A. Harvard vs. Yale and Princeton C. Chicago vs. Michigan and Northwestern II. TAX ON INCOME OR RENTAL VALUE OF LAND. A. Brown University vs. Williams and Dartmouth III. ABANDONMENT OF THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF. A. Swarthmore vs. Franklin and Marshall and Penn- IV. ADMISSION OF RAW MATERIAL FREE. A. Baylor University vs. William Jewell V. CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. INTRODUCTION I. PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK. THINKING perhaps that you are one of those who avoid prefaces with religious fervency, I take this opportunity of restating to you the purposes of this work. The chief aim has been to make this a year-book of debating for the school year of 1910-11. In compiling the work two things have been kept in mind: (1) the collection of suitable intercollegiate debates on present-day subjects, together with bibliographies, and (2) the tabulation of debating records of the various schools and their organizations. It is evident that the first object owes much to "Intercollegiate Debates," by Mr. Paul M. Pearson, Volume I. of this series, as the publishers regard it. The difference between the present book, Volume II., Intercollegiate Debates, and the preceding one, lies in the fact that here fewer subjects are included and that the debates are printed for the most part in full instead of being summarized or briefed. The present work, intended as a supplement to the former, deals with several new subjects. As for the second object of this book-the compilation of a debate record - this is a new and supplementary idea. The occasion for it lies in the growing importance and popularity, in this country, of debating as an intercollegiate activity. This part of the work furnishes an alphabetical directory, by states, of schools engaged in debating, with names of coaches or debating officers, and is calculated to do for debating what the Spalding Guides have done for the much assailed and belied, much reformed and retried, game of football. As intercollegiate sports have evolved by frequent criticism and change, so debating from year to year has been, under the direction of critics and coaches, gradually moving toward newer and more efficient methods. The growth and popularity of the triangular system, with its affirmative and negative teams at each school practising against each other, is but an instance of this. The dual meet, in which two schools match affirmative and negative teams against each other on the same evening, has arisen in like manner to meet the demand and the conditions. And last of all has arisen the dual meet in which the teams prepare both sides and then cast lots for affirmative or negative side a few minutes before the debate begins. Procedure according to this last "new idea" may not become the general practice soon-the college debating world is far from being ready for it — but it is the ultimate goal. And just as a year-book of debates, such as the present one, could it have been written ten years ago, would have marked the university system of rebuttal for every man as "a new thing" and would not even have mentioned triangulars in another decade, if the year-book system should be maintained, the present book will be found antedated, superseded, or long since heaped with the discards. It is the duty of the present book, however, to reflect conditions in debating as they are, and to meet the needs of debaters at the existing stage in forensic affairs. These needs have been well stated by Prof. Pearson in his introduction, and as the same principles underlie both books, they need not be restated here. It is the hope of the editor |