reported in the Appendix, the first speaker for the negative supplied the necessary introductory matter neglected by the first speaker for the affirmative.

Furthermore, the first negative speaker must either refute the arguments just advanced or show good reason for postponing the refutation. Arbitrarily to postpone answering the contentions of the first speaker looks quite as suspicious as to ignore them utterly. Usually there is no time for complete refutation. The debater should avoid scrappy work by taking up a single main point and hitting that hard.

If the closing argument of the affirmative speaker has evidently made a strong impression upon the audience, and is uppermost in their minds, the following speaker cannot afford to ignore it. He must reply at once; but the amount of time which he can allow for the reply will depend on the amount of constructive work still to be done for his side. In the Harvard-Yale debate, on the question whether the history of trades-unionism shows a general tendency detrimental to the best interests of the country, one speaker closed with great praise of trades-unions for their willingness to arbitrate. The following speaker took up that argument at once, and said, in refutation :

You have heard the last speaker dwell upon the benefits of arbitration. But what kind of arbitration, ladies and gentlemen? The arbitration they are seeking to establish involves conditions with which the employer cannot comply. How can employers arbitrate regarding paying men twenty dollars per week, when to do it would render their economic existence impossible? Let me read to you these words from the third vice-president of the American Federation of Labor: "If the employers won't arbitrate and give us what we want, then we will fight for it until we get it." What kind of arbitration is that? "If they won't arbitrate and give us what we want,

then we will fight for it until we get it.' " And how can the employers of this country arbitrate with men who continually refuse to become responsible for the contracts which they make? Trades-unions absolutely refuse to incorporate, and how can we ask responsible corporations to make contracts with organizations which are irresponsible? Is this arbitration?

At the close of his speech, the first speaker for the negative should summarize his own argument, show its bearing on the argument of the other side, and point out just what work, in view of these facts, the affirmative has still to perform.

The Other Main Speeches. For the other speakers, the first requisite is adaptation. They must adapt their work to that of the other side, as the debate proceeds, and they must adapt their work to that of their colleagues. Team-work is essential. A debater who will not play precisely his part, who refuses to sacrifice individual notions for the sake of the whole case, is as objectionable as a football player who ignores the signals or refuses to follow his interference.

It is the duty of each speaker to summarize, not only what he has said, but all that has been said on his side up to that point. The fact that the opposing speakers intervene to distract the attention of the audience makes this kind of team-work necessary. It helps to keep the whole case in view, and thus makes the final summary more significant and effective. A word of caution is here necessary. Time will not allow an elaborate and detailed summary. Only the main points can be given, with terse, clear reminders of the means by which they were proved.

1 The reader may here recall the comments, in the tenth chapter, regarding the value of repetition for emphasis.

A debater can usually decide beforehand with what argumentative and emotional appeal he wishes most vividly to impress his audience. With this he should plan to close his speech, and he should become so familiar with it that a terse and forcible phrasing will be sure to respond to his thought when the time comes for delivery. Rarely will the course of the debate be so far from his expectations that he will be obliged utterly to abandon the chosen peroration. Knowing that in these closing words all his strength must be summoned for a final attack, knowing that this is his last chance to win the audience before the other side has the floor, or the judges render their decision, the debater has no excuse for presenting a weak ending. When he sees that he has only a little more time than is necessary for his peroration, he should at once bring to a close the part on which he is speaking, omitting important points, if necessary, in order to round out his speech with what is most important. Unless he follows this deliberate plan, he may be cut off abruptly and obliged to leave his speech hanging in the air, an experience as awkward as it is common.

Rebuttal Speeches.-Those who have difficulty in analyzing an opponent's case as he speaks and in rapidly preparing answers may yet become effective speakers in rebuttal, for effective speakers seldom rely on the inspiration of the moment, as is commonly supposed, to furnish rebuttal material. A speech which is admirably fitted to another, which seems in every detail to grow out of the immediate occasion, may have been prepared in all its essentials long before the debate. Webster's Reply to Hayne was almost entirely refutation; yet Webster declared that all the material had been waiting in his desk for months. "If he had tried to make a speech to fit my notes," said Webster, "he could not have

hit it better." Debatable questions have usually been so extensively discussed that arguments are rarely presented in debate which could not have been anticipated by thorough preparation. To be sure, the relative emphasis placed on the parts, the arrangement, the phrasing, and the arguments ignored by an opponent, may cause some surprise; but there is rarely any excuse for being surprised by the arguments actually presented. Nevertheless, although one should prepare himself to meet every argument which is likely to be presented against him, he should not assume that his opponents will use certain arguments and proceed to refute them in advance, unless he can prove that those arguments are essential to his opponents' case. Otherwise his opponents may make him appear ridiculous by admitting all that he has said by way of anticipatory rebuttal.

In refutation debaters usually gain in spirit and fall off in substance. There is no need for this weakness. The falling off in substance is due to defective preparation on the other side of the question. A skillful debater usually has enough rebuttal material for an hour's address, although he may be allowed but five minutes. From this mass of material he selects and arranges, as the case of his opponents develops, whatever will most effectively meet that case. On some questions, perceiving only two or three cases at all likely to be presented against him, he groups his rebuttal material in advance with reference to these possible cases.

Thorough preparation on both sides of the question will enable a debater to anticipate nearly all the arguments that demand refutation; but not all. The unexpected may happen; the line of attack may be unusual or even original; evidence may be presented from a source that all his research has failed to discover; the

force of his own work in conviction may be considerably overcome by a persuasive appeal from the other side, the reply to which could not be effectively prepared in advance. Formal debate allows no time for collecting new evidence. The debater must decide at once what is the bearing on the question, and what is the relation to his own case of the argument advanced against him. He must decide whether it is worth answering; if so, when and by what method. There are times in every debate when nothing but a complete understanding of the underlying principles will suffice. At such times that team will go to pieces which has allowed the coach to do most of the work and provide ready-made rebuttal. The debater who is unable to grasp the whole question, who has not, by analysis, differentiated the main issues from the subordinate ones, who fails therefore to appreciate relative values, is usually known by his "scrappy rebuttal." He jots down a miscellaneous lot of points made by his opponents. Everything is fish that comes to his net. Some of the points on which he wastes his limited time are evident slips of the tongue, mere illustrations, admitted matters, irrelevant details, and other trivialities which most of the audience have already forgotten. He proceeds to attack these points at random. As the order of attack is in no way related to the established order of issues, or to the development of his case or to that of his opponent, the bearing of these points is lost and their relative importance is obscured. The most common adverse criticism of rebuttal in student debates is that it is scattering and trivial.

The Closing Rebuttal Speech. There is danger in formal debate that the audience shall become confused, and unable, after the give and take refutation, to see how the contest stands at the end of the debate. It is