News

After Court Restores Research Funding, Trump Still Has Paths to Target Harvard

News

‘Honestly, I’m Fine with It’: Eliot Residents Settle In to the Inn as Renovations Begin

News

He Represented Paul Toner. Now, He’s the Fundraising Frontrunner in Cambridge’s Municipal Elections.

News

Harvard College Laundry Prices Increase by 25 Cents

News

DOJ Sues Boston and Mayor Michelle Wu ’07 Over Sanctuary City Policy

UNIVERSITY LOSES PITTSBURG DEBATE

Affirmative Argue That Cancellation May Correct Evils of Europe and Is Moral Duty of United States

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

In its debate Saturday evening at Pittsburg, Penn., with the University of Pittsburg, the University debating team, arguing against the immediate cancellation of the Allied war debts, lost by a unanimous decision of the judges. The men representing the University were C. A. Zinn '25, H. P. Sharp '25, R. S. Fanning '23, and S. L. Tait '23, alternate. Although the University team lost the decision of the judges, their speaking was frequently interrupted by applause from a large and enthusiastic audience.

The question for debate was "Resolved: That the United States should enter into an immediate agreement with the former Allied Nations for the cancellation of interallied indebtedness." The affirmative case presented by Pittsburg consisted chiefly in the arguments that in the cancellation of the huge debts resting upon foreign governments lay the possibility of correcting the evils of Europe, that a refusal to cancel such debts would inflict political and economic harm upon this country, and finally, the United States is under moral obligations to cancel such debts as were incurred in the prosecution of the war against Germany.

In denying the validity of the opposing arguments the University attempted to show that the abrogation of an international obligation is only warranted by the direst necessity, and such necessity in the present instance does not exist.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags