HUMANIZING DEBATING

Those who thought they heard crusted tradition cracking when a debate between Wellesley and the University was being seriously considered were disappointed when the Debating Council declined to pick up the diminutive gauntlet. But this action may have been forced by temporary circumstances; it need not be taken as a statement of policy.

Indeed, there is very little to say against such a debate. What more fitting place for man and woman to match wits than upon the debating platform, with the thrust and parries of tea-table fencing to set a precedent? Of course the judges would be untrustworthy, but few judges even now make a pretence at following the case, and their decision falls to the better team very often by chance. Even the inherited reluctance of man to meet woman in competition seems based not so much on a feeling of superiority as upon a deadly fear for the results of such comparison.

Once push the hesitating male upon the platform, and he will probably admit the advantages in this debating. Nothing could more surely force him to abandon his unadorned logic for a freer, more appealing style. His opponents will use logic, but of an entirely different kind adapted to winning an audience. He will have to pay regard to the antagonism which his usual trip-hammer, hard hitting methods will surely raise in minds which are persuaded not coerced. Such training is the next logical step in humanizing college debating.