Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1915-12-22
LOCAL TEAMS WIN
FROM M0NTEv|DE0
Five Of the Six Judges Decide
For WiIImar IN Debates
Tuesday Evening,

FOllOW1ng the brilliant victories Of
the local high school debaters over
Montevideo, Tuesday evening, there
is a possibility that the championship
banner of the Seventh District will
rest at the high school in this city,
next year. For the past two years the
Montevideo team has held the cham.
pionship Of the district, so the vic.
tories are all the more welcome. The
victory Of the girls, defending the
negative at Montevideo was not entire.
ly unexpected, as the negative teams
have been winning with great reg
ularity thruout the state. However,
the great showing made by the affirm
ative in the contest here, was even
more than most ardent supporters
hoped for. The decision here was un-
animous, and at Monte two to one, Civ
ing Willmar the decisions of five of
the six judges.
The work Of the debaters here Tues
| day evening was worthy of much
larger crowd than was in attendance,
and it is to be hoped more will attend
these contests in the future.
Joe Chase, Frances Hedin and
George Scotch made up the local
team. Montevideo was represented by
Joseph Stennes, Gladys Biegert and
Esther Storaker. The question for
discussion was, Resolved, That the
United States Government Should Ma
terially Increase Their Army and
Navy Armament" Joe Chase opened
for the affirmative, outlining the plan
to be followed by his team, and stat
ing the points to be proved-(a) Strife
and Jealousy have always existed be-
tween nations, and would continue to
do SO; co. the United States is un-
prepared for a sudden invasion by a
foreign country; (c) the cost of un-
preparedness is greater than that of
preparedness and (d) we must adopt
a foreign policy which will prove to
foreign countries we are able to de-
fend ourselves.
/ He continued, proving the first
points of the argument, and then the
affirmative was taken up by Frances
Hedin, who advanced sufficient argu-
ments to make the third point, that
of the great cost, appear reasonable.
George Scotton concluded the con-
structive argument for the affirma-
tive by proving the last point, and
with a general summary.
The main argument of the afiirma-
tive was not for war, but that this
country should be prepared in case
they are attacked; that when all other
means of bringing about peace fail,
force some times must be used. Some
of the points brought out were the
claim that greater spread of Chris
tianity can prevent war, is not feas-
ible, as if 20 centuries were not
enough, surely the next quarter cen
tury would not bring it about; the ar
gument is for a defense for peace, not
for war; if we are strong, and known
to be able to hold our own, foreign
countries will not attack United
States; our army is little more than
twice the size of police force of New
York City; if it we're not for the trou-
bic in Europe congress would go ahead
and increase the ornaments, according
to the growth of the nation, as was
done years ago; our great enemy will
be the winner of the present European
war; those favoring preparedness
don't desire a huge appropriation,
merely enough to provide adequate de-
fenses; we need firm and definite
policy; we have lack of organization; =;
lack of efficiency; need support for
national guard; Danish obsolete navy
and army posts and a different attitude
of congress and the people toward for
eign exports.
Points brought out favoring the
negative were-Our navy is sufficient
and the efficiency should be increased; !;
would be impossible anyway to keep
enemies from landing, SO great is
coast line Of country; preparation
costs more than the carrying on OF
war; industrial development needed
more than anything else; preparation
depends on economic conditions: u.
s. better off in regard to economic
conditions than any other country;
Germany is not self supporting ma
ton, lack metal for firearms; II peace
would follow preparedness, then Eu.
rope would be the most peaceful OF
continents; Canada and U. s. have
been very friendly for a hundred
years, would such be the case it we
began preparing for war? How can
J U. S. ask other countries to stop fight
ing, while we are preparing for wal
ourselves?
In the constructive arguments ant
delivery, there was little to choose be
tween either team, or individuals
- n