Robert Guest | The Commonwealth Should NOT Have a Future (3/6) | Oxford Union Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
The motion: This house believes that the Commonwealth should have no future.
Robert Guest continues the case for the proposition, as the third speaker of six in the debate.
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.
Could anyone explain what the commonwealth is
An organisation consisting largely of former British colonies that promotes peace, anti-slavery ect across all its 2 and a half billion population
@@hansgruber788 thank you good sir
@@markbloom1165 a fancy foreign aid organisation where the poorer members fleece off the richer ones while calling them colonial racists.
It saddens me that so many people choose to ignore the incredible societal advancements brought about by purely British inventions. Political. Social. Engineering. Science. Mathematics. So many things over the last 400 years give, to me anyway, proof that there's something in those values of British and wider European society that is special.
At the cost of lives? I believe that is a harsh deal. Moreover, many of these countries, I can speak for those which were, at the time, India had been advanced in many ways before the British. One simple example: a successful rhinoplasty had been achieved many thousands of years prior to Britain's introduction of allopathic methods within the nation.
Are you going to upload the argument in favour of the commonwealth or...?
Also anything that unites a third of the world's population however loosely should be something to preserve at any rate
Bro did you even look there’s obviously stuff there for the other side
The problem with journalists speaking on any such subject is, journalists are not researchers. They are not historians, they are not sociologists, they are not social scientists on any level. All who fall under these categories (hopefully search for truth using analytical and quantitative methods.
Journalists, however, are story tellers who begin with an opinion and filter facts to gather only those that support the story they are determined to tell. And most journalists will not deviate from their story regardless of how many facts they find that expose the fallacies in which their stories lie. They will shield their eyes from these facts like so many irritating grains of sand in the wind and carry on stubborn, self-righteous, and blind.
It struck me as odd that his argument was about how the empire was bad, and how the commonwealth isn't very good. Like, true? His argument might have been stronger more criticising it's own redundancy in the face of other international organisations rather then talking more about the Empire instead.
Good speech!
cqhggj
VUR.LIFE