N.Z. University Tournament Debate.

Extracts from Notes by the Judges.

IT was no mere complimentary platitude when one of the judges said at the close, that the high standard of the debate had rendered it a very difficult matter to select the victors. It was an admirable debate all through, and evinced careful preparation and thought, as well as, in many cases, a ready power of spontaneous argument and reply. About half the speakers suffered from defects of manner rather than of matter. One or two were subdued in tone, even to the extent of dreariness. while another gave rather the impression of an academic exercise of a somewhat laboured character on freetrade and protection, than of a debating speech intended to convince. In several cases a strong argument failed to produce its due effect through not being driven home by that clinching, convincing manner, which practised debaters know so well how to impart even to their bad arguments. Then figures, too, were handled somewhat clumsily,—i.e. in the manner of presentation. One speaker who had carefully arranged his figures in a form in which they could be seen as well as heard, (which would of course, not be allowd in a legislative assembly), seemed to become embarrassed when the novelty of the proceeding excited amusement, and lost his hold on his audience. Another conspicuous defect was a want of skill in distributing the time. Only two speakers were able to round off their speeches with anything like an ending; some were stopped in the middle of an argument, at least one in the middle of a sentence; while one boldly broke off in the middle of a sentence and got in his peroration, notwithstanding the emphatic appeals of the Chairman's bell. Of course the time was short, and the discipline of the debate was rigid. But if speakers have to speak against time, they should practise themselves against time, so as to give an appearance of completeness to what they say, instead of trying to impress the audience with a sense of the wonderful things which they could say but for the tyranny of the time limit, on the principle of omne ignotum pro magnifico. From the point of view of elocution, the debate showed a considerable advance on the debates of former years; but there is still much to be desired in this respect. There was a good deal of bad pronunciation, and a good deal of tendency to gabble; and often, when a speaker wished to be impress ive, the effect was spoiled by a want of fulness and rotundity in the elocution.

In judging of the matter of the speeches, it must of course be remembered that each pair ôf representatives had their side allotted to them, and probably more than one was speaking against his real convictions. The present debate afforded one more proof how open such a question as the fiscal problem really is. Once more statistics showed their well known capacity of being used to prove anything. But the page break merit of speakers was shown, not so much in their handling of statistics, as in quick and ready exposure of some partial or fallacious application of them made by the other side. Once more, too, we had the old contradictory dogmas as to who pays an extra impost; and absolutely inconsistent views were maintained with an assurance worthy of Mr. Chamberlain on the one side and Viscount Goschen on the other. Again, in economic prophecies and economic inferences, imagination had as free play as could be desired by the scoffer who regards imagination as a leading factor in so-called economic science. Some of the speakers dealt with the question exclusively as one between free-trade and protection; while others contributed some weighty and thoughtful considerations on the vital problem of preference.

The debate illustrated once more the benefit of this annual contest, not only to the speakers themselves, but to the particular centre in which it is held, as there is no doubt that, after this clear and vigorous statement of opposing sides, the large audience went away knowing more about the subject than they had ever known before. In conclusion, the judges feel disposed to submit a suggestion for the consideration of the Committee: that no speaker be allowed to take part in these debates more than twice. This would prevent methods from becoming stereotyped, and would afford greater opportunities and encouragement to rising talent. In saying this, however, the Judges do not wish to interfere in any way with the discretion of the Committee of Delegates.