'rvv- ——— —_——— _— —_—— .__—-— —— —— _—_— __——— —— —— —— —— __——— —— —— THE me Of THE NON-mam moors m CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN 023m rexraooxs ThuisforthoDogruofMA. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Michael David EarnOY 1953 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Place of the Non-logical Proofs in Contemporary American Debate Textbooks presented by mm DAVID W has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. A. _degree 111ij >734,“ . Major professor 1):.th 0-169 ‘ ' )." ‘4'.- ‘;.‘t ‘1’)" .._,, 1",,- -'L- "ch “9511*" uy'vuss’ -“+- .' .- 13‘3“ 34“ - ‘)“-‘ \ .‘u _ - . ' i. ~ -1 ' ~ A .- , .L _' .-~ _‘. A. .- .4 ”1",: 4 ' _. |_-: - ' " , . l V‘ ‘ I. |' , “fig ' ‘ . ‘F .‘r ‘, . ‘N _.- -— . ... _‘ -. ~ '. _ -. ' > ”-1"...L-f: ; “ .213. x”?! V LO 2. .5 \ I’. new a.“ “ £9177." O C.'s'f A ;‘ - ‘ 'V‘di“. ‘mv. v ”a- e i‘ ‘ f ’h a KL? 5"? .Q‘ '1 v '3‘ L", .7 .0 .~ _’. k ,1 o_ ‘ . ' Q . . J 344* 9 'r ‘1' - f!» '1 A ‘- . ' 3’7. w; r“: ‘57),“ \ ' S.S‘;;' :7" {\fi 1' Q'}_ ‘ ”é ., 'v ‘. ,e i 5336:; m i"‘ . . e . .. . V-[I‘ ’ .= ‘ I .. - . I“ . . l v "v \— _4 1 l i l _ d I, ., . ,9 ‘5 . . u' '4’»: ' nun- '. '. ‘5. - 3' Ufi‘ -. d ‘ ~ ‘Vlc..-F.. -12. 0 -~‘ .- .- .v _ v _' r._ . "V" ‘3 “‘I‘mb .vd—1WW‘ "‘- ’ .-. ’7; 3-": qI";”5..--:.-;-b~.si,u§:/r-t'»—.‘-r.’l';-:.-.~ mA-‘E—‘nk'évflflxft. -"" ':* - - ' ‘ - — .I A.", e _ ,“. .' .".'.1 :1: .‘ : ‘ .l ‘,1 "'i‘l‘ ‘_ . ..‘ ‘v 1" l ..,.."... -_. v . t A _- _ :4.l‘,' THE PLACE OF THE NON-LOGICAL PROOFS IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN DEBATE TEXTBOOKS By Michael David Earney w A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech, Dramatics, and Radio Education 1953 / /y / 3’.“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to eXpress his gratitude to Dr. Gordon L. Thomas, under whose patient guidance this study was made. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. V. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETHICAL PROOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Concept of Ethos . . . . . . . Analysis of the Textbooks . . . . . PATRETIC PROOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Concept of Pathos . . . . Analysis of Pathetic Proof in the Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUNI‘xiARY AND CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . PAGE .4 01 r4 F4 l4 ll 11 18 35 35 38 50 SO 55 56 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Educators in the field of debate have long been concerned with finding new ways and means to make debate more adequately meet the needs of American students. The debate programs in America have been under a constant fire of criticism from both at home and abroad. Because of these criticisms debate theory, practice, and procedure have been undergoing numerous alterations in the past and are now being studied to determine whether they should be further altered in the future. I. The Problem One type of criticism which has come from abroad indicates the need for a study of one phase of the American debate system. A group of British debaters which visited the United States on a debating tour made the following statement: ...the American debater...seems desirous of training himself as a Junior business executive who wishes to give his senior a severely factual, eminently sta- tistical report on a given situation, recommending a particular course of action. And thus the audience becomes superfluous, ignored, unwanted, and departs, 2 alas, unmourned. Debating becomes a mental exercise for research students, an arid game of intellectual mathematicians, cold, hard, devoid of all emotions... This statement indicates that the American debater is not concerned with the use of emotional appeals or with the deveIOpment of his personality for use as a persuasive force; it indicates that he is concerned only with the techniques of logical proof and logical arrangement. A second group of British debaters have made the same type of criticism. These men claim that the American system of debate is detrimental to the deveIOpment of the use of the emotional and personal appeals by the speaker. An example of this criticism may be found in an article written by these men which appeared in The Quarterly Journal 9;,Speech.2 In this article the idea is expressed that the American debater tends to rely on the use of statistics and quotations without trying to deveIOp the ability to gain the respect and trust of the audience through his own person. Furthermore, the idea is expressed that too little attention is paid to the reactions of the lDenzil K. Freeth, et. al., I'American Versus British Debating," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXV no. 4 (1949), p. 427. 2Anthony W. Benn, et. al., "American and British Debating,” The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIV no. 4 (1948), pp. 469- 72. 3 audience. In other words the authors believe that personal and emotional appeals are ignored and stress is placed on logical proof and statistical reporting. This criticism is a direct contradiction of the American descriptions and definitions of debate. For example Alan Nichols in his book Discussion and Debate1 describes debate in this manner. Here is no impartial search for truth. Each of you, through one process or another, has found the I'truth" as far as you individually are concerned. You have determined what is "right“ in the matter. Your purpose now is to persuade others to accept your conclusion. In such circumstances, impartiality is replaced by partiality; you are advocating or Opposing a particuéar prOpostion; that is to say, you are debating.’ Nichols indicates that the debater is not tied to the use of logical proof alone, but that his purpose is to persgade others to agree with the debater's conclusion. He is not bound to statistical and factual presentation, but he is free to use the tools of persuasion to gain agreement with his own views. This description shows that debate presen- tation includes the use of all three types of proof rather than excluding all but the use of logical proof. lAlan Nichols, Discussion and Debate, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1941. 21b1d., p. 107. 4 William A. Behl, in his text Discgssion gngDebate,l also points out that debate is not limited to the use of logical proof alone. By definition Behl shows that debate incorporates the use of the non-logical proofs although its primary emphasis is on logical proof. In the traditional argumentative speech (debate and discussion), the primary emphasis is on logical proof. An argumentative speech must consist of logical, emotional, and ethical proof.2 Here Behl claims that the non-logical proofs mg§§_be used by the debater. In addition to these foregoing views, McBurney, O'Neill and Nhlls, in their book Aggumentatign.§ng_Debate,5 claim that one of the valuable assets of debate to a student is that through debate the student "...recognizes the non-logical means of persuasion."4 The answer to the dispute of whether American debate is concerned with the use of the non-logical proofs may come from three sources: the written debate theory, lWilliam A. Behl, Discussion and Debate, New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1953. 21bid., p. 12. 3James H. McBurney, James O'Neill, and Glen E. Mills, faggmentation and Debate, New York: The Macmillan 00., 4Ibid., p. 266. 5 i.e. the debate textbooks; the teachers of debate (who may have theories of their own which are not included in the textbooks); and from the actual practice of the students of debate. These sources indicate a need for studies to determine the place given to the non-logical proofs in theory, practice, and teaching. The purpose of this study will be concerned with the first of these sources, theory. Since our debate theory is primarily set up in our debate textbooks this study will be concerned with those textbooks in which debate theory is embodied. This study will not be concerned with what is taught by teachers of debate or what is practiced by debate students; it will be concerned only with the textbook theory, and how the non- logical proofs are treated in the contemporary American debate textbooks. The intent will be to discover whether those proofs are included or excluded, and to determine the importance given the non-logical proofs by the writers. II. Definitions There are certain terms which should be defined and limited in order that a consistent perspective may be held through the entire paper. By the term debate is meant the formal type which is governed by definite rules concerning length of main ~ 6 and rebuttal speeches, order of Speeches, number of speakers on each side, admissible evidence, and so forth. The term non-logical proofs is used to identify the concepts of ethical and pathetic proof. These terms come from the Aristotelian concept of the persuasive proofs, i.e. pphpp, pathos, and lpgpp, A detailed explanation of gpppp will be found in chapter three, and an explanation of pathos will be found in chapter four. CHAPTER II PROCEDURE The first step in approaching a study of the non- logical proofs in debate textbooks would logically seem to be a thorough survey of the material which has been written on the concepts of ppppp and pathos. The study of the concepts of the non-logical proofs in the writings of the rhetoricians will be of enormous importance in securing an efficient criterion for use in the examination of the textbooks. Another source for gathering ideas concerning the use of the non-logical proofs will be the contemporary textbooks concerned with persuasion. Also there have been numerous articles in educational and professional Journals which in part deal with the concepts of ppppp and pathos. In addition to these articles, textbooks, and resource books, there have been a number of studies made concerning the development of the concepts of the persuasive proofs. These studies will be of aid not only in the contribution of their findings toward a more complete understanding of the persuasive proofs but also in furnishing a wider frame of reference to promote further deveIOpment of this study. The formulation of effective criteria for the identification of the non-logical proofs and their techniques 8 must of necessity be the next consideration in the organi- zation of the study. These criteria will best be derived from the examination of the material mentioned above. They will be derived from the writings of the rhetoricians and the conclusions of those writers who have made extensive and exhaustive studies of the development of the concepts which are under consideration. The very nature of the study to be made seems to make necessary a brief explanation of pppp§_and pathos be included within the study. This explanation will be developed to help explain the methods and the reasons for the selection of the specific criteria used. The next step in the deveIOpment of this study must be the selection of the textbooks to be studied. In order to gain the contemporary thought about the use of the non- logical proofs in debate it seems logical that one turn to those debate texts which are now being published and circu- lated for use in collegiate debate. Here the inference is that contemporary thought will be embodied in the contemporary texts. A list of these textbooks follows: 1. Baird, A.'Craig, ArgppentationI Discussion and Debate, New York: McGraw-Hill, nc., 1950. 2. Behl, William A., Discussion and Debate. New York: The Ronald Press 00., 1955. 5. Chenoweth, Eugene C., Discpssion and Debate, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1951. 6. 7. 8. 9 . Courtney, L. W., and Glenn R. Capp, Practicgl Debate, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincot Co., 1949. Crocker, Lionel 0., Ar umentation and Debate, New York: American Book Co., 1944. Ewbank, Henry L., and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate, second edition; New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts Inc., 1951. McBurney, J. H., James M. O'Neill, and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation andZerate, New York: The Macmillan COe 19510 . ' (A revision or The Working Principles of Debate by O'Neill and McBurney) Nichols, Alan, Discussion and Debate. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1941. The next phase in the develOpment of the study will be a preliminary examination of the textbooks for the purpose of determining which of the texts contain a treatment of the ethical and/or the pathetic proofs. Such a survey will serve to direct the intensive study of the books and guide the organization of the findings which evolve. The intensive examination of the textbooks will follow these steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. Study of each section of each book which deals all or in part with ethical proof. Summary of the findings derived from the examination. Analysis of the treatment of ethical proof in each textbook. Study of each section of each book which deals all or in part with pathetic proof. 6. 7. 8. 10 Summary of the findings derived from the examination. Analysis of the treatment of pathetic proof in each textbook. Summary of the findings made in the analysis of the treatment of ethical and pathetic proof in the textbooks. Statement of the conclusions which may be drawn from the study. By following these steps the investigation of the textbooks and the reporting of the findings will be more efficiently organized. The first three steps outlined above will be treated in chapter three. Steps four through six will be reported in chapter four. Chapter five will deal with the seventh and eighth steps. CHAPTER III ETHICAL PROOF This chapter will consist of two parts. The first part will be a discussion of the develOpment in rhetorical theory of the concept of ppppg; the second part will be an analysis of the ethical proof found in the contemporary textbooks on debate selected for this study. A. The Concept of Ethos The first record of the concept of ethos in a formal definition is found in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Aristotle describes ethos as being the persuasive effect of the speaker as a person or that which gives the impression of credibility of the Speaker.1 As for the sources of such credibility, Aristotle lists three: intelligence, high character, and good will. Of these three sources he makes this statement: "These are the three sources 2 of credibility, and there is no other.” Ethos the product of these sources is shown by the speaker through the choices lLane COOper, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1952, p. 92. 2J.E.C. Welldon, The Rhetoric of_Apistotle, London and New York: Macmillan Co., 1886, p. 114. 12 he may make in invention, arrangement, style, and delivery. This is called the doctrine of choice. Thus, since the time of Aristotle the concepts of intelligence, character, and good will.have been used as criteria for recognizing ethical proof in Speaking. In his dissertation, Qpnceptions g; Ethop L2 Rh toric,l William N. Sattler points out that rhetorical theory makes use of two different forms of ethos. The first of these forms Sattler calls subjective ethos. The orator, therefore, found it to be of considerable importance to evidence qualities which his audience esteemed. The doctrine of ethos in this sense concerns the traits of character which win respect or admiration. This interpretation of ethos, the speaker's ethos, will be referred to as subjective ethos. The second of these two forms of ethos to which Sattler refers is called objective ethos. The orator may depict the character of another person in his Speech by means of description or impersonation. This type of ethos will be identified as objective sings. Since this study is primarily concerned with the ethos of the speakep_in debate, consideration will be made lWilliam M. Sattler, Conceptions of Ethos in Rhetoric. 'Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, Chicago, 1947. 21bid., p. 6. 31bic., p. s. 15 only of the first of the two forms of ethos, i. e. subjective ethop. In the writings of the rhetoricians following Aristotle, we find a thorough recognition of the concept of ethos which Aristotle describes and in the form which Sattler.calls subjective ethos. It must be noted here that although the concepts are recognized they are described in different terminology. For example we have this statement from Cicero's 2p Oratore: Such influence, indeed, is produced by a certain feeling and art in Speaking, that the Speech seems to represent, as it were, the character of the Speaker; for, by adopting a peculiar mode of thought and eXpression united with action that is gentle and indicative of amiableness, such an effect is produced, that the Speaker seems to be a man of probity, integrity and virtue.1 It may be noted that Cicero's terms amiableness, probity, integrity, and virtue are easily incorporated by the Aristotelian concept of intelligence, character, and good will. Quintilian also recognized the concept of ethos. This statement from Institute; p§_Oratory illustrates his idea of ethos. The (ethos) of which we form a conception, and which we desire to find in Speakers, is recommended, 1J. S. Natson, Cicero on Oratory and Oratorg, London: George Bell and Sons, 1881, Bk. II, Ch. 43, p. 272. 14 above all, by goodness, being not only mild and placid, but for the most part pleasing and polite, and aimable and attractive to the hearers; and the greatest merit in the eXpression of it, is that it should seem to flow from the nature of the things and persons with which we are concerned, so that the moral character of the Speaker may clearly appear, and be recognized as it were, in his discourse. In this statement there is considerably more emphasis put on the Aristotelian factors of high character and good will, and yet there is still a basic agreement on the sources from which a speaker's ethos may come. The later rhetoricians also keep close to the idea of ethos as defined by Aristotle. For example George Campbell wrote this advice: Sympathy in the hearers to the speaker may be lessened several ways, chiefly by these two: by a low opinion of his intellectua% abilities and by a bad Opinion of his morals. Thus he must attempt, if possible, to mollify them, gradually to insinuate himself into their favor... The first of these two statements refers to intelligence and moral character; the second statement indicates the idea of good will. 1J. S. Watson, Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory, London: George Bell and Sons, 1895, Bk. VI, Ch. 2. 2George Campbell, The Phihosophy of Rhetoric, London: W. M. Dawall, 1825, 7th edition, p. 114. 5Ibid., p. 115. 15 Shows recognition of the Aristotelian concept of ethos. What stands highest in the order of means, is personal character and diSposition.l For consider first whether anything contributes ’more to persuasion than the opinion which we entertain of the probity, candor, and other good moral qualities of the person who endeavours to persuade. Next to moral qualifications, what in the second” place is most necessary to an orator is a fund of knowledge....Good sense and knowledge are the foundations of all good Speaking.5 These four statements show the agreement with the criteria of intelligence, character and good will. Blair points out that probity, candor good Sense, a wide range of knowledge, a good diSposition and other personal attributes of character are of the greatest persuasive force. Richard Whately says that "character of good will as well as integrity is requisite"4 in speaking. In Elements pf_Rhetoric Whately also describes the necessity of the concept of pphpp to the Speaker. In his chapter "Of the lHugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Be;les Lettres, Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, p. 578. 2Loc. cit. 31bid., p. 580. 4Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric, New York: Sheldon and Company, p. 252. 16 Favorable Disposition of the Hearers Toward the Speaker or His Opponent,"l Whately discusses the factors of character, intelligence, and good will. Although he does not use the same terminology for his descriptions as did Aristotle, Whately shows definite agreement with the Aristotelian concept of ethos. In short it may be said that a large number of the later rhetoricians hold directly to the Aristotelian concept of ethos. Sattler found that A.more complete analysis of ethos, one not restricted to delivery appears in the works of Lawson, Ward, Campbell, Priestley, Witherspoon, Adams, and Whately. The ethos of the Rhetoric of Aristotle is the source used by those writers. Thus, in Spite of the confusion of different terminology and individual treatment by later rhetoricians, the ethos of Aristotle's Rhetoric provides us with an inclusive set of criteria with which one may identify the ethical proofs: intelligence, high character, and good will. Let us look at each of these terms in order to gain a better understanding of them. Intehligence: This term incorporates the attributes of the ideal Speaker's intellect such as competence, wisdom, lIbid., pp. 209a256. ESattler, _p. cit., p. 388. 17 good judgment as to expediency, justice, and honor. In the doctrine of choice the intelligence factor of ghhgg is mani- fested by the speaker's judgment as to expediency, justice, and honor. This concept connotes the high degree of intel- lectual develOpment which the good Speaker must possess. High Character: This term encompasses the Aristotelian idea of virtue. The personal virtues mentioned by Aristotle are many: liberality, justice, courage, temperance, magna- nimity, magnificence, gentleness, and other such attributes which contribute to the moral character of the good man. These virtues may be shown by the Speaker in the choices he makes in connection with his dealings with the audience. ”It is requisite however that this result should itself be attained by means of the Speech and not of any antecedent conception of the speaker's character,"l explains Aristotle. The concept of high character thus deals primarily with the choices made in speaking rather than by what the audience already may know of the personal virtues of the Speaker. Good Will: This idea signifies the attributes of friendship and affection. This concept is more closely allied to pathos than are intelligence and high character. Good will consists not only of friendliness but also of the lWelldon, _p_. cit., p. 10. 18 disposition to do good for others. Sattler explains that there are two ideas which help to explain Aristotle's good will concept: (1) good will is a genuine interest in the welfare of listeners, and (2) good will is an inclusive term for all respected qualities discerned in the Speaker.1 Here the inference is that a genuine interest in the welfare of others’is the exemplification of friendliness and that the Spirit of good will is shown by the admirable qualities possessed by the Speaker. This idea is more easily under- stood than the concepts of high character and intelligence. It illustrates the desire of human beings to be interested in others and have others interested in them. The thesis of the concept is that the most certain way of interesting others in oneself and what one has to say is to show a genuine interest in others. B. Analysis of the Textbook; The author of a debate text may treat ethical proof in one of the following ways: 1. He may make a direct statement of the concept of ethos together with an application of ethical proof as a definite part of debate theory. lWilliam n. Sattler, "Conceptions of Ethos in Ancient Rhetoric," Speech Monographs, XIV (1947). p. 58. 19 2. He may make indirect statements which indicate a concept of ethos together with an application of that proof to debate theory. 5. He may make statements which employ ideas which denote ethical proof but which were not included in the text for the purpose of including a treat- ment of ethos. 4. He may include no treatment of ethical proof. In the following analysis of the textbooks which were listed in chapter two the writer will analyze and classify the books according to the above mentioned methods of treatment. 1. A. Craig Baird l Argumentation, Discugpion and Debate In chapter eighteen of his text, Professor Baird develops a discussion of the techniques of motivating an audience. In this discussion the author presents the concept of appeal through the personality of the Speaker. Of this appeal Dr. Baird says: If the audience has confidence in the Speaker, in his intellectual competence, his good will, and his moral leadership, and if his personality so dominates that all Opposition is for the time broken, then the proposition will Be accepted, attention held, and the decision reached. 1A. Craig Baird, Argumentathon, Discuspion and Debate, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1950. 21bid., p. 230. 20 The terms intellectual competence, good will, and moral leadership describe the author's adaptation of the Aristotelian concept of phhpp. The text lists eight factors which will enhance the debater's ethical appeal.1 1. iggp. The author suggests that many debates which were satisfactory from other points of view failed because the debater failed to do or say the appropriate thing or decidedly said or did the inappropriate thing. He advises that a lack of understanding of human nature in general and of the Specific audience in particular usually results in tactlessness. 2. Sincgpity. "Nothing so ruins the effect of good argument as a suggestion of insincerity,"2 says ‘Dr. Baird. He advises that the only real way to appear sincere is to be sincere. 3. Ehrnestnesp. "Earnestness grows out of the Speaker's faith and begets faith.”5 If the Speaker's purpose is shallow and earnestness is lacking the listeners will lose confidence in the speaker. lIbid., pp. 230-33. 21bid., p. 251. 5Loc. cit. 21 4. hhhpp, Dr. Baird suggests that humor is necessary for effective persuasion. He cautions that humor should not be substituted for sound arguments. He suggests that humor is not necessarily composed of a number of unrelated jokes but that anecdotes, turns of phrase, and other forms of wit have their place in debate. 5. §phf:confidence. Poise, self-control, calmness, and surety of purpose in the debater will win for him the reapect of the audience. A great deal of the Speaker's self-confidence rests on the extent of his preparation. 6. Freedom from_pugnacity, TOO much aggressiveness may lead to arrogance. Both of these are detrimental to the debater's impression on the audience. 7. Modesty. "The most effective Speakers...have a natural modesty."l Reasonable modesty is far more effective than aggressiveness. The debater who is able to understand his own limitations and is able to give things their proper value will be far more effective than the debater who is . arrogant. 8. Courtesy. Courtesy is a necessary attribute for the debater. Courtesy toward his Opponents and his audience will bring the debater good will. lIbid., p. 255. 22 This discussion of appeal through the personality of the debater shows a definite acknowledgment of pphpp as a part of debate theory. Although Professor Baird did not use the Specific term ethical proof he does give a definite concept for application to debate. Thus, Baird follows the second method of treatment which was discussed on page nineteen. 2. William A. Behl thcussion and Debate William Behl's text shows a thorough recognition of the use of ethical proof in debate. Of the necessity of ethical proof to the debater Behl says: The impression that the audience has of the Speaker is usually an important factor in the acceptance or rejection of his ideas. It is important for the Speaker to have the audience accept him as a man if he wishes them to be swayed by his argument. The author claims that debate hpph include all three of the forms of proof even though the primary emphasis is placed on logical proof.2 He also points out the relation- ship of ethical proof to logical proof in debate. The material for the reasoned discourse used in logical proof must be intrinsic to the substance of the problem. Material for emotional and lBehl, pp. cit., p. 8. 21bid., p. 12. 23 ethical proof is extrinsic, but it is related to the consideration of the topic as a whole.1 A second discussion of ethical proof is found under the heading ”Evidence and Ethical Proof."2 In this section Behl again points out the extrinsic quality of ethical proof and shows that this form of proof is an integral part of the Speaking situation. In discussing the attitude of the audience toward the speaker, the author takes up the three sources of gphpp. 1. Intelligence. Behl says that the best way to create a favorable attitude is to show that one is a competent man. This can be done by showing that one is in command of the facts of a subject and is able to draw accurate conclusions from those facts. He indicates that a Speaker who relies on prejudice, bias, and desire as a basis for his conclusions will not give the impression of being a man of intelligence.3 2. Character. Behl explains that there are certain attributes which, when shown and actually possessed by the Speaker, will gain favorable response from the audience and lIbid., p. 9. 21bid., pp. 69-70. 51bid., p. 174. 24 establish the Speaker as a man of character. Among these attributes he lists honesty, sincerity, courage, and modesty.l 3. Good Will. The author states that ”...the audience will have a tendency to be well diSposed toward a Speaker if it reaponds favorably to his intelligence and character. But he can lose its good will by what he says and does if he is tactless and discourteous."2 Thus it is seen that Behl recognizes ethical proof as an integral part of debate and discusses its relationship to the whole field of argument, thereby following the first of the methods of treatment. 5. Eugene C. Chenoweth hiscussion and Debatp5 Professor Chenoweth does not mention ethical proof ppp_§§ in this textbook. In applying the criteria (intelligence, character, and good will) to the text, this writer found indications of only the good will aSpect of ethos. A representative example of Dr. Chenoweth's 11big., p. 175. 21bid., p. 175. 3Eugene C. Chenoweth, Discussion and Debate, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1951. 25 treatment of good will may be found in this statement. You should make serious attempts, furthermore, to ingratiate yourself in the opinions of your audience by being always fair and courteous. Yet, the author's treatment here is not of pphp§_but 13- what he terms as "adaptation". Chenoweth seems to fall into the last of the methods of treatment, i.e. he does not give a definite place to ethical proof in the textbook, nor does he prOpose his own concept for the use of the speaker as a personality. 4. Luther W. Courtney and Glenn R. Capp Practical pratihgz Ephpg as a form of proof is not mentioned in Practical Debatihg. However, in the chapter concerning delivery, the subject of attitudes toward debate subjects, Opponents, and audiences is discussed.3 This discussion indicates ac- knowledgment of the criteria of intelligence, character, and good will. It must be noted here that this discussion is not included in the textbook as a treatment of phhpp. The authors suggest three attitudes which should be held by the debater: l. The debater should recognize the existence of fundamental pro and con arguments in every controversial lIbid., p. 145. 2Luther W. Courtney, and Glenn R. Capp, Practical Debating, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincot Co., 1949. 5151c., pp. 214-216. 26 subject and strive to present the best arguments for either Side. ”When you come to the platform with this attitude, you will usually deliver a sincere, intelligent, and persuasive case."1 2. The authors advise that the debater deal only with the facts and arguments and not with the personalities involved. They suggest that sarcasm or an "air of conde- scension" have no place in debate. 5. The debater should consider the audience as a part of the debate. He should be mindful of the interests and needs of the audience and address those listeners in terms they can understand. He should Show courtesy and reapect for the intelligence of the audience. In comparing these suggestions tO the sources of pphpg, this writer found certain Similarities. The first suggestion indicates that the debater should be a man of intelligence and that he evidence that intelligence by his attitudes toward the subject of the debate. The second attitude which the authors advise is one of courtesy, integrity, honesty, and fairness, in dealing with the subject and the Opponents. The last attitude deals with the considerations necessary to the establishment of good llbid., p. 215. 27 will. If these attitudes were assumed by the debater he would certainly appear to be a man of intelligence, character and good will. It appears that the third method of treatment may be applied to this textbook. The suggestions made in the above discussion were not included in the text as a treatment of pphp§_even though certain similarities do exist. 5. Lionel Crocker Apgumentation and Debate 1 This textbook does not include a definite treatment of ethical proof as such. There are several references to "personal proof" but it is not set down as a definite concept. Crocker's definition of personal proof may be found in this statement: Because you are you (your judgment, your intelligence, your integrity, your education), no one else can bring to the case what you can bring to it. It is your personal proof. In this statement may be seen the reference to the first of the sources of ethical proof, intelligence. The author also refers to the character of the Speaker as a form of proof. Each of us gives certain cues to the audience about ourselves. We give the impression of possessing or lLionel Crocker, Arghmentation and Debate, New York: American Book Company, 1944. 2Ibid., p. 102. 28 not integrity or wholeness. Character and reputation act as proof.1 In addition he says that ”...much of your personal proof lies in your manner and personal appearance.”2 Another reference to intelligence and character may be found in the author's questions concerning the debater's effect on other peOple. Do you make them doubt what is said because it is you saying it? Or, do you make the léstener feel this must be true because you say it? This textbook follows the second of the four methods of treatment of pphpp, By examining different excerpts from the text the writer found acknowledgment of ethical proof although that acknowledgment is made indirectly and is not given a definite place as a Specific form of proof for use by the debater. Although this text follows the same method of treatment as does the text by A. Craig Baird it does not give so comprehensive a treatment as does the Baird text. lIbid., pp. 200-201. 2Ibid., p. 246. 3Loc. cit. 6. Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer hiscussion and Debate1 Ewbank and Auer do not assign a definite place to ethical proof in their debate theory. The text does list four methods for ”acquiring and using prestige" which indicate use of the concept of ethos. l. 5. 4. He can learn to Speak as one having authority. While he cannot tactfully say that he knows more about his subject than do his listeners, they will draw that conclusion if he presents plenty of evidence, precisely stated and care- fully documented, and if his conclusions do not go beyond his proofs. He can make use of prestige suggestion by presenting well qualified authorities in support of his conclusions, and making their qualifications clear to the audience. He can gain prestige, if he can Show that he represents the views of the majority. If he Speaks for the minority, he can gain prestige by admitting it, reminding his listeners that most reforms begin as minority movements. He'can gain prestige by exhibiting, during his Speech, those traits of personality and deportment that his listeners admire. The first three of these methods are more concerned with the intelligence factor while the last factor rather broadly indicates character and good will. However, these factors 1Henry L. Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and .Debate, second edition; Appleton-CenturysCrofts Inc., .New York, 1951. 21bid., pp. 246-47. 50 were not included in the text as a treatment of ethical proof. Thus, this text follows the third method of treat- ment of ethos discussed on page nineteen. 7. James H. McBurney, James M. O'Neill and Glen E. Mills Argumentation and Debate McBurney, O'Neill and Mills show a definite recognition of the importance of pphpp to the debater. In the chapter entitled "The Advocate AS Speaker,” the authors present two sections devoted to pphpp: section two, “The Ethos of the Advocate” and section three, "Factors Contributing to the Ethos of the Advocate." ”There can be no question,“ say the authors, ”that the impression which listeners get of the Speaking advocate, consciously or otherwise, constitute a persuasive element of great importance."1 They point out that peOple react to the speaker in many ways. These reactions may either be conscious reactiOns to some attribute or flaw or the reaction may be made without the conscious knowledge of the listener. Because of this "conscious or otherwise” reaction, the debater will be judged by his listeners on everything he may say or do and, therefore, the debater should do everything lMcBurney, O'Neill, and Mills, pp. cit., p. 208. 51 possible to make sure that the factor of ethos works for him and not against him.1 Throughout the treatment of ethos in their text, the authors agree with the Aristotelian concept of ethos and with Aristotle's doctrine of choice. Yet, the writers offer an interesting observation of their own. The best way to make a listener think you are a man of intelligence, character, and good will is to hp. such a person: No artifice is a satisfactory substi- tute for long with very many peOplei The best we can do here is to suggest factors which will enable the advocate to put his best self forward. N0 speaker will do his cause full justice with less. The factors which the authors suggest are seven in number: 1. Assurance: Here the authors suggest that the debater Speak with "reasonable assurance." By such a manner the speaker will Show poise, confidence, sincerity, and competence. They use the term "reasonable assurance" because they maintain that too much assurance will constitute an appearance of "cockiness" which will have an adverse effect on the attitudes of the audience. lIbid., p. 209. 21bid., p. 210. 4. 5. 52 Preparation: The text explains that the debater's appearance of competence will be determined by the extent of his preparation. The extent of preparation will be shown through his organization, reasoning, evidence, analysis, composition, and the rest of his argumentation. Intensity: This factor gives the listener an estimate of the importance which the speaker may attach to the tOpic under discussion as well as the view which he is supporting. Ehpxibility: This factor symbolizes the ability of the Speaker to adapt himself and his Speech to the occasion, the audience, Opposing arguments, or such other elements which may enter the course of the debate. Inflexibility is a definite handicap in building the pphpp of the Speaker. Sincerity: Sincerity is one Of the greatest building blocks in the establishment of the Speaker's pphpp. This factor includes many of the admirable personal attributes such as honesty, a genuine interest in the welfare of others, enthusiasm, truthfulness, fairness, and sound judgment. Sincerity is difficult to pretend. 55 It should Spring from thorough preparation, true understanding, and careful contemplation of the tOpic which is to be discussed and the views which the Speaker may prOpose. One who speaks with sincerity more easily gains the good will of his listeners. Directness: The text points out that directness is usually considered to be a_matter of delivery, but the authors believe it includes much more. They indicate that directness comes from an enthusiastic desire to communicate ideas to the listeners. The speaker's voice, views, arrange- ment of material, and physical action reveals the extent to which the speaker desires to communicate with the audience. A lack of directness tends to establish an adverse feeling toward the Speaker. The debater should watch his audience for signs indicating the less of personal directness between himself and his listeners. References to Oneself: The Speaker should be careful in using this form of direct ethical persuasion. Such references should be carefully considered as to their apprOpriateness before they are used so that adverse attitudes may not be aroused. 54 In offering the seven factors which influence the establishment of the speakers pphpp, McBurney, O'Neill, and Hills Show a definite recognition of the use of ethical proof in debate. The treatment of pphpp_given in the text gives a place for the ethical proofs in debate theory. The importance which these writers place on ethical proof in debate may best be summarized in this statement: The Speaker is likely to succeed as an advocate in the degree that his listeners interpret these choices, cues, and signs to mean that he is a man of intelligence, character, and good will.1 8. Alan Nichols [hiscpssion and Debate Professor Nichols does not include a discussion of ethical proof in his textbook. In chapter Seven of part two he does write of some of the attributes necessary for the debater. The closest reference to the concept of pphpp seems to be the suggestions that the Speakers are obligated to try to make a favorable impression on the audience. lIbid., p. 210. CHAPTER IV PATHETIC PROOF This chapter will consist of two parts. The first part will consist of a discussion of pathos and the difference between pathos and pphpp. Part two will contain an analysis of the pathetic proof found in the contemporary textbooks on debate selected for this study. A. The Concept of Pathos Like the concept of ethos, the first record of the definition of pathos is found in Aristotle's Rhetoric: Secondly, proof may be Conveyed through the audience when it is worked up by the Speech to an emotional state. For there is a wide difference in our manner of pronouncing decisions, according as we feel pleasure or pain, affection or hatred; and indeed the power of working upon the emotion is, as we assert, the one end or Object to which our present professors of the rhetorical art endeavour to direct their studies.1 Thus Aristotle describes pathetic proof as that proof which is derived through arousing in the audience certain desired emotions through the instrument of the Speech. Unlike the concept of ethos, pathos cannot be explained through the use of traditional criteria like intelligence, lWelldon, pp, cit., p. 12. 56 high character, and good will. Pathos or pathetic proof is a term which signifies a large, general concept. For example, Cicero's description of the use of pathetic proof in hp Oratore is a statement of the concept although the term pathos or any other identifying term is not used. To this mode of Speaking we may subjoin the opposite method, which moves the minds of the judges by a very different means, and impels them to hate, or love, or envy, or benevolence, or fear, or hope, or desire, or abhorrence, or joy, or grief, or pity, or severity; or leads them to whatever feelings resemblel and are allied to these and Similar emotions Of mind. In a like manner Quintilian wrote of this concept: A duty of the orator, accordingly, still remains to be considered, which is of the greatest efficacy in securing his success, and is of far more difficulty than any of those already noticed, I mean that of influencing the minds of the judges, and of moulding and transforming them, as it were to that disposition which we wish them to assume.2 Both of these statements are directed to the same general idea of influencing or exciting the emotions of the listener so that his opinions concerning the topic under discussion may be influenced by those emotions. The emotions to which the Speaker may appeal are a matter of choice; the concept deals only with the idea of the speaker's rhetorical choice to influence those emotions. lWatson, _p. cit., Cicero, Bk. 11, Ch. 44. 2Watson, _p. cit., Quintilian, Bk. v1, Ch. 2. 57 George Campbell was vitally concerned with emotional proof. In ghp Phihosophy_p§_Rhetoric Campbell develops a comprehensive discourse on the concept of pathos. In this discussion he refers to the concept as pathos and ”emotional proof”. However, regardless of the terms used, Campbell still develops the same concept of appeal to the emotions of the listeners through the instrument of the Speech to which Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian refer. From the foregoing discussion a basic difference between phhpp_and pathos may be seen. Ephpp_or ethical proof is the persuasive effect of the Speaker as a person through the choices he may make in his Speaking. Pathos or pathetic proof, on the other hand, is the persuasive effect of the speaker's influencing the judgment of the listeners by arousing certain emotions in those listeners. At times there is no absolute distinction between the two concepts. The good will aSpect of pphpp is closely allied to pathetic proof, and it is often discussed under the headings of emotional appeal. For example Aristotle exPlained that: ...good will or a friendly disposition on the other hand must be discussed now under the head of the emotions. And by the emotions I mean all such states as are attended by pain and pleasure and produce a change or difference in our attitude as judges, e. g. l anger, compassion, fear and the like and their Opposites. lwe11don, _p. cit., p. 114. 58 B. Anphysis of Pathetic Proof in the Textbooks The following analysis is taken from the eight text- books on debate selected for this study and listed in chapter two. 1. A. Craig Baird Argumentation. Dgscuspion and Debate Dr. Baird's chapter, "Persuasion: Techniques of Motivation,"l contains a detailed treatment of pathetic proof. The author explains that argument is more than objective reasoning and logic but persuasion as well. He points out that the persuasion of which he is writing is “...the Special method of influencing an audience through emotional appeals or the art of motivation by means largely nonlogical.“2 After this explanation the author provides a discussion of the techniques into seven basic steps, which are in turn subdivided into principles and suggestions which the debater may follow. Step one is the analysis of the audience as individuals and as a group. There are seven principles given for the lBaird, _p_. cit., pp. 214-254. 2Ibid., p. 215. 59 consideration of the speaker concerning such an analysis. 1. The individual and the audience as a group are affected by basic emotional reaponses and desires. 2. The individual and the audience as a group tend to believe what satisfies their primary and secondary needs and wants. 5. The individual and the audience as a group tend to respond to connotative language. 4. The individual and the crowd tend to be suggestible. 5. The individual and the crowd tend to rationalize. 6. The individual and the crowd tend to think and act from prejudice. 7. The individual and the audience tend to accept fallacious arguments. Each of these principles is discussed with a view to helping the debater understand human behavior individually and in groups. Step two is analysis of the Specific audience. Here Baird lists and discusses seven steps for such an analysis. 1. Analyze the occasion. 2. Analyze the audience in terms of the arguer's purpose. 4O 5. Analyze the Specific interests, intelligence, and cultural level of the audience. 4. Analyze the prejudices of the audience. 5. Analyze the attitude of the audience toward the question. 6. Analyze the knowledge and experience of the audience with the problem. 7. Analyze the attitudes of the audience toward the Speaker or Speakers. Step three is selecting and framing the subject with a view to the needs and requirements of the special audience. Dr. Baird points out that this does not mean that one will necessarily defend the side that most of the audience favor. National debate topics and many other subjects which the speaker may debate are picked by others. However, when the debater may choose the subject he should do so with this principle in mind. Step four is selecting, arranging, and prOportioning the arguments with a view to persuading your audience. The author points out that a debate brief is of great service in selecting arguments which will appeal to specific audiences. As to which type of proof should be presented first, the author points out that it depends entirely on 41 the audience whether emotional or logical proof is presented first. Step five is concerned with deveIOping motivative elements with a view to persuading the audience. Here the author deals with drives of the listeners. He discusses here eight appeals or motives as examples of the many drives which must be considered by the Speaker: (1) self- preservation, (2) accumulation of goods and comforts, (5) social recognition and power, (4) personal and social satisfactions, (5) resistance to opposing persons and situations, (6) adherence to duty and justice, (7) self- sacrifice, (8) appeal through the personality of the speaker.1 The sixth step is persuasion through selection and arrangement of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. Here Baird points that words express arguments and appeals. Thus, words become the central part of persuasion. As a result it is necessary for the debater to understand the power and the characteristics of the words he uses. The treatment of pathetic proof in this textbook gives that form of proof a definite place in debate. The text shows that the student of debate Should become thoroughly acquainted with the techniques and uses of the concept of pathos. 1This type of appeal was discussed in chapter three of this study under the heading of ethical proof. 42 2. William A. Behl Qiscussion~and Debate .Professor Behl'points out that emotional or pathetic proof is a necessary element of an argumentative Speech. Rarely, if ever, is it poSsible to influence the belief and action of others by logical proof alone. Since man has a tendency to do what he wishes to do, it is usually necessary.to use emotional proof in order to get an audience to accept logical conclusions. 1. Thus, Behl establishes pathetic proof as an integral part of debate theory. He explains the nature of emotional proof in this way: When the Speaker uses the desires of the audience. as reasons why it should reSpond in a given manner, he is using emotional proof. This is reasoned a discourse but it is not logical proof....The point is that proof which is based upon the wishes and desires of the audience is emotional or non-logical. 2 In the discussion of pathetic proof Behl is careful to distinguish between emotional proof and emotionalized thinking. He points out that bland assertions, appeals to ignorance and tradition, name-calling, hasty general- izations and other such objectionable techniques characterize emotionalized thinking. Such techniques have no place in .5-- argumentative Speaking and such techniques have no place \\ in emotional proof. The difference is one of selectivity, careful analysis, and order.5 lBehl, _p, cit., p. 7. 2Loc. cit. 51bid., p. a. 45 The author points out that emotional proof like ethical proof is extrinsic to the problem but nevertheless,r:f it is definitely related to the consideration of the tOpic as a whole.1 Behl explains that it is sometimes necessary to use emotional proof to gain the audience's acceptance of logical proof.2 He cautions the debater to be discriminate in its use. There is no objection to the use of emotional proof as long as the disputants do not use it as though it were logical proof, and as long as the conclusion is not based wholly on emotional proof.5 Behl further claims that: Where appeals to emotions are used to the exclusion of facts and inferences, they are an actual barrier to accurate thinking. 4 In chapter twelve of the text is found a discussion of audience analysis. The author reviews certain "universal" audience characteristics: (1) we tend to believe what we want to believe, (2) we tend to rationalize, (5) we tend to react to suggestion or persuasive appeals. This is followed 1Ibid., p. 9. 2Ibid., p. 69. 3Loc. cit. 4Ibid., p. 144. 44 by suggestions for analysis of the background of the audience. These suggestions are set in the form of questions as to the age level, intellectual level, social status, common ties, and the desires of the group. Four basic desires are listed: self-preservation, power, self-esteem and sex. Next the text takes up the attitude of the audience toward the tOpic. Behl explains that there are four basic attitudes which the audience may hold: (1) opposed, (2) un- decided, (5) indifferent, (4) favorable. Each of these attitudes is discussed to help student understanding of them. The next section, the attitude of the audience toward the Speaker, has been discussed in chapter three of this study. This textbook shows an acknowledgment of pathetic proof as an integral part of debate theory. Behl has shown the belief that the student of debate should have an under- standing Of the concept of pathetic or emotional proof and the techniques by which it may be employed. In his discussion of audience analysis he has directed the attention of the student toward the necessity of knowing how to understand an audience and thereby of being able to employ the prOper form of proof at the prOper time. 45 5. Eugene C. Chenoweth Qiscussion and Debate This text does not mention pathetic or emotional proof. In chapter ten, "Persuasion and Adaptation," there is a discussion of the "word picture" type of argument, but the chapter is not primarily concerned with emotional proof. However, the author does indicate that emotional appeals Should be employed. He points out that these appeals Should be made by describing facts in vivid words. Persuasion is chiefly the presentation of facts so forcefully, emphatically, Simply, and vividly that peOple are caused to believe in a plan or are aroused to act as the Speaker desires.1 Persuasion is an appeal to hope, loyalty, fear, and love, and to hatred of unworthy things. These references, however, are not used to present pathetic proof as a form of proof for use in debate. 4. Luther W. Courtney and Glenn R. Capp Practical Debating The debate theory of this book does not employ the use of pathetic proof insofar as this writer can determine. The authors do consider briefly audience analysis but this discussion is aimed at helping the debater understand how lChenoweth,_p. cit., p. 159. 2Loc. cit. 46 much evidence to use instead of being a treatment of pathetic proof.1 5. Lionel Crocker Argumentation and Debate This textbook does recognize the necessity for the student of debate to understand emotional proof. The audience is more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals than by close reasoning. To get an audience to divorce itself from what it likes and dislikes is almost impossible.2 Although pathetic proof is not discussed as such, the author does stress the need of employing the emotions, desires, <1 wants, and needs of the audience in the debate Speech. 6. Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer Discussion and Debate Perhaps the explanation for not including pathetic proof among the tools of the debater may be found in this statement: If logic and argument run a poor second in a race with emotional appeal, why are we writing this book on objective thinking and its use in discussion and debate? Because we believe that emotional appeals may be properly used to reinforce evidence and argument. However, we think that emotional appeals are too Often substituted for objective analysis and logical thinking. 3 lCourtney and Capp, _p. pit., pp. 106-108. ZCrocker, _p. cit., p. 202. 5Ewbank and Auer, _p. cit., pp. 258-59. 47 The authors of this text do give a detailed study of persuasion and the persuasive Speech but this study is not coordinated with the debate theory. The authors also discuss emotional reactions of l 2 but to the writer individuals and individuals in groups it does not seem that the discussion was included for the purpose of helping the student to deveIOp his ability to employ pathetic proof in debating. 7. James H. HcBurney, James H. O'Neill and Glen E. Mills Argumentation ang Debate This text includes emotional or pathetic proof as a part of debate. The authors point out that there are 5 which must be considered in the four basic assumptions study of argumentation and debate: (1) that propositions can be proved, (2) that truth, justice and wisdom are more powerful than their opposites, and (4) that emotional reactions are more easily enlisted in intellectually defensible causes. This last assumption is the basis for enlisting the emotional proofs. Finally, it is assumed that man's sympathies, tastes, faiths, desires, and intuitions are more natural lIbid., pp. 59-60. 21bid., pp. 205-216. 5McBurney,_pp. cit., pp. 10-11. 48 allies of truth, justice, and wisdom than they are of the false, the unjust, and the unwise. The advocate who proves his point is in a better position to enlist the emotions of his listeners in his cause than one who does not.1 The authors' adaptation of pathetic proof may be found in chapter eleven, “Motivation in Argument."2 The text defines ”motivation" in this way: ...and in our analysis, that kind of appeal which is designed to Stimulate desire and associate it with the proposition is called motivation.5 It points out that the strength of these appeals usually depends upon their arousal of emotional components known as anger, fear, hate, elation, disgust, r morse, pride, shame, envy, dismay, and the like. The employment of pathetic proof in debate theory of this text may easily be seen in the above statements. The authors go on to say that "...there is probably no more effective material than that which appeals to desires,drives, or emotional reactions..."5 llh;p,, p. 11. 2;p;p,, pp. 143-159. 5;p;p., p. 146. 41516., p. 151. ()1 Ibid., p. 147. 49 As to the relationship of emotional proof to logical proof or thoughtful reaction to emotional reaction the authors say We have shown that emotional behavior comes in- creasingly into play when goals are sought with unusual tenacity and vigor. In fact, it is obvious that all behavior has its motives, be they strong or weak. Thus an argument may have logical validity and emotional appeal. In other words, an advocate who stirs up desires and associates them with his proposition is not inevitably illogical.l As the analysis of this textbook shows, the authors acknowledge a definite place and a definite use for pathetic proof in debate. 8. Alan Nichols Discussion and Debate Insofar as this writer has been able to discern, this textbook does not employ pathetic proof as a part of its debate theory. The author does discuss briefly the necessity for audience analysis but it is not done with the intent of including pathetic proof. Thus, in constructing a case, audience analysis is always an essential step. When it is possible to ascertain the prevailing beliefs of the particular audience to be addressed, such a course is preferable.2 lIbid., pp. 145-46. 2Nichols, _p, cit., pp. 158-59. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY A. Summary and ConclusionS' The following statements summarize the findings of this study. 1. Baird gave a treatment of appeal to the audience through the personality of the speaker. Dr. Baird did adapt the criteria of intelligence, character and good will as a definite form of proof for debate. 2. Behl gave a definite place to pphpp as a form of proof for the debater. He points out that ethical proof is an extrinsic form of proof but that it must be considered as a definite part of the whole problem. 5. Chenoweth did not discuss ethical proof as a part of debate theory. He gave no place to ethos as a form of proof. 4. Courtney and Capp mentioned factors which suggest employment of ethical proof but they did not make a definite statement of the concept or adapt pphpp to debate theory. 5. Crocker made numerous indirect statements which indicated the usefulness of ethical proof in debate but he did not deveIOp a definite concept for the debater's use. 51 6. McBurney, O'Neill and Mills included a comparatively complete treatment of the concept of ethos and gave that concept a definite place as a form of proof for use by the debater. 7. Ewbank and Auer did not develop a definite place for gghgg in debate theory. They did make statements which indicated some of the factors of ethical proof but these statements were not included in the text as a treatment of ethical proof. 8. Nichols did not mention ethical proof. He made no attempt to incorporate gthgs as a form of proof. If the books were classified according to the methods of treatment set up on page nineteen of this study the text by Behl and the text by McBurney, O'Neill and Mills would follow the first method. That is, these authors developed a definite concept of ethical proof and developed that concept as a form for use by the debater. Baird and Crocker made indirect statements indicating a concept of gphpg and applied those statements as a form of proof for use by the debater. This would be classified as the second method of treatment. The third method of treatment, i.e. making statements which employ ideas which denote ethical proof but which were not included in the text for the purpose 52 of including a treatment of gphpg, was followed by Courtney and Capp and also by Ewbank and Auer. The text by Chenoweth and the text by Nichols would be classified with the last method of treatment since they made no mention of ethical proof. In the opinion of the writer,_Baird, Behl, and McBurney, O'Neill and Mills gave the most comprehensive treatment of ethical proof. Of the eight texts examined three gave a definite place to pathetic proof in the theories advanced. Three of the texts mentioned factors indicating use of pathetic proof; and two did not employ pathetic proof in the theory advanced. l. Baird gave a rather detailed discussion of emotional proof and discusses at length the techniques by which it may be employed. 2. Behl says that pathetic proof is a necessary element of any argumentative speech. He adapts pathetic proof as a definite form of proof for use by the debater. 5. Chenoweth does not employ pathos as a form of proof for use by the debater. 4. Courtney and Capp do not employ pathetic proof in their debate theory. 55 5. Crocker stresses the need of employing emotional proof in the debate speech. 6. Ewbank and Auer do not present pathetic proof as a part of their theory but at the same time they do give a rather complete discussion of persuasion which is devoted to emotional appeal. 7. McBurney, O'Neill and Kills do recognize the importance of pathetic or emotional proof in debate. Their treatment of pathos, however, is not as comprehensive as their treatment of gghgg, 8. Nichols does not employ pathetic proof in his debate theory. The texts which give the most adequate treatment of ethical and pathetic proof are the texts by Baird, Behl, and McBurney, O'Neill and Mills. From the analysis of the treatment of the non-logical proofs in the contemporary debate textbooks selected for this study, this writer has drawn certain conclusions. It is realized that this study is only a phase of a much broader problem. These conclusions concern only the text- books selected for this study and do not necessarily hold true insofar as teaching of debate and practice of debate are concerned. Further study will be needed to determine the place given to the non-logical proofs in teaching and 54 practice since these conclusions are not meant to apply in any way to those phases of the problem. The first conclusion gained from the study is that there is a great lack of consistency in the treatment of the non-logical proofs in the textbooks. Some of the texts gave extensive treatment of ppppg and pathos while others gave none at all. Some of the texts develOped ethos and pathos as definite forms of proof for use by the debater while others did not. In each of these texts there were varying degrees of treatment. This lack of consistency of treatment may be the result of two causes. It may be caused by the lack of recognition of ethical and pathetic proof by some of the writers or it may be caused by the authors having purposely dealt primarily with logic, evidence, reasoning, and procedure aspects of debate while leaving the personal and emotional aSpects to be dealt with by the debate instructor or other speech courses. The second conclusion gained from the study was that there is a disparity between the definitions of debate (which were discussed in chapter two of this study) and the material included in the textbooks concerning non-logical proof. There is also more consideration given to pathetic proof than to ethical proof. 55 The third conclusion is that in the majority of texts there is not a comprehensive treatment of the non- logical proofs. In the final analysis, however, there can be no definite conclusion concerning the British criticism that American debate does not make use of the non-logical proofs. If the texts by Baird, Behl, or churney were used as a basis for Judging the validity of that criticism it would have to be denied. On the other hand, if the texts by Nichols or Chenoweth were used as the basis of Judgment the criticism would be substantiated. B. Suggestions for Further Study 1. A study to determine the place of the non- logical proofs in the teaching of debate. 2. A study to determine the place of the non- logical proofs in practice by American students. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Baird, A. Craig, Argumentation, Discussion and Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. Behl, William A., Discussion and Debate. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955. Blair, Hugh, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates. Campbell, George, The PhiloSOphy of Rhetoric. London: W. M. Dawall, 1825. Chenoweth, Eugene C., Discussion and Debate. Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Co., 1951. ' COOper, Lane, The Rhetoric of Aristotle. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1952. Courtney, Luther W., and Glenn R. Capp, Practical Debating. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincot Co., 1949. Crocker, Lionel G., Argumentation and Debate. New York: American Book Company, 1944. Ewbank, Henry I., and J. Jeffery Auer, Qiscussion and Debate. second edition; New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1951. McBurney, James H., James O'Neill, and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and Debate. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951. Nichols, Alan, Discussion and Debate. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1941. Watson, J. S., Cicero on Oratory and Orators. Philadelphia: David McKay, 1897. Watson, J. 8., Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory. London: George Bell and Sons, 1895. 57 Welldon, J.E.C., The Rhetoric of Aristotle. London and New York: The Macmillan Co., 1886. Whately, Richard, Elements of Rhetoric. New York: Sheldon and Company. B. ARTICLES Benn, Anthony H., Sir Edward Boyle, and Kenneth Harris, "American and British Debating," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIV No. 4 (December 1948}, 469-72. Freeth, Denzil K., and others, ”American Versus British Debating," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXV No. 4 (December 1949) 427-54. Sattler, William H., "Conceptions of Ethos in Ancient Rhetoric," Speech Monographs, XIV (1947). C. UNPUBLISHED NATERIALS Haiman, Franklyn 8., "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Ethos in Public Speaking." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 1948. Pross, Edward L., “A Critical Analysis of Certain ASpects of Ethical Proof." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1942. Sattler, William H., "Conceptions of Ethos in Rhetoric." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 1947. 'naum USE awn Nov _21 "3 ' 21 Jul 3.9,. 838-— .iIHUI. ‘ M37 I‘D ‘ Wyn-5.9.25 — ‘— ‘ fl . 5.11%.?" it”... I. . . . ..‘\ . ...25 n ....lv! ... . t H. fir‘fiaml. ..I III .fiyik‘. ......i: . .fl’IJ-l. .Jbifiwatg’tnfl. ..- . | .26. .V ......1 ,< .1... ....v. . ..- . . I.