This is too little thought of by us; and we may say that polemic, as an art, is still immature.  The best examples of procedure are to be found in the Law Courts, some of whose methods might be borrowed in other debates.  For one thing, I think that each of the two leaders should provide the members beforehand with a synopsis of the leading arguments or positions to be set forth in the debate.  This, I believe, should be insisted on everywhere, not even excepting the debates of Parliament.

It is the custom of debating societies to alternate the Debate and the Essay:  a very important distinction, as it seems to me; and I will endeavour to indicate how it should be maintained.  Frequently there is no substantial distinction observed; an essay is simply the opening of a debate, and a debate the criticism of an essay.  I should like to see the two carried out each on its own principle, as I shall now endeavour to explain.

[THE DEBATE:  A FIGHT FOR MASTERY.]

The Debate is the fight for mastery as between two sides.  The combatants strain their powers to say everything that can be said so as to shake the case of their opponents.  The debate is a field-day, a challenge to a trial of strength.  Now, while I admit that the intellectual powers may be quickened to unusual perspicacity under the sound of the trumpet and the shock of arms, I also see in the operation many perils and shortcomings, when the subject of contest is truth.  In a heated controversy, only the more glaring and prominent facts, considerations, doctrines, distinctions, can obtain a footing.  Now truth is the still small voice; it subsists often upon delicate differences, unobtrusive instances, fine calculations.  Whether or not man is a wholly selfish being, may be submitted to a contentious debate, because the facts and appearances on both sides are broad and palpable; but whether all our actions are, in the last resort or final analysis, self-regarding, is almost too delicate for debate.  Chalmers upholds, as a thesis, the intrinsic misery of the vicious affections:  there could not be a finer topic of pure debate.

My conception of the Essay, on the other hand, is that it should represent amicable co-operation, with an eye to the truth.  By it you should rise from the lower or competitive, to the higher or communistic attitude.  There may be a loss of energy, but there is a gain in the manner of applying it.  The essayist should set himself to ascertain the truth upon a subject; he should not be anxious to make a case.  The listeners, in the same spirit, should welcome all his suggestions, help him out where he is in difficulties, be indulgent to his failings, endeavour to see good in everything.  If there be a real occasion for debate, it should be purposely forborne and reserved.  In propounding subjects, the respective fitness for the debate and for the essay might be taken into account.

[CO-OPERATIVE DISCUSSION IN THE ESSAY.]