its a ludicrous idea to even be debating. how can a university possibly be a place where completely open debate is not allowed? its beyond me that there are people who sincerely believe this notion.

How will these students that need and use the safe spaces ever cope out in the real world, where there are none.

this guy is a great orator...

When aliens eventually come with their ray guns and extreme, 'kill all humans' agenda, we can let these students explain their safe-space policy to them!

I have great respect for peter ever since he put politicians to shame by trying to arrest the tyrant Robert mugabee even when mugabees thugs were with him and laid into peter but he still did not back down

Put these little fairies in safe spaces at University and watch them crumble when they come out into the real world. The world is a harsh place and University is meant to prepare you for it. If you can't even cope listening to differing opinions you stand no chance

Fantastic, Peter Tatchell has a history of sometimes being a bit dangerous to certain folk but he is spot on here, he knows what is is like to have ideas on the fringe, he has lived and loved that life.

Interestingly all the ones with decades of experience and the ones who are considered great speakers come down on the side of free speech and universities not being blanket safe spaces. That in itself speaks volumes!

That chubby asian kid doesn't half love the sound of his own voice. Every fucking Oxford debate he has something to say/shout

How does a differing opinion = bigotry? And aren't we all bigots to some degree?

I don't think the people who propose this idea want ideas to be scrutinized. They want every idea that they agree with to pass as valid and equal, no matter how bad those ideas are. They're conflict-averse, and not just physical conflict. They're so conflict-averse that the conflict of disagreement is too much for them.

I'm pleased to see that the general consensus, at least in terms of YT metrics, is fully in support of the idea that a university should not be a safe space! I still find it hard to understand how this could even be an issue in any university never mind the top echelon of Russell Group college's.

Brilliantly put.

now _this_ is a proper debater. the previous three might as well have been letters to the editor in the university newsletter.

4:13 made me cringe

Challenor opposes free speech, because many of Challenor's ideas and intentions are indefensible , bigoted, and based on false claims , and would not stand up to scrutiny . Tatchell is correct in noting how " safe space " can and does frequently function to protect powerful systems of abuse from those who would bravely criticise them . That is true regarding resistance against misogynist, extremist iterations of religion , and it's equally true regarding the billionaire backed child abuse practices that Challenor defends , practices Challenor helps isolate from criticism by organised slurring of critics , and organised activities to have those who resist banned from social media on false claims of " hate speech ".

im with him

Should we make the boxing ring, the rugby pitch, and the motorway safe places? Yes, close them down. How stupid.

when someone pulls the subjective card, u know bs is on the way

Peter Tatchell is a true social justice warrior.. He stands for.. Free speech...

so much of human behavior seems contingent upon the psychology of the ingroup outgroup dichotomy...

Him against safe spaces that’s unusual of him but he’s good on that one. Thank goodness he’s not like that briefly

Its very telling to hear how easily Peter Tachell's arguments, based on real world experience, demolish the naieve theory of his younger inexperienced opponents.

That's why you have a judge to interpet the law. Then I could ask you why do they spend so many years training a judge. Cos they need to learn what true objectivity is and how to interpet laws and justice. However the guys passing these judgement are just doing so on mob justice. Big difference

I agree with nick griffin

Hearing him speak very well gives me back some faith in humanity. But hearing him having to reiterate his secular/liberal credentials, it disappoints me that one has to play to the Woke gallery to 'win' a debate about an issue as fundamental as this.

Am I the only one who thinks that both sides (as of now in the debate) are talking about the same thing? They are both for free speech, no one said no to any speaker expressing any opinions. The only idea under debate is the need or lack thereof of safe spaces. These safe spaces (in their definition) does not curtail any free speech at all. It has nothing to do with the source of the speech. It only has to do with the person who has to listen to it. The debate is supposed to be about whether a listener gets an idea about what a discussion, or a speech is about before hand so they can decide to avoid it if they choose to, or to have a space where the debate is rational, and factual, rather than an emotionally charged barrage of possible hurtful or reactionary comments instead of sensible responses. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen that at all.

bringing on Karl Marx as a positive example "for" free speech, but denying free speech to the far right - is a colossal mismatch and judgement. As Karl Marx can be called as far left when using these terms. In this way, either both or none should have been allowed or should be allowed to speak! Who is he to make such a decision? This is the problem with the speech-police.

You self owned! As university studies the whole of society and comments on it.

Peter as usual - spelling out the bleeding obvious to people who do not want to hear it..

Jordan Peterson's lost brother?

Peter Tatchell, through all his kind words and pretty talks on humanity, was a supporter of NAMBLA. Anyone endorsing him as an individual should be ashamed.

@8:36, except we don't ensure these ideas are exposed.. religious bullshit gets a free pass..

This orator is weak. (He couldn't bring his point to bear on criticism effectively.)

As soon as you start using the terms "vile bigot" you lost me, you have no high ground. What's the point of presenting your facts if you refer to your opponent that way instead of his ideas.