Harvard's Debating Council persists in its tendency to engage in non-decision debates. Stanford was met last evening, a gentlemanly discussion indulged in, but no evaluation of the merits of the opponents was attempted. Thus, under the guise of an impartial platitudinous forum intellectualism continues its devitalizing path.

It has been pleaded in justification of non-decision forensics that both sides contain a measure of truth and that a verdict distorts out of their proper weight the arguments presented, but surely this is just a rationalization. Legislative bodies approve or vote down proposals. Scientists after the submission of evidence, choose between two hypotheses.

This type of debate has been seized on by schools that either because of laziness, enervation, or inadequate faculty assistance, are not "in form" to meet their opponents. But this shrinking from a decision besides being a symptom of declining spirit, lessens the lure that debating would have for powerful active natures.

If it is a trouncing that is feared, it would be better ot extend the Council's policy toward Boston College. In that instance after innumerable defeats by better prepared men, the debate was crossed off the schedule.