From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the first
place your friend stated that he wished to argue about examinations.
Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because he had not yet
asked you to believe anything about examinations. He might have said,
"I am going to explain examinations," and he could then have told you
what examinations were. That would have been exposition. But he could
not _argue_ until he had made a definite assertion about the term
"examination."

Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite assertion the
matter to be argued.

In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is often
called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain
conditions:

1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience are
interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to think
debating a dry subject.

2. It should propose something different from existing conditions.
Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no lunchroom.
Should it have one? Your city is governed by a mayor and a council.
Should it be ruled by a commission? Merely to debate, as did the men
of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the point of a
needle, or, as some more modern debaters have done, whether Grant was
a greater general than Washington, is useless.

The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something new