A debater, as the public estimates him, is a wrangler-a person who cares less for the principles he discusses than he does for the glorious privilege of entering into an intellectual "scrap," where he may have the opportunity of "doing the other fellow up." He discusses merely to beat, and in the mind of the public, the moderators should decide who comes out best, as if discussions are held merely to decide which is the "champion". Their ideas are mostly obtained from wrestling matches and prize fights. Nothing is farther from what a discussion should be. A man, who discusses the issues between him and his opponent, is usually a man of convictions. He is sincere; and his greatest wish is that others may be induced to investigate. He is so honest in his views that he really wants his friends and all others to understand both sides of the question at issue. With him principles are first and himself second. He may be pleased with adulation and praise -what person is not?-but he would not swerve from what he believes to be truth for the plaudits of the whole world. He concedes the honesty of those who differ from his, especially, the honesty of his opponent; for he knows that if his opponent is dishonest, he would not be willing to risk a discussion with him. Generally he and his opponent may be the best of friends; and that friendship is strengthened- as they progress in the discussion. The hard arguments they direct to each other, and sometimes the play of words at the expense of each other, leave no rancor in their bosoms, and are forgotten in the growing cordiality between them. His greatest wish is that he may reclaim his opponent from the errors which, in his mind, afflict him. Considering the honesty of his opponent, he never indulges in personalities, or accuses his opponent of indirect motives. If he is a man of narrow, sectarian views, and such men are seldom willing to discuss any issues wherein they differ from others, he regrets that his opponent should be in error, because of the eternal consequences of such mistake.

But there are occasional exceptions to this class of debaters, notably Clarke Braden of whom I spoke in a former page in this book, and W. R. Covert. Neither of these men could argue a matter upon its merits. They made it their object to besmirch some character, and, if possible the character of the entire membership of the organization to which their opponents belong, as well as the character of the man with whom they are debating. The pity is, that any Church should put up such men as representative of their cult. With Covert, Moses had one discussion and four with Clark Braden. But Moses was not equal to a discussion with such men. When it came to nosing around for offal to throw at an opponent the business became too degrading for him-he could not stoop to it and maintain his self-respect.

As a debater, Moses was always ready, no matter what the occasion. If a statement was made concerning any event in Modern Spiritualism, such as the failure or supposed failure of any medium, or the statements of any lecturer on the rostrum, Moses seemed always to have the full text at hand, and would supply any ellipsis made by his opponent. Ordinarily such an opponent would be held up to the scorn of the audience, but he never impugned the motives of his adversary. He simply made a correction, which he emphasized very strongly. He was always magnanimous, and gave his opponent all the latitude he required, so that it rarely became necessary for him to rise to a point of order.

It was his habit in opening a discussion to state to his audience the value of such mode of presenting thought. The audience was a jury, and it was necessary that it should hear both sides and examine with care the evidence presented to it, and that each one must decide for himself alone; that in no other way could they be true to themselves; that a majority of the laws passed in Congress and State Legislatures are first discussed, pro and con; that discussions when properly conducted, bring out truth. He would then speak of the importance of the subject under discussion-that if Spiritualists are correct in their averment, it should be demonstrated beyond a doubt, for outside of Spiritualism there has never been discovered any evidence that man continues his life after the death of the body. This makes a discussion important; for if Spiritualism is not true, if it is a swindle, then we are groping our way in the dark to a land of darkness. He would next request his hearers to listen patiently, no matter how they may differ from the speaker, and to realize that each speaker would be expected to produce the strongest arguments he could, and to use such language as would convey most accurately his meaning. As listeners therefore it would be to their advantage to remain cool, no matter how warm the disputants may appear, and to hear and weigh the arguments on both sides.

Having made these preliminary remarks, he would take up his subject, in the order it was presented in the proposition, and proceed to bring out as much evidence as his time would permit. In his next speech, after replying to his opponent he would resume his arguments just where he left off when his time was called.

In discussions, as in lectures, Moses always had a fund of wit at hand. He was somewhat axiomatic in his statements, and often conveyed the strongest arguments by the manner of his mere presentation of a point. The absurd side of any theory often seemed to present itself to his mind, so that his mere mention of it made it appear ridiculous. In reasoning, he often argued ad homonym, so that the listener seemed to feel that he was the particular one he was talking to, and worked out the argument apparently in his own mind, and scarcely realized the results, till they sprung up like apparitions before -him, and from these theorems he was led on to others, till he was brought face to face with the proposition, which, as speaker, Moses was sustaining. To this fact, may be attributed much of his success as a public speaker, and also a debater.