Kass Caldicott | This House Believes in the Right to Offend

November 17th 2022 at 20:00 in the Debating Chamber
Debate Results: Ayes: 217 | Absn: 140 | Noes: 72
............................................................................................................................
Thumbnail Photographer: Flo Tawns
............................................................................................................................
First Proposition
Kass Caldicott is a second year undergraduate student reading law at Trinity College. They won the right to speak through open audition.
............................................................................................................................
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers:
/ @cambridgeunionsoc1815
............................................................................................................................
Connect with us on:
Facebook: / thecambridgeunion
Instagram: / cambridgeunion
Twitter: / cambridgeunion
LinkedIn: / cambridge-union-society

[@joanginsberg9604]

Ad hominem attack is NOT debate. How shameful.

[@isaiahrowley9830]

Agreed, it's despicable and forces the house to lose credibility.

[@Bostronix]

Kass Caldicott is a biological male, and has a long way to go towards becoming an adult.

[@azhivago2296]

Atrociously bad opening speech that doesn't address the question.

[@antonydavis2764]

Why did he argue against the motion by asserting that a specific topic was not allowed to be debated and potentially cause offence? He was obviously fixated on Kathleen Stock being invited and wasted the opportunity to make a pertinent argument.

[@toni6053]

Watching an entitled man display the pinnacle of his entitlement has left an extremely bad taste in my mouth.

[@melanieanderson8140]

This was an abysmal argument.

[@sarah-pe2tj]

He didn't argue for the topic. What a snake.

[@Mentalmum8]

The pinnacle of male entitlement with added middle class privilege. Oh joy to see such little has changed.

[@rensharpe2562]

How ARROGANT and IGNORANT of FACTS he is..quite disgusting...

[@zanniethompson]

He speaks of other’s courage with a cowardly and poor argument.

[@mrshamster4077]

I fully support free speech. Unless its a viewpoint that I disagree with... As a transgender person myself, I find the hardliner transgender activist types do more harm than good 😢

[@ninagray4441]

I agree for exactly the same reasons.

[@ruthgould7293]

Thank you, Mrs Hamster. Please be reassured the vast majority of gender critical feminists- certainly Dr Stock - know this is an activist hive mind, not about trans people

[@mrshamster4077]

@@ruthgould7293 I totally agree. I feel ashamed and embarrassed by the activist types, they are so unreasonable and deranged.

[@isaiahrowley9830]

Alienation of people who don't understand or even disagree only hinders the movement.

[@L333gok]

Ur not trans. Ur pretending to be. If you were trans youd support basic human rights for LGBT members. Words are violence, they can cause suicide.

[@annabordelon6663]

Kass is a dangerous misogynist

[@shmuelrosenthal6661]

My favorite part of this bloke's argument was when he argued against the "right to offend" by being INCREDIBLY offensive. Brilliant stuff.

[@rensharpe2562]

His motormouth had nothing to do with freedom of speech ... he just wrongly.. like a child ..personally attacked Professor Kathleen Stock ... What a wasted education... You can't alter FACTS... and TRUTH NO matter how much rubbish you spout... ..

[@Utzpah]

They are right. Her views are abhorrent, and her view that using hate speech is a right/freedom is an age old right-wing excuse for bigotry

[@kirstybuchanan8919]

@@Utzpah she doesn't say anything hateful. Stop making this rubbish up. People that actually listen to find this out. I feel sorry for you being part of a cult, that you can't see reality.

[@annabordelon6663]

@@Utzpah said an antisemetic bigot trying to subjugate women

[@rensharpe2562]

@@Utzpah you deaf & dumb

[@BarryBulsara576]

@@Utzpah Thankfully you and the entitled virgin don't get to define what is hate speech.

[@nienoriengdahl3730]

So he's scared of women when he walks home at night? That's just delusional.

[@hughbrice]

I will be showing this rant to my debate students as a classic example of misogyny, pleonasm, hatred, ignorance, entitlement, and rather poor hygiene.

[@ambientsoda106]

This right to offend nonsense needs to be stopped; started by Kathleen Stock - someone who I feel would be reduced to tears in a world where laws created allowed for the right to be offensive...Offending people is something people do, normally in bad taste, hence why people choose not to be offensive... Why is this guy linking women choosing not to wear head scarfs/wraps to the Kathleen's nonsense? Kathleen's arguing for people to just shout abuse at each other...

[@sgodsellify]

You should also be showing how the recent trans community stuff has been detrimental to a society overall. Especially when Non Binary individuals like this Kass person believes that Dr. Stock's and JK Rowling's stance on Trans rights are bad for a society. Look when these Non Binary, and Gender Fluid individuals can change their gender identity, and pronouns whenever they want, and keep changing them whenever they like, then that is going to effect everyone that is NOT part of the trans, or LGBTQ+ community. Why should Non Binary, and Gender Fluid individuals FORCE others to participate in their reindeer gender identity pronoun games? Some of these individuals will go as far to wear a pin, a badge, or some article of clothing that has their current pronouns plastered on those wearable items. If you have to wear some article of clothing that is telling the world that these are my current pronouns, and that you should control your speech by using these posted pronouns when you talk to me, then that is a fail on any society. I am still blown away that some of these Non Binary and Gender Fluid individuals will now try to charge someone for mis-gendering, or not using their current pronouns. That is another fail on a society, especially when some people don't look like their pronouns, or in general look like who they want to be. The onus should be on every individual to look like who you want to be, and it is not up to every individual to participate in compelled and forced speech, by using your made up pronouns. Pronouns that the trans, and LGBTQ+ community keep on adding to the made up pronoun list.

[@organisationxiv2927]

And thank you, also to the idiots at KZbin reading and/or screening these comments, because apparently someone on the internet cannot handle being called an idiot. You're all pathetic. But thank you for the warning before I posted the remark *sarcasm*.

[@andreavickers1019]

Pathetic ad hominem attack on Kathleen Stock for political point scoring. Caldicott did not debate anything. Another advocate for the “if I want your opinion I’ll give it to you” brigade.

[@justinbutcher3623]

Trans women are men.

[@evalindecrantz8643]

It was Kass who used the word disgust and that's how I feel about him.

[@gulliblestravels71]

This speech wandered off pointe and into the desert of an ad hominem assault somewhere around 7.00.

[@moyracarlyle1446]

This person is supposed to be arguing in favour of the motion? Instead he has launched a personal attack on Dr Kathleen Stock. That is contrary to the rules of this KZbin comments section, so why is it not against the rules of the Debating Society? Why was that personal attack allowed? In addition, he made completely untrue allegations about LGB Alliance and unsupported, derogatory statements about J K Rowling.

[@oliverhug3]

Exactly. If you make allegations against a group, the least you should do is presenting evidence to back them up.

[@jojobowers1]

Once again the silencing of woman and the freedom of speech. Will there ever be an actual debate? We are still waiting to express our concerns, this is why woman are angry. We will continue to assure our boundaries and express our wants and needs as woman.

[@donaldpyper4627]

This is the sort of incoherence that saw the speaker choose personal grievance to obsess over Prof.Stock and JK Rowling while siding with the disgraced Mermaids org. Very bad faith to abandon the topic and launch a personal attack on a fellow speaker

[@messrsknh]

Weird that he cited the example of black children seeking education at an integrated school in Little Rock as their “right to offend.”

[@purpleribbons1441]

You should be ashamed! I hope any future employer sees your shocking attack of her and your indoctrination into this stupid ideology.

[@colinandersson-hamill5676]

An evil minded young man. Hopefully he will be fortunate enough to grow up.

[@juliewilliams8830]

He was totally embarrassing. I cringed watching his non-argument. Team Stock all the way 👏👏👏

[@katiebrigden3550]

Free speech allows the right to offend, then Kass goes on to say "the offence" is not free from consequences....who decides what the "consequences" for causing "offence" are ?

[@JJaguar333]

I had a similar problem with leftists friends when I shared a Jordan Petterson quote I agreed with despite making it quite clear I disagreed with most of his positions. One went on this rant about ‘accountability’ and how we needed to be accountable to things outside of our own ego.

[@3brenm]

​​​​​​@@JJaguar333guilt by association. My friends are unfortunately like this too. It's not a good way to explore truth. A broken clock is right twice a day. Just because someone on the right says something i agree with doesn't change my political stance on 100 other issues.

[@JJaguar333]

@@3brenm the modern world/left/radical left is dominated by hyper pc identity politics. This is due to a number of factors. Either way I don’t really care about activism any longer. They see the world in black and white egoic thinking rather than shades of grey.

[@fr0d0scious]

Kass knew that to argue the point would make him look ridiculous so he chose ad hominem. He sacrificed an unwinnable debate.

[@gruber5937]

This is shameful. Will any law firm ever hire this idealogue? Surely he has dashed his hopes of a serious career with this

[@toni6053]

Of course they will.

[@annabordelon6663]

@@toni6053 sad but true

[@MusicalPenguin127]

"I won't debate Dr Stock's views because trans rights aren't up for debate" so why bring them up? He's literally attacking his own side of the debate!

[@moribundmurdoch]

Freedom of speech: One argument for the right to offend is that people have a fundamental right to freedom of speech, and this includes the right to express views that may be offensive to others. This argument is based on the idea that people should be free to express their opinions and ideas, even if those ideas are controversial or unpopular. Subjectivity of offense: As you mentioned, another argument for the right to offend is that what is considered "offensive" is subjective and can vary widely from person to person. This means that it is not possible to legislate or regulate against all forms of speech that may be considered offensive to some people, as there will always be someone who finds a particular idea or expression offensive. Importance of debate and discourse: Some people argue that the ability to express and debate controversial ideas is essential for a healthy society, and that allowing people to offend each other can facilitate the exchange of ideas and the resolution of differences. Chilling effect on debate: If people are afraid to express their views because they are worried about offending others, it can limit the range of ideas and perspectives that are discussed and debated. This can have a "chilling effect" on free speech, as people may self-censor in order to avoid causing offense. Allowing people to express ideas that may be offensive to some can help to ensure that a wide range of viewpoints are heard and considered, rather than just those that are considered socially acceptable or inoffensive. Spiral of silence: The "spiral of silence" is a term used to describe the phenomenon whereby people are less likely to express their views on controversial topics if they believe that their views are not widely shared or supported. This can lead to a situation where the views of a minority are not heard or represented, and can even result in the majority view becoming more extreme over time. Allowing people to express controversial or offensive views can help to prevent the spiral of silence by providing a platform for minority viewpoints to be heard and considered.

[@havenbastion]

The idea that anyone in government has a right or reason to tell anyone else how to express themselves is itself offensive.

[@brendapipher777]

The current problem as I see it is this, it isn't the minority views being dampened by disapproval but rather the majority. Some of those who are transgender may be sincere, I know my son is, but he isn't trying to force other people to accept him. The problem is, a lot of the activists, seem to be more concerned with things like drag queen story hours and sexually explicit books in elementary schools, things that just scream pedophile. The UN is even trying to get pedophilia seen as another sexual orientation or something.

[@RC-qf3mp]

“Challenge the argument, not the person.” That’s in the Guidelines of the comments section for this channel. And this video fails the comment Guidelines. Typical lawyer training- when you have the law on your side, argue the law, when you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When all else fails, attack the person who has facts, logic and rationality on her side.

[@_BMS_]

_Everything_ should be up for _debate_ all of the time. That is exactly the point of free speech.

[@elenivrahimi496]

Utterly horrible person. He attacks Stock knowing she is there to argue the proposition and not respond to narcissistic personal attacks.

[@willgiles6848]

He makes good points though. Why does she think she's a good figure when she supported the LGB alliance who genuinely have incredibly disgraceful opinions, who have worked to undermine LGB rights for years. It's weird. What type of person want to cause such division and undermine peoples rights?

[@jarrodelks4928]

Your first sentence...can you explain what points you're referring to?

[@fabfran4104]

What are you talking about? Please give examples of LGB Alliance mis-speak.

[@isaiahrowley9830]

His attacks on Kathleen Stock show his lack of critical thinking and is a damning indictment on his character.

[@Observatuer033]

the expressions on the faces of the three lads behind him are quite telling

[@undertheriverstone]

Not only does he not provide a single interesting argument (also, ad hominem fallacy which in turn contradicts his entire point,): What he's really saying is that the loss of women's rights and children's rights is not important. When he says that trans rights are not up for debate it means that the abolition of women's rights is not up for debate. It is criminal-quite beyond offence-to silence, cancel and ostracise those who protest against the butchering and aggressive medicalisation of children, and those who seek to ensure the physical safety of women in vulnerable spaces . I don't know which part of "convicted rapist in female prison", or which part of "irreversible damage" these people can't read.

[@susieq9751]

Perfect example of why we need free speech; so we can see everything about someone promoting something. Is their argument deeply detailed and honed or incoherent and vague, are they sensible and humble or arrogant and disrespectful, do you feel they have genuine good intentions or are they spiteful and incapable of containing a smirk.

[@organisationxiv2927]

The right to offend IS inseparable from free speech. Whether it be a satirical or mocking depiction of Islam's prophet, Muhammad, or my Native Indian costume that I wore yesterday. I will swing my right to offend around the way one swings a cat around in a tenement flat.

[@teresaparkinson3177]

I found this to be poorly presented, lacking substance and ultimately personally abusive to KS. I had a very hard time believing this pompous, self inflated ego was really walking in fear on the streets of Cambridge.

[@sarahrichardson976]

What an embarrassing little boy

[@Danusha_Goska]

A male battering a woman in public.

[@debs5896]

He demonstrated his emotional immature by using the opportunity to personally grandstand...Yawn he'll live to feel this shame.

[@colinandersson-hamill5676]

He appears to show himself to be homophobic and misogynistic.

[@annabordelon6663]

Quite

[@robertdeskoski9783]

So don't invite one of the people who helped investigate Stonewall, who in the final report has been proven to be 'harmful for children'? No, this person's definition of harmful is all kinds of messed up. In fact, their views are the most harmful considering the Swedish model for transition has shifted once again back to talk therapy first. This is a silly stance, and even though they've dressed up in a suit and got their moral claps from their friends who attended, they still seek to stifle debate. "I won't change my views so I've come to a debate with...nothing other than personal attacks?" Throw them out of the debate club.

[@MusicalPenguin127]

You can tell he feels personally attacked just by his reaction when people applaud interjections he disagrees with. What is wrong with these people? 😵

[@RoyKoopaling]

This is sort of unhinged.

[@jumblyman]

This guy really cracks me up. So narcissistic and pretentious. He will cringe one day.

[@caroest72]

Love the fact that the kids behind him start looking at him when he says he's afraid of walking alone in the dark. They are thinking, is he trans or just gay? He's too tall to be a woman wearing a binder....

[@oliverhug3]

What I was thinking. Is there any place in England where you get attacked for wearing certain clothing?

[@msfs19941]

I find it ironic that this argument is about the right to offend, and yet this child is clearly so offended by Dr Stock's views he doesn't think she should be there. Ridiculous

[@justinbutcher3623]

What an absolute c u next tuesday.

[@iilish]

He thinks he did a thing😂

[@BrianCrouch]

Anyone can become offended at any time: subjective claims of offense cannot be used to censor others. The "right to offend" is inseparable from a right to be skeptical of an ideology or religion, and to express that skepticism. What a perilous thing, to disallow contending against an idea or belief just because others hold it dear! If you hate someone for rejecting your ideas or beliefs, you're the bigot, no matter how offended you are. There were no coherent points in this video to even rebut. I find the presentation to be quite puerile, self-righteous, and malicious.

[@popedit8251]

He'll be ashamed of himself when he grows up

[@fabiosuttle5926]

One can only hope

[@3brenm]

They started by redefining the motion out of existence, by adding "in the name of what is 'just'", which is highly subjective? definitely a lawyer. The whole point is that we need the right to offend to even find out what is just. Then they go on to use the podium to further their specific agenda and attack an opposition speaker rather than to address the motion itself. This is exactly why we need the right to offend in the first place.

[@stephenphillips6888]

I will decide what is right and wrong.

[@garthrichards1350]

Lose the hand gestures.

[@ollielon5926]

It is obvious they wanted to be in the spotlight. Putting that aside, people are not arguing that trans women's rights should be violated (I am referring to the more academic voices, not the political ones). Now, I don't think one has the right to offend for the sake of offending but rather, that one has the right to speak their mind, even if it offends someone else (a nuance but still). In other words, the purpose is not to offend but to speak. Trans women should be protected from discrimination. This mean that people should not go and harass them, calling them names, and they should especially not be victims of violence. However, saying that trans women are trans women and not women is not the same as taking away their rights. If they really believed that, they wouldn't even be in the same room as Dr. Stock. That just doesn't happen. But rather, they are wanting a spotlight.

[@meditationasmovement]

How is this not an argument based on subjective taste when the speaker concludes by stating their disgust? The very form of the argument legitimates the arguments made by anyone who simply finds trans people disgusting. It undermines itself.

[@kirstybuchanan8919]

👎 for Kass's preaching.

[@clairelariviere3122]

Couch it how you will, Kass Caldecott is an abusive male who seems to enjoy demeaning women. Period.

[@Deadhead21]

Brown sweater in the back definitely ate a booger at around 4:45…

[@grainneithilwen8693]

How in the name of sanity and common sense did this boy get chosen at an open audition? Were there no other people auditioning, were those who voted completely and utterly biased, desperate for a contentious candidate, or was he chosen based on how many attention (and clicks) this debate would get?

[@harrykeeling2964]

Whatever your POV on issues discussed, this is dreadful, stupid debating that managed to utterly miss the point of the motion.

[@mittogapellelindblom2129]

I´m offended by this talk. 🤣

[@crockmans1386]

He might become a good notary. As a lawyer .... hmmmm... grave doubts.

[@clair233]

9:19 Kass, is this a judge and jury of Dr Stock ? smh

[@shaaz9993]

Bro turned up to the wrong debate

[@eimearkeaveney1192]

what an excellent speech!

[@13olibrown]

What an appalling and dishonest display. Shame

[@TheMelaniej1970]

If you are our future it worries me. You uses this platform to attack Stock, you're a little bully boy and 8 can only hope your future employers take note. I'd not ever want you representing me in a legal capacity 😮

[@siphowarrior9080]

That was major cringe. I am so embarrassed for him 😬

[@platonkarataev550]

I liked the speech, please keep doing what you do.

[@Fuck_Anime]

kass is very based

[@georgeorville4913]

This was a pretty good speech that some people misunderstood. They meant people have the right to offend if that means their existance offends people ie trans people have a right to live despite offending people who are intolerant. Bravo!

[@azhivago2296]

It was a tyrannical and vitriolic speech that attacked and bullied a perfectly well-mannered, tolerant and rational philosophy professor. Almost everyone - including Professor Stock - supports trans peoples' human and civil rights and also their moral entitlement to dignity and compassion. Any decent person supports that. What Stock and any other truthful and thinking person object to is the glaringly obvious irrational position held by trans IDEOLOGUES (not necessarily trans PEOPLE) that says an XY person can be born or magically transform into a XX person (or vice versa). It's self-evidently false and there is nothing at all anti-trans about pointing out that obvious truth - unfortunately the ideologies (most who whom are not themselves trans) are dishonest and authoritarian bullies who attempt to subvert debate on this issue via 'deplatforming' (because they obviously won't win) and then attempt to destroy the reputation and career of anyone 'bigoted' enough to gently point out that while they might support trans rights and are happy as a matter of courtesy to refer to individuals by their chosen pronouns, it is objectively untrue that an XX person is an XY person.

[@kirstybuchanan8919]

No one is offended by their existence. Where do you people make up this rubbish?

[@joolzttt3573]

Everyone I know supports trans rights. But the rights of men don't override women's rights to safety and dignity under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Men commit 99.05% of sexual assaults against women, putting on a dress doesn't cure male violence. No men should be in changing rooms with women and little girls.

[@BarryBulsara576]

Your comment would make sense if anyone had called for trans people not to live. As they haven't you sound like a bit of a clampit.

[@ashuu3]

good speech