Oxford, Harvard Debaters Square Off on Cold War

In their first debate in recent memory, the Oxford Debating Union and the Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Society faced off on the topic, "Is the world safer after the Cold War?"

More than 100 people attended the event in Harvard Hall last night. Discussing the relative security of the world before and after the Cold War, Justin D. Osofsky '99 and Chelsea M. Tanaka '99 represented Harvard, while James J. Edelman and D. Ryan Orange debated for Oxford.

The Oxford team contended that the bipolar atmosphere created between the United States and the U.S.S.R during the Cold War made a world of nuclear threats "infinitely safer."

The Harvard team argued that the Cold War imposed a conflict between communism and democracy onto every international disturbance, creating a "dangerously stable" atmosphere.

They insisted the current, less polar world allows conflicts to be addressed for what they are, even if this necessitates a "slightly messy" approach.

The Harvard team also contended that although regional conflicts do exist in the post-Cold War era, the scale is much smaller and there is a lack of technology involved in many conflicts that makes the use of nuclear weapons less likely.

If the stability of the Cold War had been upset, "it would have been a worldwide Holocaust, not just a regional conflict," Tanaka said.

Furthermore, Tanaka argued, the superpowers of the Cold War created conflicts and supplied the weapons to propagate them.

The Oxford team claimed nuclear weapons and power are more prolific in the post-war era.

Orange, a post-graduate student in international relations at Oxford, rebut- ted Harvard's critique of the bipolar climateof the Cold War.

In the post-Cold War world there is "no longera strict framework in which situations ofpotential calamity can be worked out," he said.

Orange said he conceded defeat to the Harvardteam.

"I think they won on the groundsthat...identifying a system is more diverse doesnot mean that is more unstable," he said.

Audience member Erin L. Sheley '02, who alsodebates for the Harvard team, said she also foundHarvard's argument more compelling.

"I guess I'm biased...I agreed with the Harvardside before [the debate]," she said. "It was veryevenly balanced. I thought Harvard edged themout."

According to the rules of traditional Americanparliamentary-style debate, neither of the twoteams had prepared any material for their speechesbeforehand.

Each side presented two eight-minute argumentsand was given time for a concluding rebuttal.

"The purpose [of the event] is to generateawareness of debate. I think both sides didfavorable work. It was entertaining for all,"Tanaka said.

A few moments of humor pervaded the otherwiseserious debate, with Osofsky opening his speechwith a quote from the movie "Austin Powers:International Man of Mystery.

In the post-Cold War world there is "no longera strict framework in which situations ofpotential calamity can be worked out," he said.

Orange said he conceded defeat to the Harvardteam.

"I think they won on the groundsthat...identifying a system is more diverse doesnot mean that is more unstable," he said.

Audience member Erin L. Sheley '02, who alsodebates for the Harvard team, said she also foundHarvard's argument more compelling.

"I guess I'm biased...I agreed with the Harvardside before [the debate]," she said. "It was veryevenly balanced. I thought Harvard edged themout."

According to the rules of traditional Americanparliamentary-style debate, neither of the twoteams had prepared any material for their speechesbeforehand.

Each side presented two eight-minute argumentsand was given time for a concluding rebuttal.

"The purpose [of the event] is to generateawareness of debate. I think both sides didfavorable work. It was entertaining for all,"Tanaka said.

A few moments of humor pervaded the otherwiseserious debate, with Osofsky opening his speechwith a quote from the movie "Austin Powers:International Man of Mystery.