Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field; how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if G.o.d so clothe the gra.s.s of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
15. Make five original syllogisms[26] on the following models:
MAJOR PREMISE: He who administers a.r.s.enic gives poison.
MINOR PREMISE: The prisoner administered a.r.s.enic to the victim.
CONCLUSION: Therefore the prisoner is a poisoner.
MAJOR PREMISE: All dogs are quadrupeds.
MINOR PREMISE: This animal is a biped.
CONCLUSION: Therefore this animal is not a dog.
16. Prepare either the positive or the negative side of the following question for debate: _The recall of judges should be adopted as a national principle_.
17. Is this question debatable? _Benedict Arnold was a gentleman._ Give reasons for your answer.
18. Criticise any street or dinner-table argument you have heard recently.
19. Test the reasoning of any of the speeches given in this volume.
20. Make a short speech arguing in favor of instruction in public speaking in the public evening schools.
21. (_a_) Clip a newspaper editorial in which the reasoning is weak.
(_b_) Criticise it. (_c_) Correct it.
22. Make a list of three subjects for debate, selected from the monthly magazines.
23. Do the same from the newspapers.
24. Choosing your own question and side, prepare a brief suitable for a ten-minute debating argument. The following models of briefs may help you:
DEBATE
RESOLVED: _That armed intervention is not justifiable on the part of any nation to collect, on behalf of private individuals, financial claims against any American nation._[27]
BRIEF OF AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT
First speaker--Chafee
Armed intervention for collection of private claims from any American nation is not justifiable, for
1. _It is wrong in principle_, because
(_a_) It violates the fundamental principles of international law for a very slight cause
(_b_) It is contrary to the proper function of the State, and
(_c_) It is contrary to justice, since claims are exaggerated.
Second speaker--Hurley
2. _It is disastrous in its results_, because
(_a_) It incurs danger of grave international complications
(_b_) It tends to increase the burden of debt in the South American republics
(_c_) It encourages a waste of the world"s capital, and
(_d_) It disturbs peace and stability in South America.
Third speaker--Bruce
3. _It is unnecessary to collect in this way_, because
(_a_) Peaceful methods have succeeded
(_b_) If these should fail, claims should be settled by The Hague Tribunal
(_c_) The fault has always been with European States when force has been used, and
(_d_) In any case, force should not be used, for it counteracts the movement towards peace.
BRIEF OF NEGATIVE ARGUMENT
First speaker--Branch
Armed intervention for the collection of private financial claims against some American States is justifiable, for
1. _When other means of collection have failed, armed intervention against any nation is essentially proper_, because
(_a_) Justice should always be secured
(_b_) Non-enforcement of payment puts a premium on dishonesty
(_c_) Intervention for this purpose is sanctioned by the best international authority
(_d_) Danger of undue collection is slight and can be avoided entirely by submission of claims to The Hague Tribunal before intervening.
Second speaker--Stone
2. _Armed intervention is necessary to secure justice in tropical America_, for