The Debate.

The annual debating contest for the Joynt Scroll was held in the Choral Hall, on Saturday, March 26th.

The authorities had provided a formidable board of judges—Rev. J. Paterson, and Messrs. E. J. Howard, M.P., and M. L. Reading—who had chosen an equally formidable subject for debate in the question. "Will the Principle of Nationalism Continue to Mould World Politics?" Canterbury College had filled the chair with their latest professorial acquisition, Professor J. Shelley. The four colleges had sent forward their picked men, well versed in the intricacies of world politics; and altogether, on paper, there appeared all the requirements of a keen contest.

page 13

But another element had to be reckoned with—the noisy element,—and at 7.45 they arrived in force. Unfortunately, the general public had not gathered in great numbers, and the student public, both local and visiting, had also declined to overcrowd the hall. Counter-attractions at Starland Club and at the boxing championships were no doubt responsible for the small student attendance, but it is to be regretted that a greater number of students did not by their presence indicate that they still regard the debate as an essential part of the tournament. In a half-filled hall, the disturbing element were able to make their presence felt far more effectively than they could have done in a crowded audience. The result was that the contest was very seriously interfered with on several occasions, and throughout was marred by a succession of noises too varied to enumerate. We are inclined to think "The Press" over-charitable towards the interrupters when it states that "Their banter was wholly good-natured, at times witty, and never 'over the odds.'" We prefer the candour of "The Sun," which holds that "As a college free-and-easy, the contest was a success; but as a serious debating function it was decidedly not so. Crowds of undergraduates, with their usual exuberance of spirit, rent the night with weird instrumental music and snatches of weirder song. The speakers gallantly plodded on, and during the rare lulls one could catch an occasional high-sounding phrase or so, which, torn from its context, merely served as a fresh butt for the undergraduates' raillery."

A visitor thus describes his impression: "......I thought that as this was a contest to determine the best team, the speakers would get a moderately fair hearing. But this only goes to show how crude and undeveloped my idea of sport is. Some minutes passed, and then I 'cottoned' on to the "big idea.' The audience were there to hinder the speakers. The thing developed into a verbal catch-as-catch-can, and it was refreshing to see an occasional new joke lever its way through the clamouring legions of the veterans."

The contest was opened by a debate, in which Canterbury took the affirmative against Otago. K. G. Archer opened for Canterbury. His speech was greatly broken by interruptions, including the parade of a jazz band; but he traced clearly the development of nationalism, and showed its present influence as a factor in world politics. W. P. Morrell, who led for Otago, showed considerable improvement on previous years. His matter was good. He grappled with the argument of the mover and proceeded to refer to the growth of international feeling and its embodiment in institutions of an international character. A. K. North, who followed, made what was undoubtedly the finest speech of the evening. His reply to Morrell was effective, and his elaborations of the portion of their case left to him by Archer was equally telling; while in general delivery and in the power to hold his audience, he outdistanced all the other speakers. W. M. Ryburn, in reply, made a good debating speech. He managed, without great effort, to hold the attention of the audience, and spoke fluently and with conviction. He traced the growth of other factors in world politics which had tended to lessen the influence of nationalism.

The second debate—between Auckland and Victoria-was opened by A. G. Davis, A.U.C., who sailed confidently ahead in page 14 spite of interruptions. He outlined the history of nationalism and indicated the forces which were operating to prevent the consummation of internationalism. G. O. Cooper, in opening the case for the negative, made a good fighting speech, which won for him the special mention of the judges. If he made any mistake it was in attempting to he on too good terms with his audience. He maintained that internationalism was ousting nationalism from its former position of dominance in world politics. O. E. Burton, in seconding Davis, made a strong case for the view that nationalism is not a dying principle, and ended with an examination of the strength of national feeling among our own people. His speech, however, was marred by interruptions. Though he might have been at home among appropriate interjections, or even in face of hostility, he was obviously quite unprepared for the kind of obstruction he was in reality called upon to face. S. A. Wiren had the unenviable task of making the final speech of the evening. The audience was still on the attack, but Wiren made one very effective reply, and was thus the only speaker to score one off the obstructionists. His reply to Burton was good, and he dealt effectively with the portion of the subject which had been left in his charge. His speech, however, lacked the vigour which was required to make an effective ending to a debate which had been somewhat lacking in that essential.

The verdict of the judges was C.U.C. first, O.U. second, V.U.C. third, and A.U.C. fourth—a judgment which met with very general approval.