The Future of Debate

The Springfield Student observes in a recent editorial that the "colleges of the country are getting away from the mechanical, statistic-cramining type of debating where the forensic gladiators met and matched weighty booklearned argument on subjects in which they were not in the least interested and have turned to subjects of interest to the undergraduate." As one sample of the kind of question the Student has in mind, the Springfield editor refers to a future debate with Leland Stanford at which the resolution will be "That the world has more to fear than to hope for from Sapience.

This type of abstract question may, it it true, stimulate individual thinking on the part of debater. It may even hold more interest for an audience than a standarized resolution having to do with a worn-out, concrete subject that has acquired no new aspects. But it will hardly increase the size of the audience. The Student seems to think that the type of question it cites is entirely new, and will revolutionize debating. "Debating promises to have a future," the editorial declares with an optimism which we imagine will be rather speedily disillusioned.

The mass of undergraduates are uninterested in a debate; if it is conducted under the iron-bound conventions that characterize the old "American" system the audience is bored; and if it is conducted under the so-called Oxford system, the audience is restless.

The system seems to make little difference; undergraduates, in general are not attracted to a debate, even if the subject interests them. One of our correspondents blames the admission charge; another believes the interest in debate is not sown early enough. Perhaps a third reason for this student indifference is the fact that if the subject interests them. American undergraduates want to participate in the discussion on it. They will not do this however, if the discussion has nay formal aspects; they require a free, informal atmosphere. It may be that forums will fill their needs. It seems sure that discussions with an arbitrary distinction between the speakers and listeners, such as public debate entails, will not furnish the outlet. Cornell Daily Sun.