Debating Matters

Monuments to Controversial Historical Figures Should Remain

updated May 2026

INTRODUCTION

In February 2026, the Winston Churchill statue in Parliament Square, London, was defaced with red graffiti paint, as part of a pro-Palestine protest [Ref: Guardian]. Marking the third time that this statue of Churchill has been branded with spray paint this decade. Started in June 2020, where a statue of Edward Colston [Ref: Wikipedia] was toppled by protestors and thrown into the harbour [Ref: BBC] as part of the wider Black Lives Matter protest. This triggered a vote by Oriel College, Oxford, to remove the contentious statue of Cecil Rhodes [Ref: Guardian]. In the United States, protestors and city officials have removed hundreds of statues of controversial figures, including those of confederate General Robert E. Lee [Ref: List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests, Wikipedia]. The continuation of this trend is clear, shown by the recent removal of the Monaghan Statue in Spokane, Washington, in April 2026. The controversy surrounding this statue lay in the plaque description, rather than the statue itself [Ref: Spokane Historical]. While in Germany, the debate largely focuses on street names and military barracks named after colonialists, the recent removal of the Statue of Peace in Berlin-Mitte, which commemorated the victims of sexual slavery during WWII after a long-standing dispute and pressure from Japan [Ref: The Diplomat], shows the growing diversity of demands. As the impact of diplomatic relations and foreign reputation on the display of monuments has expanded – is it now overriding its representation of public memory and historical accountability? [Ref: The Left Berlin]

These actions are the latest chapter in a long-running debate about historical monuments, with campaigns such as ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ having argued for some time that such statues are more than just a symbol of past oppression – they represent the institutional racism which continues to exist today [Ref: BBC News]. “Protesters,” says one columnist, are “compelling entire nations to confront their present through a new understanding of their past” [Ref: Guardian]. Others believe that these monuments make reconciliation difficult or even impossible. Some, however, worry that there is a tendency to ‘cleanse’ history of unsavoury – even appalling – elements. In the words of historian Mary Beard, “statues offer different challenges to our view of history … and remind us of our own fragility in the judgement of the future” [Ref: TLS]. At its heart, the debate is about our relationship with history, and whether removing statues and monuments has a role to play in reappraising historic wrongs, or whether they encourage us to airbrush out difficult and contentious parts of our history, rather than engage with and understand them. Should monuments to controversial historical figures remain?

Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate

INTRODUCTION

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. This is how Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed up the attitude to free speech of the Enlightenment thinker and author, Voltaire [Ref: BBC]. The nineteenth-century philosopher JS Mill defended freedom of speech by arguing that it is only by allowing ideas to be criticised that we can justify believing that they are true [Ref: Project Gutenberg]. But can all speech be deemed as equal? While some argue we should protect free speech in the realm of ideas, they question whether this can be extended to expressions of insult and hate. For example, International IDEA argues that hate speech harms democratic discussion, by ‘normalizing intolerance, dehumanizing specific groups’ and encouraging violence [Ref: International IDEA].

Social media should be banned for under 16s

Published: April 2026

INTRODUCTION

Since Australia banned social-media for all under-16s in December 2025, governments worldwide have debated introducing legislation banning social media for children. The House of Lords in the UK passed an amendment to ban social media for under-16s in January 2026, but this amendment was rejected by the House of Commons two months later. Instead, the government is consulting on introducing restrictions [Ref: BBC News]. Nonetheless, the idea seems to have substantial support: over 70 per cent of adults across the US, Europe and UK support a social-media ban for under-16s [Ref: YouGov].

As the use and power of social-media sites have increased – especially with the change in social-media feeds, from running on timelines to algorithms – the harm caused by social media has increasingly been seen to require government intervention. For example, the Conservative Party in the UK has been pushing hard for a ban [Ref: Conservative Party]. But is a ban the right policy?

Assisted dying should be legalised

Updated 2026

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Physician-assisted dying is a term encompassing both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide is the practice of allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to be administered by individuals who want to die to avoid further suffering. Euthanasia is where someone else – usually a doctor – administers the lethal drug.

The past few decades have seen an international trend of legalising this practice, sometimes for just the terminally ill, sometimes the chronically ill, and now there are even efforts to extend this to people whose body is healthy but whose mental health is so distressed that they wish to end their life. As the increased legalisation has happened in several liberal societies, many questions have been raised. Can someone ever rationally justify taking their own life, or is it a simple, reasonable choice to make for those who are suffering? What are the wider implications for a society that accepts that sometimes life isn’t worth living? Does the medical profession suffer when the role of the doctor is extended from life-preserver to include life-taker, or is it better that the option to die is put into the hands of professionals? What does the legalisation of assisted dying tell us about how we view and value palliative care today?

Germany should host the Olympic Games

Published: April 2026

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

The question of whether Germany should host the Olympic Games arises regularly – currently in connection with possible bids from Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and the Rhine-Ruhr region. The German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) is at present examining which of these candidates it should put forward in the international competition for the 2036, 2040 or 2044 Games [Ref: DOSB].

Supporters see this as a unique opportunity for international visibility, investment in infrastructure and a renewed enthusiasm for sport. Martin Kessler of the Rheinische Post argues that Germany is well suited to host the Games: ‘Germans are a sports-loving nation, good organisers and welcoming hosts. At the same time, the country offers the assurance that such Games would not descend into gigantism, would remain environmentally sustainable and would present a friendly face to the world.’ [Ref: Das Parlament]

Critics, however, point to enormous costs. In fact, the financial scale of such mega-events is considerable: the Olympic Games in London 2012 cost around £9 billion. Economist Klaus Wohlrabe confirmed in an interview with the German Press Agency that Olympic Games are ‘still significantly more expensive… than originally estimated’. [Ref: Die Zeit]

Trial by jury should be removed in certain cases

Published September 2025

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental legal principle which ensures that individuals facing legal proceedings, both criminal and civil, are treated justly and impartially. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. In the UK, as a principle of English law, this right dates back to Magna Carta [Ref: UK Parliament] and it is also enshrined in various international human rights instruments and national laws, including Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 [Ref: Human Rights Act 1998].

Since it was first introduced, trial by jury has not only been thought to be the fairest form of justice but it has also acted as a powerful safeguard against tyranny [Ref: Judiciary UK].

However, due to an increasing pressures on the criminal courts system, in December 2024, the British Government commissioned a review to make recommendations on its reform [Ref: gov.uk]. Retired judge, Sir Brian Leveson, was appointed to undertake the review following the revelation that the caseload for the Crown Court had reached a record high of 73,105 cases in September 2024 – almost double pre-pandemic levels [Ref: House of Lords Library]. This finding means that victims, witnesses and defendants are increasingly having to wait years for trials to go ahead [Ref: BBC].

DM Berlin: Populism is a threat to democracy

updated 2025

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Populism is the political buzzword of the day – with commentators, political theorists and politicians all debating its meaning and the merits of its apparent rise in recent years. Examples of populism abound: it dominated discussion in 2016 with the vote for Brexit and the election of Donald Trump to the White House. The return of Trump in 2025 is just the latest example after the 2023 election of Javier Milei in Argentina [Ref: Populism Studies], the Europe-wide farmers’ protests [Ref: Financial Times], the rise of the Reform Party in the UK [Ref: The Week] and the overwhelming rejection by referendum in Ireland of a proposed constitutional change [Ref: The Guardian]. Whilst many discuss populism as a right-wing phenomenon, it has a long history on the left as well, with electoral success for Syriza in Greece [Ref: New Statesman], Podemos in Spain [Ref: BBC News] and Sahra Wagenknecht’s BSW in Germany [Ref: Al Jazeera]

But particular alarm is caused today by its right-wing variety. Some insist it is dangerous for democracy and liberal values, going so far as to suggest that it has echoes of the emergence of fascism in the 1930s and 1940s [Ref: Guardian]. Such fears seemed to be confirmed when news broke in Germany of an alleged meeting between members of far-right populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and neo-Nazi groups. This led to widespread public protests and even calls to ban the AfD [Ref: The Guardian], but the party went on to win 83 seats (out of 630) in the 2025 federal elections. The call to ban a political party, supported by a large number of Germans, gets to the heart of the debate about populism: is populism a reflection of widespread anger and disillusionment with the mainstream, or is it a dangerous force which justifies suspending the democratic process in order to contain it?

DM Berlin: Technological progress will not solve society’s environmental issues

updated 2025

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Arguably, climate change, and the environmental problems that will occur as a result, are the most pressing issues that humankind faces. The outcome of the COP21 climate talks in Paris in 2015 was hailed as a momentous deal, in which countries pledged, among other things, to cap emissions, and seek to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and below the two degrees which many scientists believe would be disastrous for the planet [Ref: Guardian].

Yet a decade later, progress has been slow. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 400 parts per million (ppm) at the time of the Paris talks to 425 ppm at the end of 2024 [Ref: Climate.gov]. Global CO₂emissions from fossil fuels and industry rose from 35.4 billion tonnes in 2015 to 37.8 billion tonnes in 2023 [Ref: Our World in Data]. In February 2025, it was revealed that just 13 of the 195 parties to the Paris agreement had submitted ‘nationally determined contributions’ – five-yearly plans setting out what countries will do to cut emissions – by the latest deadline [Ref: Carbon Brief]. In fact, the 1.5 degree limit has already been exceeded, in 2024. [Ref: Reuters] One of the first acts of Donald Trump’s second term as US president was to pull out of the Paris agreement – again Ref: Guardian].

DM Berlin: Western museums should repatriate cultural artefacts

Updated 2025

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

In June 2024, Berlin’s Altes Museum returned 25 antiquities, including 21 Apulian vases, which that are believed to have been illegally obtained and smuggled out of Italy four decades earlier. While the museum had originally purchased the collections from a Basel art dealer, it emerged during an investigation that they had originally been in the possession of notorious antiquities smuggler, Giacomo Medici. [Ref: The Arts Newspaper].

Upon returning the artefacts, the German culture minister, Claudia Roth, said that returning the antiquities represented the reality of cultural heritage protection, arguing ‘it’s a question of protecting cultural heritage that is key to our identities from plunder, illegal excavation, theft, smuggling and the illegal trade’.

The debate surrounding the Apulian artefacts mirrors that happening in many other Western countries. For instance, in January 2023, it was revealed that the British Museum has been in talks with Greek officials about returning some of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece on loan in a ‘cultural exchange’ for other ancient artefacts. Legal ownership of the marbles would, however, remain with the British Museum [Ref: Daily Mail].

DM Berlin: In the digital age, we should not expect our online activities to remain private

Updated 2025

Author: Kaja Molinksa

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Has the expectation of privacy become outdated? In January 2025, it was estimated that almost two thirds of the world’s population uses social media [Ref: Datareportal]. Many today declare they are worried about privacy, but continue to use services that hoover up their data, a contradiction termed the ‘privacy paradox’ [Ref: Guardian]. From the proliferation of connected devices (in 2020, 34 per cent of UK households and 25 per cent of German households had a smart speaker [Ref: Statista]), to taking advantage of the benefits of targeted advertising [Ref: Forbes], it seems that few consumers genuinely take their online privacy seriously. In fact, over 90 per cent of consumers agree to a website’s ‘terms and conditions’ without reading them [Ref: Business Insider]. One study suggested students would even choose free pizza over secure email addresses [Ref: Forbes].

However, from the Cambridge Analytica scandal [Ref: Guardian] to high-profile data breaches, such as in 2020 when the personal data of more than three million customers was leaked by the car rental company Buchbinder, or in 2018 when over 300 million Marriot International guests had data including addresses and passport numbers exposed [Ref: TechAdvisor], we still profess to ‘loathe that our data is mined and scraped’ [Ref: New York Times]. For many, privacy remains an indispensable right and safeguard against overbearing governments – such as in Belarus, where the privacy-focused app Telegram allows protesters to organise against the government [Ref: The Economist].