Debaters Discourse

On Friday, July 2, a small feathering of debaters discussed the motion, "The Compulsory Military Training Should be Introduced Immediately in New Zealand." Mr. Kevin O'Brien occupied the chair and the debate was judged by Mr. Braybrooke, a former Union Prize winner. Mr. M. J. O'Brien led the case for the affirmative assisted by Mr. B. O'Connor, while Mr. J. Milburn led the case for the negative, seconded by Mr. R. G. Matthews.

Mr. M. O'Brien expressed regret that such an important question, one which would affect many students at present at the college, had attracted such a small gathering. His regrets were endorsed by several other speakers. He chose to examine the motion by studying the various items embodied in it. He spoke of the equality and justice implied in the torm "compulsory." He pointed out that "military training" included an adaption to new scientific discoveries and weapons. The word "Immediately" pointed to the urgent need for prompt action." In the term "New Zealand" he included all the outlying islands, particularly those to the north.

Mr. Milburn agreed with Mr. O'Brien, in that he also desired peace, but he challenged Mr. O'Brien's method of maintaining an army to maintain peace. To him, this seemed contradictory. He illustrated the detrimental effects that army life has on the individual and on the nation as a whole. He warned us of the terrible consequences of a military regime which would grow up under compulsory military training. Finally he asked Mr. O'Brien against whom he was defending New Zealand.

Mr. O'Connor said that he admired Mr. Milburn's ideals of peace, but that he preferred to adopt a more realistic attitude to the question. He said that compulsory military training was essential and the only satisfactory answer. The presence of an army did not mean inevitable war.

Mr. Matthews opposed the motion on economic grounds. He spoke of the expenses involved in setting up military training, the effect of man-Power diversion from vital industries including food production and building. He concluded by pointing out the petty potentiality of New Zealand when all this inconvenience had been suffered to introduce military training.

Speakers from the floor were called but only four could be persuaded to take part. Mr. Cotton presented the case of Switzerland as a country which had always maintained an army but had never been involved in a war.

Mr. Curtin, rather than see the debate fall through for want of speakers, made a gallant attempt to speak for five minutes.

Among several interesting observationr Mr. Cook said that no matter how military, training infringed our personal liberty, we would be in wrose plight under the Germans or Japanese.

Mr. McLeod described the futility of military training when a few atom bombs could wipe out civilization. He illustrated the uselessness of accepted methods of defence and quoted the Maginot Line as an example.

In concluding the case for the negative, Mr. Milburn reiterated his claim that war was not inevitable. Personal liberty was paramount, and quite incompatible with compulsory military training and its implications.

Mr. O'Brien said, in conclusion for the affirmative, that we are liable to attack, though we do not know from where, thus we must have an army and be prepared, and in this way only can we be assured of personal liberty.

The motion was then put to the vote and lost by a substantial majority. Mr. Braybrooke gave a constructive criticism of proceedings and placed the speakers as follows: Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Milburn, Mr. Matthews and Mr. O'Brien (3rd equal).