MEN AND WOMEN

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21198, 23 June 1934, Page 6

MEN AND WOMEN

COLLEGE STUDENTS' DEBATE METAPHOR AND ZOOLOGY The question, "That woman is the most delightful of God's creatures," was enthusiastically debated by members of the Canterbury College Dialectic Society last evening, fresher members of the society taking the affirmative and a team from Connon Hall the negative. The judge (Mr A. W. Brown) awarded the victory to the affirmative side, the women speakers for the negative being seriously handicapped by having to argue against their own convictions. Mr H. W. Rhodes presided over the debate, which was held in the Little Theatre at Canterbury College. Mr E. Nanson, opening for the affirmative, remarked that he and his colleagues did not hope to show that woman was the most virtuous or the most valuable of God's creatures, but only the most delightful. He made some pretty play with dictionary definitions of "delightful" and "creature" and finally proved, to his own satisfaction at least, that woman had no equal as the delight of mankind. He went cn, for reasons best known to himself, to compare rabbits, birds, and horses to women in their quality of delightfulness. He had no difficulty in showing that women were at least as good as, if not a good deal better than, these animals. Not content with this, he proceeded to argue that women were more delightful than men, an argument which became more involved as it developed. Before sitting down he recommended his hearers to the "much more vivid experiences" of his colleagues. The Women's Case Miss V. Mullan, leading for the negative side, cast comprehensive and detailed scorn on Mr Nanson's suggestion that women were better than men, though she was careful to explain that she was only refuting her opponent's arguments in their own terms. She also handled Mr Nanson's dictionary definitions with some skill, drawing completely opposite but equally plausihje conclusions from them. Finally, v/iih a great deal of honesty, she freely admitted that most of the world's troubles, from the time of the Garden of Eden onwards, had been caused by women. Honours seemed to be about even at the end of the first round. i

A flourish of vilification of his opponents opened Mr A. W. Stockwell's speech for the defence, "tedious," "inaccurate," and "totally unfounded" being the least scathing of his adjectives. He claimed that the opposition had completely failed to show that women were not the most delightful of God's creatures. They had argued that pork was tenderer and that cats were more graceful, but they had not shown that there existed any better form of mankind than women, and it was about mankind that they all had to argue. Mr Stockwell grew somewhat poetical towards the end of his speech and produced a string of charming metaphors and images about the delights of women and the worthlessness of men. "Women are poetry," he said, "women are goddesses and men are nothing but . . . but empty and hollow beer bottles!" Zoological Comparisons Miss M. GrifYen was unable to avoid the zoological tone set by the two first speakers. Ant-eaters ans butterflies were among the animals to which she compared men and women, and she clinched her argument by remarking, with a good deal of logic, that angels must be better than women and that there was scriptural authority for believing that God had created angels as well as men. Mr A. J. Hull, concluding the case for the affirmative, explained that he and his colleagues had performed some carefully-planned experiments, and had been convinced by their researches of the truth of their case. He was by far the most fluent speaker, imagery and metaphor overflowing from his tongue, and above all he •showed complete conviction. The defence seemed to have had rather the better of it when he sat down. Miss M. Harper, concluding the debate for the negative side, claimed that she and her colleagues had inside information to support their arguments. She accused the defence of advancing crude and vulgar assertions instead of argument, .and left her case to the judgment of the audience. Mr Brown criticised the various speakers in detail, remarking that the matter had been good on the whole, but that the speakers from the floor had presented the best matter in the best style. His remark that the interjections had been below standard was greeted with "Oh's" of disgust from the gallery.