There are many faults to be found in the debating situation at Harvard just at present, and not least among these is the method which has been followed in the competitions for the last few intercollegiate debates. Under the present system there is absolutely no way of judging what skill any competitor has in rebuttal, since each man makes but one five minute speech in which there is usually no pretence at replication of any kind. The only attempt that has ever been made in any competion to test the candidates on rebuttal was three years ago, when a scheme was hastily formulated on the evening of the first trial by which five men were chosen. These men spoke afterwards in rebuttal against five other men, three men being then chosen. Why this plan was abandoned was never explained.

The present system is faulty because it puts too great a burden upon the judges. To ask a board of judges to listen to forty-seven speeches of five minutes each without any recess or interruption is putting a physical strain upon them which is likely to impair their judgment. The physical strain in the last trial was so great that one of the judges was unable to remain until all the men had spoken, giving his judgment only on the men whom he had heard. Those who have acted as judges are agreed that the best results cannot be expected to follow from the choice of men made under such circumstances.

We would suggest, therefore, that at least two, and possibly three, trials be held. At first, the system would be much the same as now, with the exception that the candidates hand in their names previously and if their number exceed twenty by as much as ten that then the men be divided into two groups to compete on different evenings. From these men the ten or fifteen best speakers should be chosen. These men might be asked to enter a second competition where they would be expected to show their skill in rebuttal. At this trial the number of candidates might be reduced to six. The men thus chosen might then take sides-three on a side-work up the question and enter a final competition which should take the form of a regular debate with main and rebuttal speeches by each competitor. Such a system we feel certain will guard against any unwise choice, will make all of the contestants feel that they have a more thorough trial, and will not be open to the manifest objections which we have pointed out in the present system.