Debating Matters

Social media should be banned for children under 16

Debating Matters Transatlantic

INTRODUCTION

Since Australia banned social media for all children under 16 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, social media bans have substantial support: over 70 per cent of adults across Europe support a social-media ban for under-16s [Ref: YouGov], along with 56 per cent of American adults [Ref: Pew Research Center].

With nearly half of teens (ages 13-17) claiming to be online ‘almost constantly’ and 96 per cent of teens using the internet daily [Ref: Pew Research Center], there have been calls for government intervention to combat the negative effects of social media on young minds. For example, the Conservative Party in the UK has been pushing hard for a ban [Ref: Conservative Party]. Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans are all wondering: is a ban the right policy to deal with the challenges social media now presents?

The switch from timelines to algorithms – which are shown to reinforce particular topics and sources of content at the expense of others – along with the rise of short-form content has raised concerns over the benefits and harms of social media. Content is no longer shown based on the user’s friends and contacts but instead filtered by service providers on the basis of profit and maximum engagement. Commentators have argued that this has fuelled polarisation and social fragmentation, as young people are no longer operating socially online, but are atomised by highly individualised content.

Furthermore, some argue that social media is becoming increasingly difficult to manage due to the infiltration of AI onto mainstream platforms, pushing children away from each other and distorting the boundary between truth and generated content. A study by Common Sense Media in 2025 showed that 72 per cent of teens have used AI companions, and a study by Pew suggested 30 per cent use chatbots daily [Ref: Psychology Today]. Could the normalisation of AI as ‘companions’ for teenagers be blurring boundaries between the emotional bonds of human relationships and the validation provided by technology? [Ref: Forbes] In 2026, Grok (the AI tool on X) came under fire for allowing users to produce ‘undressed’ images of real people. Is AI exposing children to images without any input of adults on what they see? [Ref: BBC News]

Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate

Debating Matters Transatlantic

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 summarised the attitude to free speech of the Enlightenment thinker and author, Voltaire [Ref: BBC]. However, the advent of the internet and social media has changed the nature of open debate. Public discussion has moved online, changing the way people interact and digest information, resulting in calls for more stringent laws against hate speech.

Free speech, once esteemed as the most fundamental principle of Western democracies, ultimately prioritises the ability for citizens to speak freely, without consequence from the state, despite many knowing they will not agree with everything that is said. This was enshrined in the US constitution through the First Amendment in 1787, which states that ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’ [Ref: Constitution Annotated]. This prevents the government from taking direct action to curtail speech, across the political spectrum, despite the fact many might abhor much of what is said [Ref: The Conversation].

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]. Free speech was seen as foundational to democracy, as citizens are able to debate and discuss ideas, stopping a fall into ‘managed consensus’ or stagnant orthodoxies [Ref: Prosperity Institute]. Debates over free speech have been transformed by the online world. Once, individuals’ opinions, public or private, had little reach or impact. Yet on social media, provocative or extreme messages can reach thousands of people in seconds as algorithms work to promote extreme content for engagement. Previously, people were held to social norms and standards of behaviour through social accountability. However, the power and relative anonymity of the online world has removed these safeguards on free speech, allowing for echo chambers that are detached from their community.

Thus, while some support the protection of free speech in the realm of ideas, they question whether this extends to expressions of hate. International IDEA, an international intergovernmental organisation working to support democracy and electoral assistance, argues that ‘hate speech undermines the foundations of democracy’ by eroding genuine pluralism, participation and respect for ideas and beliefs. They even argue that it harms democratic discussion, by ‘normalising intolerance, dehumanising specific groups’ and encouraging violence [Ref: International IDEA].

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) present more benefits to society than risks of harm

Debating Matters Transatlantic

INTRODUCTION

For centuries, humanity has seen technology evolve, bringing both positive and negative change to everyday life. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) systems appear to be having an historically important impact across all areas, including the economy, relationships, international security and education.

AI really came to public prominence in 2022 with the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Its ability to produce convincingly human-sounding text in response to prompts written in casual, understandable language was a sensation, reaching one million users within five days [Ref: Exploding Topics]. Since then, AI applications and features have become normalised and increasingly relied upon as they are widely available and easy to use for anyone with an internet connection. Alongside text-generation products like ChatGPT, AI-powered tools for generating images, audio, video, code and more have proliferated. This has raised many questions for the internet, workplaces and schools, as it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate between AI and human-generated content.

But the implications for society are only just becoming apparent. In January 2024, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) claimed that 40 per cent of jobs worldwide will be affected by AI. She warned that it will likely worsen global inequality but could also enhance some humans’ performance and create new jobs [Ref: The Guardian]. AI-powered autonomous weapons are already starting to unleash new and deadlier forms of warfare, and scientists have warned about the potential for AI to be used to design bioweapons [Ref: Science]. In 2017, the world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, even claimed that ‘AI may replace humans altogether’ as a ‘new form of life’ that can rapidly learn and improve, making people obsolete [Ref: Independent].

However, in 2021, a leading consultancy firm claimed AI might boost the UK’s GDP by up to 10 per cent by 2030 [Ref: PwC] and take routine and dehumanising tasks out of human hands, leaving citizens free to pursue more creative, strategic and people-focused work. AI has the potential to revolutionise fields as diverse as medicine, education and sustainability. So, should we welcome AI’s potential, or are the risks too great?

NATO is vital for Global Security

Debating Matters Transatlantic

INTRODUCTION

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance of North American and European powers committed to the principle of common defence. It was founded in 1949, following the end of World War II, amid growing suspicions about the Soviet Union’s geopolitical intentions in Western Europe [Ref: NATO]. NATO had 12 founding members and has since expanded to 32 member states across North America and Europe, with the latest accession countries being Finland and Sweden. Importantly, only three member states – the USA, Canada and Turkey – are outside of Europe, making the composition of NATO predominantly European.

The fundamental goal of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through a military alliance, primarily acting as a system of collective defence [Ref: NATO]. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is the cornerstone of this: it establishes the principle that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all members [Ref: NATO].

NATO also has a broad network of programs to handle threats that are below the threshold of Article 5, primarily through structured partnerships and out-of-area operations. These partnership networks pursue dialogue and practical cooperation on a wide range of political and security-related issues, including global challenges like terrorism, civil emergencies and cyber-attacks [Ref: NATO]. These programs protect the Euro-Atlantic region by projecting stability and establishing critical defence networks to deter threats before the need to invoke Article 5.

The debate on NATO’s role in global security centres around two competing views. Those in favour of NATO argue that it has a clear track record of proven deterrence effect, particularly through access to US capabilities, including intelligence and mutually assured destruction via its nuclear stockpiles. In this view, NATO remains vital because it continues to fulfil these same core functions: keeping America engaged in European defence, deterring Russian aggression, and integrating powerful European states within a stable collective security framework.

Critics of NATO argue that the alliance is no longer the most effective means to ensure global security. Some argue that the encouragement of European dependence on the United States has left their militaries underdeveloped and its security dependent on American support. This dependence is argued to have limited Europe’s geopolitical autonomy, leaving European states vulnerable to shifts in US leadership and foreign policy. This problem is exacerbated by questions over whether the US and Europe have the same security priorities; the recent war between America and Iran, without the support of NATO, suggested to some that the interests of European states and America are now diverging. Others also argue that NATO’s potential expansion could risk threatening Russia, putting Europe and its allies at risk.

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].