population of Rome agitated because in
a Senatorial debate one speaker attacked the family reputation of one
of his opponents--a matter which, even if true, certainly had nothing
to do with the bill under discussion. Political campaigns used to be
disgraced by a prevalence of such appeals for votes. We may pride
ourselves upon an advance in such matters, but there is still too much
of it to let us congratulate ourselves upon our political good
manners. You cannot ascribe bad faith to a man who argues now from a
different attitude from the one he formerly supported. Changes of
conviction are frequent in all matters. A man must be judged by the
reasons he gives for his position at any one time. Many a person, who
ten years ago would have argued against it, now believes a League of
Nations possible and necessary. Many a person who a few years back
could see no advantage in labor organizations is anxious now to join
an affiliated union.

If you find the suggestion of such an attack in any of your own
speeches, cast it out. If it is ever used against you, refute it by
the strength of arguments you deliver in support of your position.
Remove all assertions which do not relate to the debated topic. Make
your audience sympathize with your repudiation of the remarks of your
opponent, even though he has succeeded in delivering them.

Fallacies of Causal Relationship. The various fallacies that may be
committed under the relation of cause and effect are many. Just
because something happened prior to something else (the effect), the
first may be mistakenly quoted as the cause. Or the reverse may be the
error--the second may be assumed to be the effect of the first. The
way to avoid this fallacy was suggested in the discussion of
explanation by means of cause and effect where the statement was made
that two events must not be merely _sequential_, they must be
_consequential_. In argument the slightest gap in the apparent
relationship is likely to result in poor reasoning, and the consequent
fallacy may be embodied in the speech. When people argue to prove that
superstitions have come true, do they present clear reasoning to show
conclusively that the alleged cause--such as sitting thirteen at
table--actually produced the effect of a death? Do they _establish_ a
close causal relationship, or do they merely _assert_ that after a
group of thirteen had sat at table some one did die? Mathematically,
would the law of chance or probabili