Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
Your editorial entitled "Unseen Spectators" is a wilderness of nonsense. "Since debating is primarily a spectacle, it is purposeless without spectators," it says. Harvard debating does not attract spectators, and "the result has been the forensic feebleness illustrated last week by the double loss to Yale." This is blockhead thinking.
Debating is not a spectacle (as a flea circus or a cock-fight is). It is an exercise in articulative facility and quick wit. It is intended to entertain no one except the participants. The relation you find between lack of spectators and last week's double loss to Yale is beyond the grasp of all natural intellects.
The quality of a debate is independent of the debate's audience. The system of four speeches and two rebuttals solicits ingenious organization and flexible logic. Debating, in short, is "mental weight-lifting," a strengthening exercise that would be unwasted on CRIMSON editorialists. Irving Yoskowitz '53
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.