We are entitled to scrutinise those who influence us & whose decisions impact us, argues Israr Khan
Israr Khan, Regents Park College, speaks in proposition of the motion that This House Believes we have the Right to Judge the Private Lives of Public Figures.
This is the third speech of six.
This speaker is a competitive debater and the views expressed may not reflect their own beliefs.
#debate
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
SUPPORT the Oxford Union ► oxford-union.org/supportus
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
The Oxford Union is deeply grateful and encouraged by the messages of support in response to our determination to uphold free speech. During our 200 year history, many have tried to shut us down. As the effects of self-imposed censorship on university campuses, social media and the arts show no signs of dissipating, the importance of upholding free speech remains as critical today as it did when we were founded in 1823. Your support is critical in enabling The Oxford Union to continue its mission without interruption and without interference. You can support the Oxford Union here: oxford-union.org/supportus
Why not provide a link to the whole, unbroken debate? I hate it when it is broken up, and I can't easily see the order in which to watch...
The best of the first three speakers..
Probably true but if you criticize and excoriate one's character, do it to those who preceded them as well as their contemporaries. You'll find more similarities if not worse. _They_ set the ledger for what is acceptable and what isn't and by what has happened until the present day it seems as though those who oversee, draft and enforce laws were lawless themselves at one point or another. It isn't necessarily an individual criticism at that point but rather, one of liberties afforded by hierarchal level.
Inspire me to say, first respect to you. But justice is a blind sometimes, fotos, is something thet mostly of US prefere, since we firstly see and if we like it we need more despite of what is inside the newspaper, or reverse. Scandal are so many, donations is another Bedtime story,since we know inside something else is going on, silent we are just focus only on celebrities nothing else. Corruption is another bedtime story,, one can only hear or see what happens but covered up, since belonging to a club is power, some time yes sometimes No. And talking about president Trump 2017, 1 afro American lady from the justice system arrived sad what they have planned to do to him and threatening me. So judging someone is always 50/50 who is lying and who is telling the truth.
still there is an absolute right to judge based on the information you currently have. Maybe that information is untrue. should you have done due diligence ? absolutely on your part. But are you obligated to ?? heck no .i have the right to judge the private lives of public figures based on the information that is there in public domain. Morality is subjective and in any case it shouldnt serve as a prohibition to my free expression