News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

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