Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1869-04-03
Rules OF Honorable Contro

Rules al tt0norubic soutfo-
yERsY.
Al the request Of q frlend We publish the
Rules OF Honorable Controversy, as laid
down In Hedges Logic, an authority, so
much nselel by every eollequlsl. Cut them
out-msmOriIo ihem-pasIe them up In
your roOm'
Rule Isl. Tie terms, ia whicL he
question ia debate is expressed, and
The precise point at issue, sh0Wld be so
clearly defined, tia! ncre could b. no
misunderstanding rcSpeetiHg them.
If this To not done, tho dispute is
liable to be, in great degree, ver-
bal. Arguments will bo misapplied,
and the controversy protractcd, be.
cause tho parties ciigaged in il have
different apprehensions Of the ducs-
ton.
Rule I'd. The parties should mu.
tWdiiy consider each other as standing
on a footing Of equality in respect to
the subject in debate, Each should
regard the other as possessing equal
talents. knowiedge, and desire for
truth, rih himself; and that it is
possible, therefore, that he may be in
the urong, and his adversary in the
right. In the heat of controversy,
men are apt to forget the numberless
sources Of crrot, which exist in
every controverted subject, especial
ly Of theology and metaphysics
Hence arise presumption, conf.
dencc and arrogant language; all
of which obstruc tthc discovery Of
truth.
Rule Sd. All expressions, uhich
drG unmeantng, or uithom effect in re-
gard to the Subject in debate, should
be strictly ab6tded. All expressions
my be considered rs unmeaning,
which contribute nothing to the
proof Of the question; such as desul-
tory expressions. TO these may be
added all technical, ambiguous, and
cquivocal expressions. These have
tendency to dazzle and bcwilder
the mind, and to hinder its clear
PERCEPTION of the truth.
Rule 4th. Personal reflections On
an adrersary should in no instance be
miulged. Whatever be his private
character, his foibles are not to be
named nor alluded to in n contro-
versy. Personal reflections are not
only destitute feffect, in respect to
the question in discussion, but they
are prodactl7e of real evil. They
obstruct mental improvement, and
are prejudicial to public morals.
They indicate in him, who uses
them, mind hostile to the truth;
for they prevent even solid argu.
ments from receiving tho attention,
to which they are justly entitled.
Rule 9th. No one has a right to ac-
cuse has adversary ofindirect motives.
Arguments are to be answered,
whether he, who offers them, be sim
cerc or not, especially as his want
of sincerity, if real, could not be as
certained. 10 inquire into his mo-
tivcs, then, is useless. 10 ascribe
indirect ones to him is worse than
Useless; it is hurtful.
Rule 9th. The consequence of any
doctrine are not to be charged on him,
rho maintains it, unles he expressly
avoW$ tAem. If an absurd conse-
qucnce be fiitly deducible from any
doctrine, it is rightly concluded
that tho doctrine itself is false; but
it is hot rightly concluded, that he,
who advances it, supports the alb
surd consequence. Tho Charitable
presumption, in such case, would
lie, that lie had mover made the de-
duction; and that, If lie ,iiade it, he
would have abandoned the Original
doctrine. NJ 3i7. ,-tos yrsI
Rule 18th. As truth, and not victo-
ry, is the pr5fss:sd object of contro-
rersy, ,rhatsrer proofs Sidy be ud-
RANGED, on either side, shonld be er-
amined rith fairness and capdor;
and any attempt to ensndre an adrer-
sary by the arts of sophistry, or to les
sen the force of reasoning, By his Uit,
ridicule, or cduilling,;is Uiolation Of
the rules Of honourable controversy.