?" To illustrate: If Mr. A., a Congressman and the author of a bill providing for Philippine independence, should to go the Islands and return with further evidence of the ability of the Filipinos for self-government, it might be suspected that he had found ability because he was looking for it; that his testimony was colored by his preconceived notions. If, on the other hand, he should on his return withdraw his support from the measure, saying that he had found evidence of their inability, his testimony would be particularly valuable, since it would be in direct opposition to

his former ideas and would indicate absolute independence of judgment.

Research. The debater, in order to test authorities in this way, must trace back his facts from the news-. paper to the reliable magazine and from the magazine to the still more reliable government report. He must also consult Who's Who for the purpose of determining the standing of his authority. It may be said here that researches of this nature are not necessary in the case of statements which would generally be accepted as true, but only for those proofs which are essential to the main issue and which might be disputed by one's opponent. It is better in the final debate to cite a few authorities and establish their trustworthiness than it is to quote many opinions, for an authority is of no value unless the audience recognizes him as such.

II. HOW TO TEST ARGUMENTS

Method in General. We may test arguments by trying to see whether the proof and the statement proved can be sensibly joined by the word because. When we do this, we find that our minds are so constructed that they will tell us whether or not the reasoning is sound. For example, it is sensible to say, "Mary's father should allow her to go to the party, because it will not interfere with her lessons." On the contrary, it is not sensible to say, "Mary's father should allow her to go to the party because they are going to decorate with the society colors."

General Conclusions. We shall first consider how to test general conclusions, or generalizations, as they are called. Let us suppose that a clubwoman says, "Highschool boys do nothing but smoke and play pool out of