THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE

I. What the brief is.

II. What the brief does.

III. Parts of the brief:

1. The introduction in which

(1) The end desired is made clear.

(2) The issues are determined.

2. The proof, which states the issues as facts and proves them.

3. The conclusion, which is a formal summary of the proof.

IV. A specimen model brief.

V. A specimen special brief.

VI. Rules for briefing.

When a builder begins the construction of a wall, he must have the proper material at hand. When an engineer begins the construction of a steel bridge, he must have metal of the right forms and shapes. Neither of these men, however, can accomplish the end which he has in mind unless he takes this material and puts it together in the proper way. So it is with the debater. He may have plenty of good evidence, but he will never win unless that evidence is organized, that is, put together in the most effective manner.

The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get the correct form by pouring the concrete into a mold. So also, there is a mold which the debater should use in shaping his evidence. When the evidence has been put into this form, the debater is said to have constructed a brief.

In a previous lesson we saw how we might prove that John Quinn was a dangerous man by using the evidence of a court record. If we had put that evidence in brief-form we should have had this:

John Quinn was a dangerous man, for:

1. He was a thief, for:

(1) The Illinois state courts found him guilty of robbing a bank,
for:

The brief, then, is a concise, logical outline of everything that the speaker wishes to say to the audience.

Its purpose is to indicate in the most definite form every step through which the hearers must be taken in order that the proposition may at last be fully accepted by their experience.

The brief is for the debater himself. He does not show it to the audience. It is the framework of his argument. It is the path which, if carefully marked out, will lead to success.

Now, as we have seen, there are three principal steps in debating:

1. Making clear what you wish the audience to believe.

2. Showing the audience why the establishing of certain issues should make them believe this.

3. Proving these issues.

The first two of these steps constitute what in the brief is called the Introduction.

The third step, proving the issues, is the largest part of the brief and is called the Body or the Proof.

In addition to these two divisions of the brief there is a sort of formal summary at the end called the Conclusion.

The skeleton of a brief then would be as follows:

INTRODUCTION

In which: (1) the desired end is made clear; (2) the issues are determined.

PROOF

In which the issues are stated as declarations or assertions and definite reasons are given why each one should be believed. These reasons are in turn supported by other reasons until the assertion is finally brought within the hearers’ experience.

CONCLUSION

In which the proof is summarized.

Of course no two briefs are identical, but all must follow this general plan. Suppose we look at what might be called a model brief.

MODEL BRIEF

Statement of proposition.

INTRODUCTION

I. Definition of terms.

II. Restatement of question in light of these terms.

III. Determination of issues.

1. Statement of what both sides admit.

2. Statement of what is irrelevant.

IV. Statement of the issues.

PROOF

I. The first issue is true, for:

1. This reason, which is true, for:

(1) This reason, for:

a) This reason.

b) This reason.

2. This reason, for:

(1) This evidence.

(2) This authority.

(3) This testimony, for:

a) See Vol. X, p. , of report, document, magazine, or
book.

II. The second issue is true, for:

1. This reason, for:
(1) This reason.

2. This reason, for:

(1) This reason.

(2) This reason.

III. The third issue is true, for:

1. This reason, etc.

IV. The fourth issue is true, for:

1. This reason, etc.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, since we have shown: (1) that the first issue is true by this evidence, (2) that the second issue is well founded by this evidence; (3) that the third and fourth, etc.; we conclude that our proposition is true.

Now, let us look at a special brief, made out in a high-school debate, for a special subject.

The preceding is an affirmative brief and there were four issues. In the following we have a negative brief, in which there were three issues. Refutation is introduced near the close of the proof.

Of this we shall see more in the next lesson.

BRIEF FOR NEGATIVE

INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS

INTRODUCTION

I. Definition of terms.

1. Contests, ordinary competitions in:

a) Athletics.

b) Debating.

2. Intra-high-school contests (contests within each school).

3. Inter-high-school contests (contests between different high
schools).

II. Restatement of question in light of these definitions. Contests
within each high school should be substituted for contests
between high schools in Northern Illinois.

III. Determination of issues.

1. It is admitted that:

a) Inter and intra contests both exist at present in the
high schools of Northern Illinois.

b) Contest work is a desirable form of training.

c) Not all contests should be abolished.

2. Certain educators have asserted that:

a) The inter form of contests is open to abuses.

b) The intra contests would be more democratic.

c) Intra contests would be practicable.

3. Other educators disagree with these assertions.

4. The issues, then, are:

a) Are the inter contests so widely abused in the high
schools of Northern Illinois as to warrant their abolition?

b) Would the proposed plan be more democratic than the
present system?

c) Would the proposed plan work out in practice?

PROOF

I. Contests between the high schools of Northern
Illinois are not subject to such abuses as will warrant
their abolition, for:

A. If the abuses alleged against athletic contests ever
existed, they are now extinct, for:

1. The alleged danger of injury to players physically
unfit is not an existing danger, for:

(1) It has been made impossible by the rules
of the schools, for:

a) This high school requires a physician’s
certificate of fitness before participation
in any athletic contest, for:
(a) Extract from athletic rulings of
school board.

b) Our opponent’s high school has a similar
regulation, for:

(a) Extract from school paper of opponents.

c) The X High School has the same ruling.

d) The Y High School has the same requirement.

2. The charge that athletic contests between high
schools make the contestants poor students is
without sound basis, for:

(1) A high standard of scholarship is required of
all inter-high-school athletic contestants, for:

a) Regulations of Illinois Athletic Association.

B. The evils charged against inter-high-school debating
cannot be cured by the proposed scheme, for:

1. They are due, when they exist, not to the form
of contest, but to improper coaching, for:

(1) “Too much training,” one of the evils
charged, is an example of this.

(2) Unfair use of evidence, the other evil alleged,
is simply an evil of improper coaching.

II. The proposed plan would not be so democratic as the present
system, for:

A. The present plan gives an opportunity to all students, for:

1. Its class and other intra contests give a chance to the less
proficient pupils.

2. Its inter contests afford an opportunity for the more
proficient pupils.

B. The proposed plan would deprive the more capable pupils of
desirable contests, for:

1. They can find contests strenuous enough to induce development
only by competing with similar students in other schools.

III. The proposed plan would not be practicable, for:

A. It is unsound in theory, for:

1. No pupil has a strong desire to defeat his close friends.

2. There is no desirable method of dividing the students for
competition under the proposed plan, for:

(1) Class division is unsatisfactory, for:

a) The more mature and experienced upper classes win
too easily.

(2) “Group division” is not desirable, for:

a) If the division is large, the domination of the
mature students will give no opportunity to the younger
students.

b) If the division is small, it is likely to develop
into a secret society.

B. Experience opposes the proposed plan, for:

1. College experience is against it, for:

(1) N. University tried this plan without success, for:

a) Quotation from president of N.

2. High-school experience does not indorse it, for:

(1) It is practically untried in high schools.

REFUTATION

I. The argument which the affirmative may advance, that the experience
of Shortridge High School demonstrates the success of this plan, is
without weight, for:

A. It is not applicable to this question, for:

1. The plan at Shortridge is not identical with the proposed
plan, for:

(1) Shortridge has not entirely abolished inter contests, for:

a) School Review, October, 1911.

2. Conditions in Shortridge differ from those in the high schools
of Northern Illinois, for:

(1) Faculty of that school has unusual efficiency in coaching,
for:

a) Extract from letter of principal.

(2) Larger number of students, for:

a) Extract from letter of principal.

CONCLUSION

Since there is no opportunity for serious abuse arising from contests between schools, and since the adoption of contests within the schools alone would lessen the democracy of contests as a form of education, and since the proposed plan is impracticable in theory and has never been put into successful operation, the negative concludes that the substitution of intra for inter contests is not desirable in the high schools of Northern Illinois.

From these illustrative briefs we can draw:

RULES FOR BRIEFING

The introduction should contain only such material as both sides will admit, or, as you can show, should reasonably admit, from the phrasing of the proposition.

Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of all statements and substatements.

Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the proposition.

Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or statement that it supports.

Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting statements should be followed by the word “for.”

Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason should be no more than a simple, complete, declarative sentence.

The word “for” should never appear as a connective between a statement and substatement in the introduction.

The words “hence” and “therefore” should never appear in the proof of the brief, but one should be able to read up through the brief and by substituting the word “therefore” for the word “for” in each case, arrive at the proposition as a conclusion.

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the selection from Burke.

2. Is the following extract from a high-school student’s brief correct in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, and correct it so far as is possible without using new material.

SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE “A” HIGH SCHOOL AS A REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT

INTRODUCTION

I. Recent popularity of soccer.

1. In England.

2. In America.

II. Soccer a healthful game, for:

1. Develops lungs.

2. Develops all the muscles.

III. Issues.

1. Soccer is a beneficial game.

2. Would the students of “A” support soccer as a regular
sport?

PROOF

I. Soccer is a beneficial sport, for:

1. It requires much running, kicking, and dodging, both
in offensive and defensive playing, therefore

(1) It develops muscles.

(2) It develops lungs.

2. It is played out of doors, therefore

(1) It develops lungs.

II. Students of “A” would support soccer as a regular sport, for:

1. Who has ever heard of students who would not support
soccer, baseball, basket-ball, and all other exciting
games?

3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund Burke in which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should be impeached by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a clear “introduction” and convincing “proof,” do you think that it would have made an effective “conclusion”?

Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the Commons:

I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in
Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed.

I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, whose
national character he has dishonored.

I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws,
rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has
destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate.

I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of
justice which he has violated.

I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has
cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every
age, rank, situation, and condition of life.

4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other material than that of your own ideas, state at least two issues, and, in correct brief form, proof for belief or unbelief.

(1) High-School Boys Should Smoke Cigarettes.

(2) No One Should Play Football without a Physician’s Permission.

(3) Girls Should Participate in Athletic Games While in High School.

(4) High-School Fraternities Are Desirable.

(5) Women Should Have the Right to Vote in All Elections.