Article

FIRST TRICOLLEGIATE LEAGUE DEBATE

APRIL 1906
Article
FIRST TRICOLLEGIATE LEAGUE DEBATE
APRIL 1906

RESULTS OF DEBATES

Brown defeated Dartmouth. Williams defeated Dartmouth Brown defeated Williams. Champion of League, Brown.

QUESTION

Resolved: That It Would Be for the Best Interests of American Colleges that no Money Should be Expended for Traveling Expenses, Maintenance, Equipment and Coaching of Athletic Teams Engaged in Intercollegiate Contests, except from Voluntary Bona Fide Subscriptions of the Student Body.

TEAMS

At Hanover. Affirmative, Dartmouth: George H. Howard '07, of Craftsbury, Vt.; Ralph L. Theller '09, of Cambridge, Mass.; James M. O'Neill '07, of Canandaigua, N. Y. Negative, Brown: Ralph N. Dennet '07, of North Adams, Mass.; Harry D. Bruce '07, of Moretown, Vt.; George G. Shor '06, of Worcester, Mass.

At Williamstown. Affirmative, Williams : John Kenneth Byard '08, of Fly Creek, N. Y.; Lytel William Matthews '07, of Westfield, N.Y.; Roy Herbert Case '07, of Canandaigua, N. Y. Negative, Dartmouth: Philip Minot Chase '09, of Boston; Bertrand Edwin Spencer 'O6, of Wilder, Vt.; Arthur Bond Meservey '06, of Ashland, N. H.

At Providence. Affirmative, Brown: A. W. Manchester '06, of Bristol, Conn., George Hurley '07, of Providence, R. I.; C.R.Branch '07, of Providence, R. I. Negative, Williams: Henry Wolcott Toll '09, of Denver, Col.; Elmer Philip Groben '08, of Buffalo, N. Y.; Joseph Earl Perry '06, of Shelburne Falls.

THE DEBATES

The first debates of the recently formed triangular league, composed of Williams, Brown, and Dartmouth, were held Monday evening, March 5. The question was discussed simultaneously at Williamstown, Providence, and Hanover, the home team in each case arguing the affirmative.

The Hanover debate was held in the new assembly-room in Dartmouth Hall. After the debate the participants, with members of the English department and the judges, adjourned to College Hall for an informal reception given by the College Club.

DARTMOUTH-BROWN

(From The Dartmouth)

G. H. Howard, D. '07, opened the debate by defining the resolution and stating the issue. The issue on which the debate hinged was: "Would it be for the best interests of American colleges to support intercollegiate athletics solely by voluntary bona fide student subscriptions ?” Mr. Howard maintained that intercollegiate athletics should be supported solely by student contributions, (1) because seven great evils, commercialism, professionalism, athlete hero worship, graft, spectacularism, following the teams, and extravagance, infect the present athletic system, and (2) because these evils demand an immediate reform.

The second speaker on the affirmative, R. L. Theller, D. '09, showed that each of the seven evils, commercialism, professionalism, athlete hero worship, graft, spectacularism, following the teams, and extravagance, is due directly to the prodigious amounts of money employed in the transaction of athletic business. Since overmuch money is the cause of these evils he advocated the support of intercollegiate athletics by student subscriptions. For if the great amounts of money, the cause of these evils, be eliminated, the evils themselves would at the same time be necessarily eliminated.

The third speaker on the affirmative, J. M. O'Neill, D. '07, further advocated the support of intercollegiate athletics solely by student subscriptions. Mr. O'Neill showed just how under the new system the athletics of a college would be reduced to a normal state. Hence their support would not demand so great amounts of money as are today expended.

In the second place he proved that no benefits of athletics, that is, college spirit, ethical benefits, physical benefits, etc., would be lost by the adoption of the resolution. Since evils demanding an immediate reform existed in the athletic system, since the enforcement of the resolution would remedy these evils, and at the same time preserve all the benefits of athletics, he maintained that the affirmative had established its contention.

The first speaker on the negative, R. N. Dennett, B. '07, adjusted the definition of the resolution as made by the affirmative. He then made two points. He asserted in the first place that the plan was unenforceable. Although he admitted the existence of the evils defined by the affirmative, he contended that the resolution was absolutely unenforceable. He further maintained that the money given by alumni and friends for the support of intercollegiate athletics could not be excluded by the resolution.

The second speaker on the negative, H. D. Bruce, B. '07, portrayed the evils which the new system of athletics would be liable to produce. He said that such a tax system would place an unbearable burden upon the undergraduates of the college; that the demand for money would be increased; that consequently the money evils would be greatly intensified. In a word, the plan would defeat its own purpose.

The third speaker on the negative, G. G. Shor, B. '06, continued the argument that the proposed system would defeat its own object. He claimed also that the ideals of the system advocated by the affirmative were unwholesome; that the present ideals and practices were an evolutionary growth not to be remedied by any radical means; that student subscriptions alone should not be placed alongside of student subscriptions, gate receipts, and alumni funds, judiciously expended. Professor D. C. Wells was the presiding officer. The judges were: President William Edwards Huntington of Boston University, Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor Edwin Herbert Hall.

DARTMOUTH-WILLIAMS

(From the Williams Record)

President Hopkins presided at the debate in Jesup Hall. Williams won on the excellence of the rebuttals, which in every case carried more conviction than the first speeches. Dartmouth's first speeches were the more convincing, owing to the careful summarizing of arguments by each speaker. In rebuttal work Dartmouth made the old mistake of trying to prove too many points. Each Williams debater in rebuttal laid main stress on a single important point, and presented this point in spirited, forceful manner. The judges, Mr. Herbert Noble, Mr. William B. Whitney and Mr. J. Frederick Eagle, all of New York, were out thirty-five minutes. The decision was not unanimous. Before the debate and in the interval before announcement of the decision music was given by the college orchestra.

Byard '08 introduced the question for the affirmative, showing that by the proposed plan no money would be obtained from gate receipts and alumni contributions. There is too much money in athletics. Within twenty years athletics have become a commercial enterprise, and the only way to prevent this commercialism is to bring the money receipts to a normal basis.

Chase '09, for Dartmouth, stated that the system would not eliminate the evils in intercollegiate athletics, such as professionalism, the outcome of the inborn desire of Americans to win, graft, extravagance, and the undue honor shown the athlete by the student body.

Matthews '07, Williams' second speaker, stated that the proposed plan was intended to cure only the universal evils, commercialism and overexaggeration. He cited four college presidents and seven professors from all parts of the United States that this overexaggeration, distorting student perspective, was directly due to the money derived from gate receipts and alumni contributions.

Spencer '06 continued for Dartmouth. The abolition of gate receipts would mean that the greater part of American intercollegiate athletics would go. We would become largely self-centered. The present system is good; it would be folly to shift the burden onto the students' shoulders.

Case '07 closed the debate for Williams with a strong argument. The affirmative's plan, most effective, most permament, most adaptable, is the best way to make the necessary reduction of athletic expenditures. In no case will the student body be forced to pay more than they can, for the question states that subscriptions shall be voluntary.

Meservey '06 concluded the negative. The system proposed is too radical and is inconsistent. The student pays only a third of the cost of his education, why should he pay for all the cost of his athletics? A better method is the adoption of faculty control, with endowment where possible, and the professional coach and the training table eliminated.

Dartmouth opened the rebuttal, reiterating the burden of proof. Byard made clear that the present evils have grown up under faculty control. Not to quote at length, the main Dartmouth argument that the burden on the student body would be unbearable was well met by Matthews, who showed that with the expense of athletics reduced, the burden would be less, and in no case could be inordinate, if contributions were voluntary. Case turned Dartmouth's arguments by showing that a decrease in the number of intercollegiate contests was really desirable, and that, the Williams plan was in effect to help out the faculty in their task of supervision. The Dartmouth rebuttals failed to meet Williams' points, and suffered through vagueness.

A reception to the debaters of both teams and the judges was held at President Hopkins' residence after the debate.

BROWN WILLIAMS.

(From the Brown Herald)

A. W. Manchester, B. '06, opened the debate for the affirmative. He maintained that the question was primarily one of athletic finance, and that the two great financial evils of athletics today are the enormous wastefulness and expenditure of money and the illicit use of athletic funds.

The first speaker for the negative, H. W. Toll, W. '09, argued that the change is unnecessary because extravagance is not general, and conditions in many colleges do not require it.

G. Hurley, B. '07, continuing the debate for the affirmative, argued that the proposed system would eradicate the evils of wastefulness, since there would not be money for extravagance, and that there would no longer be a perversion of sport to mercenary ends. E. P. Groben, W. '08, the next speaker for the negative, maintained that the plan of the affirmative is insufficient since it does not remedy the evils of commercialism, and concentrates all the interest in a few major sports.

C. R. Branch, B. '07, then closed the debate for the affirmative, showing that athletics today are Unduly prominent because of the incessant occurrence of intercollegiate contests, and widespread public interest, which could both be regulated under the new system.

In closing the debate for the negative, J. E. Perry, W. '06, argued that the proposed plan is inferior to that of control by the faculty, since that remedies the evil of extravagance in sport more effectively.

The negative, in rebuttal, maintained that the prominence given to college athletics is not undue, and emphasized the points that extravagance in sport is not universal, and the best way of regulating the training and coaching of the teams and the number of games is by having athletics under faculty control.

The affirmative, in rebuttal, argued that the change would not be detrimental to the smaller colleges, in benefitting the larger ones, that the reform makes athletics more of a general undergraduate activity, and that faculty control merely stimulates colleges to a subtle evasion of rules.

The Honorable George Tilden Brown presided, and the judges were: Professor Ira N. Hoi lis, Professor Henry G. Pearson, and Mr. Frederick W. Stone.

JUDGES' REPORTS ON DEBATE

The constitution of the Triangular League Debating Union provides that the chairman of the judges at each debate shall submit in writing a report giving reasons for their decision. There follow the reports as made on the recent Dartmouth-Brown debate and on the Williams-Dartmouth debate:

March 6, 1906.

President of the Debating Union, Dartmouth College.

DEAR SIR:

In accordance with instructions, the Chairman of Judges whose judgment was desired upon the debate between the teams of Dartmouth College and Brown University, held at Hanover, N. H., March 5, 1906, respectfully reports that the decision was in favor of the negative, represented by the team from Brown University.

The main contention of the affirmative (the Dartmouth team) was that there were seven conspicuous evils in recent conditions of intercollegiate athletic games; that these evils could be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by a reduction of income through the abolition of gate fees, and contributions from alumni to friends, and by making student bodies alone responsible for the maintenance and equipment of athletic teams; and that athletics in American colleges would be greatly improved in morale if the large sources of money supplies were cut off.

The debaters on the negative (the Brown team) admitted the evils mentioned, but denied that these could be remedied by formal reduction of income, contending that it would be impracticable to limit contributions to the student bodies of the colleges; that there would be an inevitable temptation to receive money in considerable amounts from alumni and friends in surreptitious ways, leading practically to a steady and dishonest evasion of the new rule governing contributions.

Taking into account knowledge of the subject in all its bearings, cogency of argument, a discriminating use of material and power of rebuttal, as well as good form in the presentation of argument, the judges decided for the negative; the votes being two for Brown and one for Dartmouth.

Very sincerely yours, Wm. E. Huntington, Chairman.

President of the Debating Union, Williams College.

DEAR SIR:

In accordance with your request, on behalf of the Judges, I beg to report in writing the reasons for our decision upon the Dartmouth-Williams debate. First, I desire to say that we considered that both Williams and Dartmouth did extremely well.

In our opinion, the Dartmouth men showed much greater facility in delivery and exhibited better style than the Williams men.

On the question of thorough knowledge of the subject, both sides had evidently considered the matter thoroughly, and we felt that there was not much to be said in favor of one side as against the other.

In point of logical sequence, we felt that the Williams men had rested their case upon very strong grounds, and that they concentrated their efforts and arguments to sustain those grounds. The Dartmouth men did not meet the position taken by Williams men, but offered various objections of a minor character, which were not sufficient to undermine the position taken by the Williams men.

Upon the matter, therefore, of distinguishing between what is vital and what is subsidiary, the Williams men did better than the Dartmouth men.

Upon the question of selecting evidence, our opinion is again with the Williams men, but upon the question of presenting it, our opinion is distinctly with the Dartmouth men.

Upon the power in rebuttal, we felt that the Williams men were better, although we were seriously troubled by the change of position which the last speaker for the Williams men came near making.

Upon the whole we were greatly pleased with the skill and manner in which the debate was conducted. I am

Faithfully yours, Herbert Noble, Chairman of the Board of Judges.