With the competition limited strictly to undergraduates and to three-year graduates in their fourth year in some department of the University, and with the trials so arranged that all men will have several chances to prove their worth, debating should be a greater success than ever this year, both in the number of candidates and in the work of the teams against Yale and Princeton.

The CRIMSON does not need to sermonize on the value of debating to the individual. It is perfectly obvious that a man's ability to kick a football or drive out base hits will be less of an asset to him in after life than the ability to stand on his feet and say something in a clear, convincing manner. The man who goes out for the debating team--and goes out hard, making a study of the question and learning to state his views on it forcefully, will have done as much for himself as the man who tugs an oar all season. This is not decrying the value of rowing or any other form of athletics. But it is worth bearing in mind that the forum is more in evidence in after life than the shell or the gridiron.

That is one side of debating--the value to the man. The value to the University is worth considering also. Should Harvard feel less ashamed of losing a debate than a ball game? If men come to College to learn baseball or football, and that alone, an athletic defeat would rightly bring greater chagrin. But--the young men who sneer at Phi Beta Kappa and other scholarly achievements to the contrary notwithstanding -- one comes to College to improve one's mind, not one's batting eye. So a defeat in debating--since it is a contest of minds.--should be even more of a blow to the pride of the College than a defeat on the Thames.

With this in mind, many men in the University should give their moral and mental support to debating. If representative men, capable of standing up and talking cogent thoughts, will go out for the team, debating will be put on the basis it deserves.