THE DEBATING CLUB.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17783, 7 August 1929, Page 6

THE DEBATING CLUB.

ENTHUSIASTIC MEETING. LECTURE ON “CHAIRMANSHIP.” SELECTION OF FIRST DEBATE. There was another large and enthusiastic attendance at the meeting of the newly-formed W.E.A. Debating Club last evening. Mr. C. F. Sherley presided.

The greater part of the evening was occupied by a very interesting and instructive address on “Chairmanship” by Mr F. B. Stephens, tutor-organiser of the Hamilton branch of the Workers’ Educational Association.

Mr. Stephens opened his remarks by stating that in Hamilton there was no forum, non-political and non-religious, where topics of the day could be freely discussed. He was delighted to see citizens taking a keen interest in debating and providing such a longfelt want. It was also a tribute to the Workers’ Educational Association that the idea of a debating olub had emerged from it. The speaker introduced his subject by stating that there were two varieties of chairmen—those who resembled robots or automatons and those who adopted a more human attitude. The essential qualifications for a chairman were firmness, tact and strict impartiality. Most of the rules governing meetings were founded on those used in the House of Commons, and many of them produced very interesting points. The chief duty of a chairman was to maintain order and to confine a debate to the question under discussion. Another of his functions was to decide a point of order. He should be the subject of respect and should be addressed whenever a person rose to speak. If two people rise to speak the chairman may decide who shall speak by pointing to the one who “caught his eye first.” Irrelevant remarks and “stonewalling” were now not allowed in debate, and it was the chairman’s duly to check these. It wa3 interesting that at one parliamentary debate in the New Zealand House a member adopted “stonewalling” tactics and spoke for 32 hours on end. As a member speaking may not sit the member In question had to be propped up with cushions before he had finished his speech. (Laughter). It was fortunate that such tactics were now prohibited.

Procedure In Debate. Further functions of the chairman were that he must not influence the meeting on a question, and that he had the right of the casting vote. At most public bodies such as the Borough Council the Mayor was entitled to vote, and then, if the voting was' equal, he could give a casting vote. This extra vote should be given in a way that would restore the status quo.

Mr Stephens then dealt at length with the more intricate and technical procedure at meetings involving the methods of debate and the putting of motions and amendments. At the conclusion of the address a general discussion followed, Mr Stephens replying to several questions. A hearty vote of thanks was then proposed to Mr. Stephens for his address and carried by acclamation. A ballot was taken on the subject for debate next Tuesday and the following selected:: —“That Compulsory Military Training in New Zealand be Abolished.”

Approval was given to the following leaders: —Affirmative, .Mr. C. C. Tidmarsh; seconder, Mrs C. F. Sherley; negative, Mr H. A. R. McFarland; seconder, Miss Christie. Mr J.’ G. Pike was elected chairman of the next debate, and Miss Osmers was elected a lady member of the management committee. Messrs Stephens and Page were elected members of this committee ex officio. Before the meeting closed Mr Stephens intimated that the Auckland W.E.A. was prepared to send a debating team to Hamilton or to finance a Hamilton team's trip to Auckland at the end of the season. This announcement met with applause. Mr Shcrlcy stated that the Ilev. W. G. Monckton, of Auckland, a recognised New Zealand authority on the League of Nations, would give a lecture in Hamilton next Tuesday week. He urged all members to attend.