Oxford Debating Union Updates Rulebook: Assassination Now Valid Form Of Rebuttal
Prestigious society assures public it still values “vigorous exchange of ideas,” just not necessarily from both sides
OXFORD - In a move critics are calling “a slight departure from the spirit of free inquiry,” the Oxford University Debating Union has officially amended its rulebook to allow the violent assassination of opponents as an acceptable form of rebuttal during debates, provided the opponent’s views don’t align with the majority of the student body.
“We’ve long prided ourselves on championing the free exchange of ideas,” said an Oxford Union spokesperson, polishing the chamber’s new bulletproof lectern. “But let’s be honest. Sometimes the most convincing counterargument is a well aimed shot.”
According to the updated guidelines, participants may now earn debate points not only through rhetoric, logic, and witty repartee, but also through “successfully neutralising an opponent before they finish their second sentence, assuming those views were not endorsed by the Union membership.” Judges are instructed to award extra style points for creativity, such as disguising a rebuttal as a toast before launching the attack.
Defenders of the change argue it reflects the evolving nature of debate. “Back in the day, it was all about rhetoric and Aristotle” said one Union member. “Now it’s about body counts. Times change.”
The Union has promised to uphold fairness by requiring all assassinations to be carried out strictly against viewpoints the student body already disagrees with. “We are not barbarians,” the spokesperson added. “If someone happens to share the Union’s values, they’re safe. But if not, they have forfeited their right to live.”
At press time, the Union’s president declared retrospective victory in a spirited debate after his opponent was killed by a gunshot wound to the jugular.