It is difficult to know what to say about this debate. The subject, "That the University should produce technicians rather than philosophers" was both hackneyed and ill-defined. The student team had apparently prepared their arguments carefully enough, but the staff, although brilliant in their own way made few attempts to deal with the subject. In the face of this what could the students do? They could be exasperated with their opponents for two minutes and then go on to their eight-minute prepared speeches .... but the whole impression was not that of good debating. And then nobody would agree with anyone else about what the subject meant. It was all very confusing.

A Sex Problem . . .

Professor Gordon (Aff) began. He was there, he said, under false pretences. He had been persuaded to speak believing the debate to be on a sex problem. ... He told a joke (a lead which the affirmative speakers all followed), and went on to say that Philosophers cannot pull teeth or help people to have babies and that Universities have always in the past produced technicians. Cruden (Neg) defined philosophy as a whole, technology as a part, of knowledge. "The University is the guardian of truth and of our intellectual heritage."

Dr. Munx (Aff) agreeably wasted five minutes of his [unclear: time] and than went on to argue rather curiously that since technicians and philosophers were identically equal, if the Negative proved its case it also proved his. In that case he did not explain why he had come at all. Miss Thorn (Neg) quoted Professor Gordon's published works. (Which Prof. Gordon later remarked "was like hitting below the belt. Now Miss Thorn has written work for me . . .") Mr Braybrooke (Aff) rather disagreed with Dr Munz in speaking of the "great and yawning gulf between philosophers and technicians." He gave a short character sketch of Bishop Berkley and later concluded "that Socrates was really the schizophrenic alter ego of Plato."

Bees . . .

Doogue (Neg) made a justifiable attack on the "come closer, children and I'll tell you a story" type-of attitude of the affirmative. Then he discussed bees (but not birds).

Thomas (Aff), the first speaker from the floor, spoke well, but not as well as in the last debate. I got the impression that he was more at home in a political subject. He emphasised that the University best fulfilled its obligatior, to society, which supported it, by producing technicians. Whitta (Neg) disagreed. Technology had been carried too far (as in the H-bomb) and there was a need for men who were thinkers to control things.

Student Facilities?

Miss Jackson (Neg) said somewhere "I think a technician is really a philosopher." At this point Dr. Munz woke up, grinned happily, and interjected 'That is what I said." Shaw (Neg) spoke for the need for philosophers in the University and mixing of students, indeed Improved Student Facilities!

An interesting speaker was de Cleene (Neg). He put the case for the lawyer. "Lawyers can learn the everyday life of the law courts there and in their offices. At University they learn of the unified concept of the law and what it means." Vere-Jones (Neg) said the question was of "wide education rather than narrow." Miss Le Fort (Aff) stressed the "production of technicians" side "because the problem before the world today is of a technical rather than a philosophical nature." Ah! Now we know. She went on "When philosphers sit down they have no end in view." Obviously!

Hubbard (Aff) aggressively asserted that technicians had built history. And Dawirk (Neg) pleaded persuasively against the Huxleian cold inhumanity to come perhaps with too advanced technology. Miss Mitcaife (Neg) dwelt on the personal side. Then came Beeby (Neg) in a brilliant act in which he satirised, inter alia, Scotsmen and quasi-philosophers. It was not debating, however.

The last three speeches of Mummery, Gibbons, and Donovan (all Aff) were shortened as it was late. Cruden (vigorous) and Prof. Gordon (witty and irrelevant) summed up. Prof. Hughes (judge) gave the first three placings to Cruden ("who got in more swift ones better than anyone else."), de Cleene and Whitta. The motion was lost (42-48) on a vote of the whole house and lost (33-41) by vote of the Debating Club.

—Keith Walker.