--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Evans, John Henry collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 17 number: 6 published: 1914-04 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'John Henry Evans, "The M. I. A. Contests," *Improvement Era* 17, no. 6 (April 1914): 547–550.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera176unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera176unse start_page: 547 end_page: 550 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1914-04) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera176unse publication_year: 1914 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1914, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # The M. I. A. Contests The M. I. A. Contest BY JOHN HENRY EVANS. OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS UNIVERSITY IV — Debating Judged by the form of discourse most in use among the Latter-day Saints — narration, description, explanation, and argumentation— probably the most important form for us to study is argumentation. We are, and have always been, an extremely argumentative people. Always we have something to prove. By far the greater part of our literature comes under this head. Our missionaries have a greater number of informal debates than any other class of men. And now the Improvement Associations have introduced debating into their organizations. It becomes very necessary, therefore, that we study the underlying principles of the art so as to conduct our arguments along the most effective lines. Some people object to debating on the ground that it develops a contentious, quarrelsome disposition. Whether it does this or not depends on the spirit with which we enter debating, and the sort of subject we debate. If we are naturally captious, if we are pig-headed by nature, if we are bent on having our own way at all hazards, if we are inclined to regard any one as necessarily wrong who differs from us, if, in a word, we are unreasonable creatures — why, maybe we would better leave debating to others, although there are those who maintain that a few debates with a capable adversary would cure us even of this wrong-headedness. At all events, if we haven't learned to play fair, to take as well as to give, to accept defeat whether it is merited or not, debating will go hard with us. Or, to come to the second point, if we are debating a question where the truth lies all on one side, or a question that no mortal would be any the better for if it were decided pos'tively on the one side or the other — then probably we had better let debating alone. But ordinarily the truth does not all lie with one side. Ordinarily some of the truth is on both sides. And most questions are worth deciding one way or the other. Debating, if it is conducted properly, is one of the best means of sharpening the wits, of making one keep his head, and of helping one to see both sides of the question. (And, for that matter, debates are not the only thing that can run one into the ground.) There are several steps in debating, each of which ought to be tiken with great care. The first is the selection of a question. The term "question" in debating means, not a demand for information as in every day 548 IMPROVEMENT ERA use, but a statement that something is or is not so, should or should not be. A question ought to be selected that is worth debating. Some debates are not of any conceivable value to anybody, either because they cannot be settled with any degree of definiteness or because if they could be settled with absolute certainty no one would be in the least concerned. All such questions are to be tabooed. Then again, the question chosen should be such that there can be, not only a difference of opinion concerning it, but an honest difference of opinion. This clash is of prime importance in debating. Generally, moral questions should be avoided, and always religious questions. Then, too, the question should not be so difficult that reasoning on it degenerates into mere assertion simply because the subject is above the comprehension of the debaters. A second task involves the wording of the question. Nor is this so easy as it appears. Every question, to be debatable, must be in the form of a complete statement. "Should we have a national highway?" is not a question in the sense we are contending for. Neither is "A national highway." There is nothing to debate in either of these. But "We should have a national highway" is a debatable question in our sense of the term. Also, the question generally "should have only one subject and only one predicate, but it may contain a restrictive or modifying phrase or clause." Thus, "Resolved that base-ball and foot-ball should be introduced into our local Improvement Association," is, while a question, not a good question for a debate. It would better he made into two questions. There might be no objection to the introduction of base-ball into the association, but a great deal to the introduction of foot-ball. "Into our Association" is a modifying phrase that restricts the question, since it tells where the game is to be introduced — not in all the associations, but in one particular association only. Next comes the study of the question — finding the issues, gathering the material and arranging it in the best way. The question ought to be studied as a whole and also as to its parts. Every word whose meaning is not clear on its face should be carefully looked into and defined. What does it mean ? Has it more than one meaning? If so, which is the obvious meaning here ? Study the meaning of the question as a whole. If this meaning is not clear, it may be that you can make it clear by recasting your proposition. Take, for instance, the question discussed so often last year, "Resolved that the controversy over the Panama Canal toll should be referred to the Hague Tribunal for arbitration." The word "should" here is somewhat ambiguous ; it may mean that it would be best for all parties concerned, or that we are under some legal or moral obligation, to arbitrate the question at the Hague Tribunal. In this case the ambiguity is not very THE M. I. A. CONTEST 549 important, but where it is important you should choose your definition and then stick to it throughout the debate. You are ready now for the issues. In all cases where differences of opinion exist, "there will be found two, three, four, or more points of fundamental importance on which the two sides disagree. These are the points on which depends the proving of the question, and if they can be clearly expressed, every reasonable, person will see that if a side establishes these points it will prove its contention. These points are the linked chain, so to speak, that holds up the proposition." Look for the points of basic importance in the question about the Panama Canal. Is the Hague Tribunal a just court? Have we a treaty with any nation which binds us to go to this court? Does this particular question come under this treaty? Is there not another and better way of settling the controversy? These are some of the issues in the question, which, if we prove, will prove our proposition. But how shall we find the issues? There is no absolute rule, but the following suggestions may help. First, think hard and read much about the question without regard to either side. Then, hunt down the issues by excluding from the discussion all matter foreign to the question, by excluding all points on which both sides agree or which the other side admits, by putting down the main points on which both sides disagree, and by arranging all the points on the question under a few heads, that in themselves constitute a logical reason for the truth of the question. A suggestion or two on evidence may not be out of place here. Remember that the great rule in debating is, He who affirms must prove, and both sides should be held to this rule. Mere assertion is not proof. That is also a good thing to bear in mind if you would argue well. Debates sometimes degenerate into quarrels because the debaters lose track of this salutary principle. On what grounds is the affirmation made? That is the important question in arguing. The sources of evidence are two — (1) reading and (2) observation. But all evidence must be subjected to tests. And so we inquire, when evidence based on reading is submitted: Is the authority quoted qualified to write concerning the fact? Is his authority recognized? If the evidence is based on observation, we ask: "Are there any physical defects, such as poor eyesight, hearing, and so forth, that impair accuracy of observation ? Are there any mental defects, such as imperfect memory, eccentricities of mind, or inability to express clearly the idea in mind, that might give a false impression? Are there any moral defects shown by lying, exaggeration, interest in the outcome of the controversv, that misrht lead to distortion of the truth?" Sometimes the evidence itself is tested irrespective of where it comes from. In that event we ask: "Is the evidence consistent in itself? Is it 550 IMPROVEMENT ERA consistent with ordinary human experience ? Is it consistent with other known facts of the case?" Two or three things more : In debating we are required to build up an argument of our own, but also to weaken or destroy the argument of the opposition. We are to submit direct proof therefor, and to refute. What I have already said looks to the building up of an argument — the constructive part ; and now a word as to refutation. Don't try to refute everything you can. Remember that whatever time you give to the small points is so much taken from the big ones. That would perhaps be refuting too much. But neither must you ignore your opponent's strong points, else it may be thought that you cannot meet them. Again, stay with a point till you make it clear, instead of flitting about from one point to another without making any. A few points made are better than many points half-made. Say all you have to say on a point while you are there, and when you leave it, tell the audience that you are leaving it. This will add to the clearness of your argument. And now a few words about the delivery of an argument. Tt is customary to address the chair and the audience. Some address also the judges and the opponents, but this is not necessary, since both of these are included in the term "audience." Always endeavor to uphold the dignity of the debate. Treat your opponents with the respect you wish for yourself. Never resort to ridicule or sarcasm or trickery. It is better to lose the debate by fair means than to win it by foul ; it is better to be honest than shrewd. Never address your opponent by his name — call him your worthy or honorable opponent. In a word, let your whole endeavor be to conduct your side of the debate in a fair and educational spirit. Then it will not matter whether you win or lose ; you will have had the training. It is better to deliver your argument from notes. Especially is this true if you are on the negative side. Some write out the opening speech, commit it to memory, and then deliver it word for word. But a debate will have more spice in it if everything in it is extemporaneous. Besides, the debater will not be so likely to be thrown off his guard by the new points of the opposition. There should, however, be a careful outline made of every speech to be given.