undecided whether to prohibit card playing. A discussion ensues; and the man who does not consider it wrong to play cards himself will listen to no arguments, for he has assumed that they are discussing the morality or immorality of card playing: whereas the ethics of ordinary card playing may not in the least affect the question; for it is often necessary, for the best of reasons, to exclude from an institution articles which are no evil in any sense of the word, such as guns and dogs; and the question ought to be strictly confined to the compatibility of uncontrolled card playing with the purposes and regulations of this particular institution. If the question were so stated at the outset, there would be no danger of falling into the side issue, or of failing to settle in the end the question that was proposed at the outset.

A skillful debater may state a question so as to gain as much by his exposition as by argument; for the strength of the right and the weakness of the wrong may be made evident by simple statement. A recital of all the incidents of a crime is sometimes the strongest weapon to be used against a prisoner at the bar.

II. Explain fairly just what each side of the question means, stating which side you are supporting.

There is no more forcible argument in a plea for honesty, sobriety, morality, or cleanliness, than to state the other side and ask a man to defend it. Nothing is ever gained by misrepresenting the other side; for should the audience discover the misrepresentations, or should they be exposed by an opponent, all further statements would be discredited, and, even if perfectly true, lose much of their force.

III. State your agreement with the opposite side; also state and answer any evident objection to the side supported.

By doing this, attention is secured; for the person who has already decided the question against the speaker, on account of a supposed unanswerable argument, will be in no attitude for listening, until he sees that this objection is realized and to be squarely faced. Also one may in this way for a while enlist the sympathy of those opposed to his proposition, and may possibly hold their sympathy when he resumes the defense of his own side. In addressing a mob, a speaker would generally be silenced by hooting, unless he began by showing his appreciation of its grievances.

IV. Find a proposition which your opponent, or all reasonable persons, must admit, and use this as a common ground on which to build your argument.

No argument can be advanced with effect unless based on a proposition to which both sides agree. There are certain maxims, laws, or decisions, that all lawyers and courts must accept; and law pleading must be based on these; but in ordinary debate it is necessary to find some proposition that your opponent will admit, or to find some universally admitted proposition, before you can be certain that you have a common ground.

When we hear from the lips of a speaker, "Now all will admit this," or "Everybody believes as follows," we know that he is stating the foundation for his argument. For example, in appealing to any one for a subscription, after the person appealed to has declared his willingness to subscribe to all worthy charities, one

has simply to prove the worthiness of the charity he is representing. If, however, the man appealed to raises the question whether all charity does not tend to pauperize those who receive it and to increase the difficulties of the coming generation, it will be necessary to convince him of several preliminary propositions, before it will be of use to describe the merits of the charity under consideration.

V. Select the strongest arguments, state them separately, and make clear the exact bearing of each with reference to the proof of the main proposition.

How often when listening to a speaker do we fail to appreciate the bearing of what he is saying, and wonder what he is driving at. To make sure that all arguments will have their full weight, the syllogism in each should be easily discernible.

A syllogism is the regular logical form of every argument, and consists of three propositions, of which the first is called the major premise, the second the minor premise, and the last the conclusion.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so that if these are true, the conclusion must be true; and the argument amounts to demonstration.

Ex. 1. Major Premise. — A charity that aids only the deserving and helpless is a worthy charity. This charity aids only the deserving and helpless.

Minor Premise.

Ex. 2. Major Premise. — A worthy charity deserves your assist

ance.

Minor Premise. — This is a worthy charity.

Conclusion. — This charity deserves your assistance.

When the conclusion of one syllogism forms a premise of the next, a chain of argument is formed.

It is not necessary that all arguments should be formally reduced to syllogisms with all the terms expressed; but by stating that the syllogism in each argument should be easily discernible, we mean that the relation between premises and conclusions, and the relation between each argument and those based upon it should be evident.

VI. Answer your opponent's arguments, or if speaking before him, anticipate and answer the chief arguments on the opposite side.

By stating and answering an argument before it is advanced by the opposition, the force of it when so advanced will be very much impaired.

VII. Conclude with a brief summary, making evident the complete chain of argument.

Do not, however, make the summary a repetition in detail of any part of the debate, but confine the conclusion to a clear and concise enumeration of points made in the preceding argument.

CHAPTER VII.

PUNCTUATION AND CAPITALS.

The Object of Punctuation. In conversation, the grammatical construction of sentences and the relations of words are to a certain extent indicated by pauses, and inflections of the voice. For example, in the imperative sentence, Boys, run home quickly, the pause after the word boys tells, as clearly as any words could explain, that boys is not the subject of the verb run, but the vocative of the direct address. Leave out the pause, and boys becomes the subject of the verb, and we have the declarative sentence, Boys run home quickly.

In written language the grammatical construction is exhibited by punctuation; i.e., by separating sentences and the parts of sentences from each other by means of symbols called punctuation points.

If in conversation pauses were made only for the sake of showing grammatical construction, and if all grammatical constructions were exhibited by pauses of the same length, there would be but a single rule to learn for all punctuation; viz., Put a point wherever the voice would make a pause. As, however, in speaking, pauses are often made for rhetorical effect, or to gain time for breathing, and as pauses of different lengths are made to show different constructions, it is almost impossible to punctuate by following the pauses