University of Virginia Library

YD's Score YR Reasons
For Refusing To Debate

In a circulation released
yesterday, the University Young
Democrats challenged the reasons
given by William Thomson,
president of the University Young
Republicans, for his club's alleged
unwillingness to debate the issues
and candidates of the presidential
race on last Sunday night.

Jim Roebuck, president of the
Young Democrats, said in the
release that Mr. Thomson was
quoted by the Richmond
Times-Dispatch as saying: "(Our)
group did not accept the challenge
of the Humphrey Coalition because
the Republicans had not been
consulted to determine a mutually-satisfactory
arrangement for the
debate....We believe that a debate at
this time would serve very little
practical purpose for the opinions
of the voters have already
hardened."

In rejecting Mr. Thomson's
statement, Mr. Roebuck pointed
out that the challenge went out a
week prior to the Republicans'
refusal to debate and that in his
conversation with them during this
period they did not indicate any
arrangements which they felt were
unsatisfactory.

"If they felt that arrangements
were unsatisfactory, why didn't
they make a counter-suggestion?"
said Mr. Roebuck. "Obviously, the
arrangement which was most
satisfactory to them was not having
a debate at all."

John Norton Moore, professor
of law at the University and
chairman of the Faculty and
Students for Humphrey-Muskie
Coalition on the Grounds said "the
point is we challenged the
Republicans to a fair debate a week
ago and gave them every
opportunity to choose the
arrangements or to make a
counter-suggestion. They refused.

In a printed retort to the
Democrat leaders' charge, the
University Young Republican Club
said, "The Democrats at the
University have again distorted the
facts in their desperate,
eleventh-hour search for publicity
as exemplified in the statements by
Jim Roebuck and Professor John N.
Moore. They have continued in the
traditional Democratic campaign
techniques of only revealing
half-truths without discussing
issues.

"This is highlighted by remarks
from a conversation held Sunday
night between a University student
and a prominent faculty spokesman
for the Democrats. When asked by
the student how many times the
Young Republicans had refused a
challenge to debate, the spokesman
replied "a number of times."

"This is a gross
misrepresentation of facts. The
Young Republicans had been ready
to debate at any time during the
preceding seven weeks of the
campaign with reasonable advanced
notice. A much more appropriate
time for a debate would have been
at the time of the partisan
Humphrey Coalition panel
discussion in early October, before
the voter opinion had solidified. We
were not invited to participate in
that discussion nor were we
approached at any time during that
period on the possibilities of a
debate.

The release concluded that "it is
an odd state of affairs that a
political organization feels that it
must spend more time on inter party
news releases and useless
debates scheduled for less than 36
hours before the opening of the
polls than on continuing, sustained
drive to present their candidates
and their stands on the issues to the
voters at large."