This house believes that universities should not host speakers who

propound offensive ideas.

Good morning everyone…

We are proposing that universities should not host speakers who propound
offensive ideas.

To begin with, I want to clear up any ambiguity surrounding our proposition.

Ideas are classed as offensive when it is beyond reasonable doubt that the
majority of the audience would find them harassing, alarming or distressing.
To offer you some examples, we would advocate universities not hosting
speakers who propound ideas in support of homophobia, racism, antisemitism
and radical terrorism among many others. The word propound suggests that
these people continue to espouse their offensive ideas unapologetically.
Therefore we do not include people who have perhaps slipped up once and
said something they regret which they have apologized for.

Additionally we believe that people who propound offensive ideas should not
be allowed to speak at universities even if the subject matter of their speech
does not include their offensive ideas. For example, the Sultan of Brunei
recently instated a law in his country meaning that if gay people have sex, the
punishment is that they will be publicly stoned to death. It would still be
completely unacceptable for him to come and speak at a university about
astrophysics, because of his deeply offensive ideas about the treatment of gay
people.

My fellow debater Grace is going to address the long term economic

implications of allowing this motion to fall and Alice will conclude following the
floor debate.

The first point I am going to make in support of our proposition is that hosting
speakers who propound offensive ideas at universities is a complete waste of
the valuable time of students and the scare funding universities receive.

The whole point of universities is for students to learn and expand their
knowledge and views on life. It is invaluable to be exposed to varied
speakers at a young age even if you do not agree with everything those
speakers have said. However the line between propounding bold,
controversial ideas and offensive ones is clear, and crucial to this debate

For example it would be perfectly acceptable for a university to host a speaker

who supported Brexit and said why they liked it, even if you and many of the
young people in the audience disagreed with that political stance because of
the remainer majority amongst young people. It would however be
completely unacceptable for a university to host a speaker who justified their
views about Brexit by suggesting that “all immigrants were terrorists.”
Because propounding ignorant xenophobia to university students is
undeniably unacceptable.

Even if you disagree with somebody’s views, there is always something to

learn from another person’s way of thinking, but only if the ideas propounded
by a speaker are based on logic and backed up by fact. For example, even
if that speakers’s views on Brexit did not align with your views, you could still
learn something about the way they thought and the way they tried to
rationalize their ideas. The statement that “all immigrants are terrorists,” or
other offensive ideas like it is completely irrational, entirely incorrect, and
therefore very little can be learnt from it. Therefore it is a complete waste of
invaluable time and scare funds that should be used to educate our youth as
speakers who propound offensive ideas teach nothing except what not to do -
a lesson that is already being taught quite well by parliament.

While speakers at universities are not always payed for their speeches, most
universities will pay for food and drinks at their events as well as the speaker’s
expenses. As an example, the Oxford Union in the 2016 financial year spent
just under £50,000 on food and drinks for speeches and miscellaneous
speaker expenses. To offer you an example, Romano Prodi, the former
Italian Prime Minister claimed £657 for his dinner and £453 for his lunch when
he came to speak at the university. Do we really want to reward undeniably
detestable individuals by paying for their extravagant meals?

To conclude, universities should not host speakers who propound offensive

ideas because it will be a waste of valuable resources that could be used
instead to host speakers who are rational and argue using logic as opposed to
speakers who espouse prejudiced, distressing views that will only serve to
anger and upset audience members. As members of the economics society,
I challenge the opposition to weaken this argument hinged upon opportunity
cost, and that is why I am proud to propose.