was discussed: "_Resolved_, That the Federal Government Should Levy a
Graduated Income Tax." (Such tax was conceded as constitutional.) One
university decided upon these as the issues:

1. Does the government need additional revenue?

2. Admitting that additional revenue is needed, is a graduated income
tax the best way of securing the money?

3. Could a graduated income tax be successfully collected?

Here again if the debaters favoring a graduated income could show that
the government does need the money, that the proposed tax is the best
way to get it, and that such a tax would work in practice, they would
make the audience believe their proposition. If the speakers on the
negative side could show that the income of the federal government is
sufficient, that, even if additional revenue is needed, this is a poor
way to obtain it, or that this plan, though good in theory, is
impracticable, they would have a good case. Thus in every question
that is two-sided enough to be a good question for debate, there are
certain fundamental issues upon which the disagreement between the
affirmative and the negative can be shown to rest. When either side
has answered "Yes" or "No" to these issues and has given reasons for
its answer that will find acceptance in the minds of the audience and
of the judges, it has won the debate. It is easy, then, to see why
"determining the issues," and showing the audience what these issues
are, is the second step in successful debating.

Although there is no fixed rule or touchstone by which an issue can
immediately be determined, there are several rules which will aid in