Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh Debate Index Second Edition — Text and Context

A System of Cross-References and Categories

The index uses cross-references to connect related topics, such as “Luxury” pointing to “Deception” and “Hypocrite and liar.” This network shows how librarians categorized moral and social questions. Some headings are paired in opposition, like “Luther and Loyola” or “Bryant and Longfellow,” framing debates as comparisons of historical figures. Others group multiple propositions under one subject: under “Machinery” appear three distinct questions about its benefits to mankind, harm versus good, and effects on labor. The system reflects an assumption that debaters would argue from prepared positions, not from raw research.

Notably, the index includes manuscript lists from the library itself, labeled “Reference lists,” indicating that even published manuals were supplemented by local, unpublished compilations. The “Debates” volume is described as a loose-leaf book of copied briefs and references—a living document updated as new arguments emerged.

Subjects That Defined Public Argument in 1912

The topics indexed range from local governance (“Local option” as a method for dealing with the liquor problem) to imperial intervention (“Should Europe interfere in Macedonia?”). Many propositions assume a binary yes/no structure, such as “Was the deposition of Louis XVI justifiable?” or “Has the influence of Locke's philosophy been greater than its intrinsic worth?” The index treats historical figures as debatable cases, not settled facts.

Social questions appear frequently: marriage laws, municipal ownership, and the “expensive social entertainments of the wealthy.” The inclusion of “Man” as a subject—with propositions on racial origins, human antiquity, and the savage state—reveals the racial and evolutionary assumptions of the era. These were not fringe topics but mainstream debate material, drawn from manuals used in schools and clubs.

The index also records what was not included: topics dropped between editions are not listed, but the preface notes that “a number of topics no longer of living interest have been dropped” from Askew's manual, suggesting a deliberate pruning of outdated controversies.

The Mechanics of a Debate Reference Tool

Each entry follows a consistent format: the proposition, the source manual (abbreviated), page numbers, and a note on content type. For example, under “Luther and Calvin,” the entry reads: “Did Luther contribute more to the promotion of the reformation than Calvin? Matson, p. 516: Briefs and references.” The note “Briefs and references” indicates the manual provides both argument outlines and source lists. Other entries specify “Speeches” (as under “Luxury,” citing Craig) or simply “References” (as under “Louis XIV,” citing Rowton).

The index also includes entries for “C. L. of P. Debates” and “C. L. of P. Reference lists,” showing that the library's own holdings supplemented published works. The preface explains that the Carnegie Library “Reference lists” are “less complete manuscript lists compiled in response to requests,” implying a dynamic, user-driven collection development process. The index thus documents not only what was published but also what library patrons actually asked for.

This index is best used as a historical artifact of argumentation culture. Readers interested in early 20th-century public debate will find its subject headings a map of contested issues. Researchers can trace how libraries mediated access to structured controversy, and how the format of the debate manual shaped the way arguments were prepared and delivered. The volume rewards browsing: its alphabetical arrangement invites serendipitous discovery of forgotten disputes.

Holding this 1912 index, I remembered my father’s creased debate handbooks, margins filled with pencil arguments. The sheer weight of categorised certainty felt familiar, like thumbing again through The reader's guide to the Encyclopaedia Britannica — Background and Themes — both are quiet morning maps of what a generation decided worth arguing over, now just dust and gentle margins.