Joynt Scroll

In the opening debate Victoria affirmed the motion "That Nationalism is a Menace to World Peace." Ted Thomas opened confidently and convincingly for Victoria. His speech was, as is usual for him, excellent. John Whitta spoke much more quietly but nevertheless got his points across to the audience. It is perhaps a tribute to the two Victoria speakers that they were given a fair hearing with almost no interjections from a large crowd, many members of which were obviously just waiting to "have a go" at the contestants. Miss Paula O'Regan (Otago) spoke well for the negative in her usual "we know and we will convince you" style. She, too, received a fair hearing; after all, it would not be cricket to start on a woman, but her colleague, Mr, G. Berman, found himself in trouble with hecklers when he started taking mental patients as his authorities. He also surprised by wandering across the platform, turning his back on the audience and addressing his opponents directly.

The second debate was boring. Canterbury University affirmed and Canterbury Agricultural College negated the motion "That Humanistic Education is Unfitted to te Needs of Modern Society." For Canterbury Mr. L. Moore gave a seemingly long, dull speech. His pronunciation of words such as society and science was appalling. The second Canterbury speaker, Miss Jones, said very little but flitted about on the platform quite attractively. For Lincoln, Mr. E. Sherrard, gave a sermon which apparently had something to do with the subject. His colleague, Mr. R. Hay, did not know the difference between the adjectives human, humanitarian, and humanistic. Somehow or other he got on to birth control!

In the final debate of the evening, Massey Agricultural College affirmed "That Australia and New Zealand Should Unite Under a Federal Parliament" Mr. J. Kerr, who opened for Massey, gave a quiet, sincere address, packed full of arguments. The second Massey speaker, Mr. K. Willis, also impressed. The Scroll holders, Auckland, were led by Mr. R. M. S. Hamilton, whose dramatics brought forth interjections from all parts of the Little Theatre. While Mr. Hamilton came out on top of this continuing barrage, he spent so much time answering interjections that he had only a little left for making a constructive case. The second Aucklander was also in trouble. After he had commenced several sentences with the word "finally", he was informed by the audience that he still had several minutes to go!

The judges, Mr. Justice Gresson, Dr. Currie and Mr. W. E. Leicester, placed Mr. Thomas first, Miss O'Regan second and Mr. Kerr third but surprisingly omitted Mr. Kerr from the NZU team, substituting Mr. Whitta.

Test Match

The subject of the international debate was "That We Would Marry for Love." This was obviously a subject that the audience could get excited about but the chairman, in his opening remarks, requested that the debate should not become a shambles.

Mr. Thomas, opening the affirmative case, explained that the subject was Australian lingo for the statement that if one was contemplating marriage then it should be for love. He went on to define all the terms with reference to the big Oxford Dictionary. He was careful to explain that although his third speaker, Mr. Whitta was already married, the "we" in the subject did not necessarily apply to Miss O'Regan and himself, but rather to any who were contemplating marriage. He explained that Miss O'Regan would deal with the subject from the woman's point of view and wondered as to which member of the all-male Australian side would attempt to answer her arguments. His remaining time was spent in discussing marriage for love of physical companionship and love of children.

For the Australians, Mr. Pemperton claimed that to "a plain blunt man' such as himself the subject mean marriage because of love and not, as the affirmative would have it, marriage to attain love. He told us the story of John and Mary (or Judy) who "sometimes stay up late in the less sanitary parts of the city." After about a year Mary manages to get John to marry her but the romantic bubble bursts the morning after the wedding. Mr. Peraberton contended that some months after marriage, a couple try to get under each other's skin.

Miss O'Regan ("unlike Mr. Pemberton I am not a plain blunt man") dealt with love of spiritual companionship, love of security and love of country. In each case she gave both interpretations of the subject—love as a reason for marriage and marriage to obtain love.

The second speaker for the negative was Mr. Solomon. He agreed that Miss O'Regan was not a plain blunt man; this was "obvious like the rest of her speech." He claimed that getting married was like going to a restaurant with a friend and each ordering a different meal. When the meals arrive you wish you had ordered the same as your friend. According to Mr. Solomon, the man who retains his love is the man who remains single for love. This is the man who never reaches the state of torpor which is married life.

"There is no love without sacrifice," Mr. Whitta informed us. His main topics were marriage for love of wealth, love of prestige and love of position. There are many who would marry Marilyn Munro for love of the prestige of her 39-inch bust in his opinion.

The arguments of the affirmative were only motives and not loves according to the third Australian, Mr. Gleeson. He also gave us a delightful account of how Mr. Whitta would propose to Miss O'Regan after the debate.

Both Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Thomas summed up effectively. It was then over to the judges, Sir George Malla by, Mr. Justice North and Mr. J. Patterson. They conferred briefly and Sir George announced the unanimous verdict, a win for the Australians.

Versus Australia

The motion of the Sunday debate was that "The Individual No Longer Matters In Society." It was to have been something entirely different but, because of a misunderstanding, both teams had prepared for the same side and so a change in the motion was made on the morning of the debate.

In his introductory remarks, the chairman, Ted Thomas, pointed out that the debate was to be conducted under Australian rules. When he went on to point out that one of these rules was that there would be no interjecting many members of the audience were obviously shocked; some of them had come along for just that purpose. There was an immediate call of "That's what you think" but apart from one or two instances of interjections by latecomers the ruling was obeyed. Some members of the audience, however, showed their displeasure by coughing pointedly and even the slightest joke, intentional or otherwise, brought forth loud and continuing laughter. These tactics were always directed against the Australians who were hardly to blame for the rule as it was decided some weeks ago when the tour was negotiated that Australian Rules would be employed throughout the tour.

Opening the debate for the affirmative, Ezekiel Solomon (Australia), told a "fairy story" about a man in Auckland who wanted to come to Wellington and decided to build a car to make the journey in. He became so absorbed in perfecting his car that he never got round to making the journey. This, Mr. Solomon argued, was like the individuals who banded together to form societies in order to improve their lot He claimed that society has become so absorbed in its workings that it now neglected its original purpose, the improvement of the individuals within it. The first speaker for the negative, Tony Doogue, gave examples from the spheres of international affairs, the arts and crime of the importance of individuals. He explained that it was only necessary for his side to give examples of the importance of individuals to win the debate and then challenged his opponents to show that the individual ever was more important.

The second Australian, Paul Pemberton, was glad to take up the challenge. He devoted much of his time to unions, which he claimed, were originally set up to improve the lot" of their individual members but' that now, particularly with the advent of compulsory unionism, no longer had this effect. Hec Mac-Neill, speaking next, followed his leader's pattern in gixing examples of important individuals, this time from certain national spheres.

Murray Gleeson, the third Australian, said that the mass media of today tended to prevent individuality. Mr. Gleeson found it necessary to refer to the "sustained and subtle rudeness" of the audience.

Warwick Dent, Victoria, asked the audience to stand in memory of the tradition that the affirmative side put up some arguments; about three-quarters of the audience complied with this request. Mr. Dent went on to rebut many of the arguments which he had already claimed were non-existent.

Both Mr. Doogue and Mr. Pemberton summed up their sides' cases admirably. Mr. Pemberton did so instead of his leader, Mr. Solomon. Apparently this is another oddity of the Australian rules.

After a vote, which many of the audience did not apparently understand, had been taken and then scrapped by the chairman, it was over to the judge, Hon. J. R. Marshall, M.P., who gave the verdict to the local team.