Unseen Spectacles

Since debating is primarily a spectacle, it is purpose-less without spectators. Yet, like voices in the wilderness, Harvard debaters always seem to argue in empty rooms. The result has been the forensic feebleness illustrated last week by the double loss to Yale.

Fault for the lack of an audience does not lie with that traditional scapegoat. "Harvard apathy." It exists because local debates provide no audience appeal what-soever. By keeping to the old system of four speeches and two rebuttals, the debaters have minimized one of debating's most interesting features, the genuine clash of ideas. And by arguing the same subject time and time again during the year, they have reduced debating to the status of mental weight-lifting.

These are at least three ways to stir up interest: first, by arguing different topics of current interest, second, by using some sort of cross-questioning technique which allows for more mental contact; and third, by making the audience the judge.

The Harvard Debate Council can not possibly adapt itself wholly to this system, as many colleges insist on debating the same subject in the same way throughout the year. But that is no reason to ignore the problem of audience-appeal altogether. Debating as an activity deserves more interest than it currently receives; but unless the Debate Council makes some effort to appeal to its audience, debating here will continue to be ignored.