III. The third issue is true, for:
1. This reason, etc.
IV. The fourth issue is true, for:
1. This reason, etc.
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.
INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS
I. Definition of terms.
1. Contests, ordinary competitions in:
2. Intra-high-school contests (contests within each school).
contests (contests between different high
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
c) Would the proposed plan work out in practice?
I. Contests between the high schools
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: