The communication published in another column draws some very pertinent lessons from our recent defeat in the debate with Yale. The first point made by the writer, while undoubtedly true, is a matter of debating tactics and requires no comment here. The second point, however, is one that demands the serious attention of every one interested in intercollegiate debating.

Something must be done to prevent debates from degenerating on account of ambiguity in the question into the farce which last Friday's debate was from one point of view. We saw there two teams arguing on what were really two different questions, but which could yet both be deduced from the same subject for debate. In order that no more debates may be lost by such disagreements as to the meaning of the question, some radical reforms in the matter of question must be introduced. The questions must first be framed as simply as possible; and some further means must then be adopted to insure that beyond any doubt the question shall be argued squarely on one interpretation that is agreed to beforehand by both sides.

As to which of the schemes proposed for this end is the best, we shall not undertake to say. But it is the plain duty of the debating authorities of the University to take this matter carefully in hand and make sure that before the next debate, by some means or other, this matter of questions is satisfactorily regulated.