UPCOMING EVENTS
Debate: CHEERS! To No More Beers!
“The House Believes that the levels of beer being consumed by the British public is dangerous and as such should be banned.”
Join us for an evening of debate on whether or not consuming beer should be banned in the United Kingdom.
Potential Areas For Discussion
Proposition
Banning beer would lower total alcohol consumption.
Beer is a group 1 carcinogen under the WHO.
Reports have 1-3% of the UK population as being dependent on alcohol.
Opposition
Beer is a fundamental part of British culture.
Banning beer alone wouldn't affect overall alcohol consumption.
Prohibition of alcoholic drinks in countries like the USA did not work.
Starting Point For Further Readings:
Debate: Short Form Big Problem
“The House Believes short form online content (such as TikTok, Instagram Reels) is the main driver of our current political division."
Join us for an evening of debate on the extent to which short-form online content drives political division.
In this debate, we might discuss:
Proposition
Less nuanced political messaging.
Insensitive to be eye catching over true.
Platforms extreme views.
Opposition
Extremism doesn't need short videos.
Political division started well before social media.
Parties simply no longer represent the people.
The following resources might be helpful to prepare for the debate:
Online competition - https://nouse.co.uk/articles/2026/03/05/how-short-form-videos-are-pervading-politics
News extremism - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmhaff/903/report.html
“Trending sounds and fast cuts mean that political content has to compete with lifestyle influencers and viral dance videos within the same feed. This ultimately pushes politics to become more visually engaging, more emotional and, at times, more performative.” - Nouse - Elena Hopkins
Debate: To vote, or not to vote, that is the question
"The House Believes that voting in political elections should be mandatory."
Join us for an evening of debate on whether voting in political elections should be mandatory.
Potential Areas For Discussion
The proposition might discuss:
For a democracy to represent the people it needs to have the people participate.
Young and working class people are heavily under-represented in the voting population.
Mandatory voting works in Australia and it will work here.
The opposition might discuss:
Abstaining is a valid form of political expression.
This would take away the right to vote and instead create a duty.
Mandatory implies the use of force. So what would the consequences for not voting be?
We have prepared a few resources that you may find helpful to review prior to the debate:
Compulsory voting Research Briefing (Houses of Parliament)
Compulsory voting: A remedy or ruse for democracy? (Institute of Development Studies)
---
“Without citizens actively engaging in politics, representative institutions risk failure to reflect the preferences of the governed people.” - Institute of Development Studies - Haddy Sowe
Debate: Get Devolution Done… in England
Join us for an evening of debate on whether England should have its own Parliament, situated in the North of England.
The motion for this debate is:
“The House Believes that England should have a devolved parliament in the North of England to deal with its own domestic matters."
In this debate, we might discuss:
Proposition
This could redistribute power across England and not just be centralized in London.
The other devolved nations have been very successful.
England can better deal with its own unique cultural challenges.
Opposition
This would only further split up the UK.
English devolution would undermine local authorities.
There is already a plan for devolved powers to be granted to Mayors over local councils.
Starting Point For Further Readings:
White Papers - Register for the debate on Eventbrite.
Undermines local authorities - https://www.cleverly4braintree.com/parliament/sir-james-cleverly-opposes-bill-it-undermines-local-authorities
Area facts - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-devolution-area-factsheets
“Devolution will put the right powers at the right scale. We cannot deliver the change the public expect, whether more growth, more homes, more joined-up services, or restored trust, without more empowered communities and local government.” - English Devolution White Paper - Secretary of State for Housing
Debate: No, I am your favourite film franchise
"The House Believes that Star Wars is the greatest film franchise of all time."
Join us for an evening of lively debate on whether Star Wars is the greatest film franchise of all time.
In this debate, we might discuss:
Proposition
There has been no other franchise to capture three generations of fans like Star Wars has.
It brought SciFi to the masses.
It is the heroes' journey for the 20th and 21st century.
Opposition
There are other franchises such as Marvel and others which have overtaken Star Wars.
The movies are filled with average CGI and bad character lines.
Although once culturally relevant Star Wars is now nothing but a cash cow for large corporations.
Starting Point For Further Readings:
The original trilogy - IV A New Hope, V The Empire Strikes back, and VI Return of the Jedi
The prequel trilogy - I The Phantom Menace, II Attack of The Clones, and III Revenge of the Sith
The sequel trilogy - VII The Force Awakens, VIII The Last Jedi, and IX The Rise of Skywalker
“I find your lack of faith [in the cultural supremacy of starwars] disturbing.” - A New Hope - Darth Vader
Debate: Fighting Violence with Non-Violence
"The House Believes that violence is not an effective means of achieving political goals."
Join us for an evening to debate whether violence is an effective means by which to achieve political goals.
Topics of discussion for this debate may include the extent to which violence deligitimises ethical claims of perpetrators, whether violence is a necessary weapon in the arsenal of nation states, and more.
---
“Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness.” - Martin Luther King JR
The World’s Going Nuclear (Maybe)
Since the beginning of the year America alone has threatened to annex Greenland, kidnaped the leader of Venezuela, and helped bomb Iran. As well as the Russia and Ukraine, and Israel and Palestine conflicts. Nuclear capable nations do not act in this manner towards other nuclear capable nations and as such it puts pressure on nations to develop their own determinants.
Join us for an evening of debate on whether nuclear proliferation is inevitable when powerful nations do not respect international law.
Who’s Making a Man Out of You?
Join us for a debate on whether the lack of a culturally accepted definition of masculinity has led to the rise of less desirable visions.
Debate Motion:
“The House Believes that there is no culturally accepted vision for masculinity and as such less desirable visions have been gaining popularity”
“Positive role models can inspire and motivate, develop good behaviours and habits and help to set and achieve goals. Going forward, it is vital that positive role models are recognised and celebrated, particularly those ‘everyday influencers’ who affect the daily lives of young males by not only teaching them how to behave, but through modelling that good behaviour themselves.” - University of Worcester - Dr Gill Harrop
AI: All Bark No Gigabyte
The House Believes that AI systems were touted as a revolutionary technology but in practice have not lived up to hype.
“Over 40% of American workers have tried AI, but only 13% use it daily, a gap that suggests current market valuations may be running ahead of real-world adoption” - NASDAQ - Johnny Rice
Seemingly every day there is a new news story about AI, either discussing its benefits and capabilities, or its downsides and risks.
In this debate we will explore whether or not AI systems are living up to the promises that have been made about their capabilities.
Debate: Briturn to the EU.
Join us online to chat about Briturn to the EU—what’s next and how it might shake things up!
After years of slogans, spreadsheets, and spirited shouting, it is time for a calm, good-humoured rethink.
This debate asks a simple but provocative question: should Britain reconsider its relationship with the European Union—and if so, how? Expect sharp arguments, dry wit, and serious analysis beneath the humour. Speakers will explore sovereignty, economics, democracy, and identity, weighing what has changed since Brexit and what a “Briturn” might realistically mean: rejoining, realignment, or reaffirmation of the status quo.
Debate: 16-Year-Olds & the Right to Vote in UK Elections
Join our online debate on whether 16-year-olds should get the vote in UK elections—have your say!
“The House believes that, given the success in devolved nations, people aged 16 years and up should be allowed to vote in UK Elections.”
“The UK Government was elected with a manifesto commitment to lower the voting age for reserved elections to 16. In July 2025, the government confirmed its intention to legislate to reduce the voting age to 16 in time for the next general election.” – House of Commons Library - Neil Johnston
Debate: Social media platforms harm mental health
Topic: Social media platforms do more harm than good
Get ready to dive into a lively discussion about the impact of social media. Whether you're a fan or a critic, this debate is your chance to share opinions, challenge ideas, and hear different perspectives. Grab your favorite snack, log in from anywhere, and join us for an engaging online event!
Debate: China, friend or foe?
Join us online for a lively debate exploring China’s role on the global stage.
From a UK perspective, this debate examines how Britain should understand and respond to China’s growing global influence. China is simultaneously a major trading partner, a geopolitical rival, and a state whose political system and international behaviour often diverge sharply from UK values and interests.
The discussion will explore three core tensions. First, economic interdependence: the UK’s reliance on Chinese trade, investment, and supply chains versus concerns about strategic dependency, market distortion, and economic coercion. Second, security and geopolitics: China’s role in global governance, technology, defence, and regional stability, and what this means for the UK’s alliances, particularly with the US and NATO. Third, values and norms: how issues such as human rights, the rule of law, and international norms should shape UK policy towards China.
Rather than assuming a single answer, the debate asks whether China should be treated as a partner, a competitor, a threat, or—more realistically—a complex mix of all three. It invites participants to consider what a coherent, long-term UK strategy towards China should look like, and what trade-offs this implies for Britain’s economy, security, and global role as a mid-sized power in a shifting international order led, in part, by the United Kingdom.
Debate: America, 'The special relationship' is over!
Jump into our online debate and spill the tea on why the US-UK bond might be fading!
This House Believes That the US–UK “Special Relationship” is over.
For decades, politicians have spoken about a “special relationship” between Washington and London: shared history, shared security, shared values. But in a world of shifting alliances, transactional diplomacy, economic nationalism, and domestic political turbulence on both sides of the Atlantic, is that relationship still real—or is it now mostly brand and nostalgia?This debate asks a blunt question: has the UK become just another ally in America’s hierarchy of priorities, and should Britain finally behave that way too? We’ll test whether the “special relationship” still delivers meaningful advantages in security, trade, intelligence, diplomacy, and global influence or whether it has become a comforting story that can no longer survive the facts.Expect clashes over NATO, intelligence and defence cooperation, AUKUS, trade leverage, Ireland and the EU, values-based foreign policy, and whether Britain’s real strategic future lies in doubling down on the US—or diversifying away.Is the “special relationship” an operational reality or a political myth?
Does it still change outcomes when it matters—or only provide photo-ops?
If it’s over, what replaces it: Europe-first, Indo-Pacific tilt, or pragmatic non-alignment?
If the relationship is “special”, what concrete privilege does the UK get that comparable allies do not?
When was the last time the UK changed a major US decision?
Does calling it “special” increase UK influence, or reduce UK leverage by signalling dependence?
If a crisis hit tomorrow, would the US choose the UK’s interests over its own domestic politics?
Debate: Good leadership is just luck.
This motion punctures the comforting story that leaders succeed because they deserve to. It asks whether what we call “good leadership” is mostly the product of circumstance: being in the right place at the right time, inheriting favourable conditions, facing an easy opponent, or being blessed with a crisis that makes decisive action look heroic.
Proponents will point to survivorship bias, unpredictable external shocks, and the way reputation often follows outcomes rather than choices—suggesting we confuse fortune with skill.
Opponents will argue that while luck shapes the terrain, leadership still shows up in judgement, preparation, character under pressure, and the ability to build systems that perform across good and bad conditions. This debate is compelling because it challenges personal beliefs about merit, fairness, and how societies should choose—and reward—the people in charge.
Debate: Government’s role ought to only represent the majority.
This motion goes straight to the core tension in democracy: majority rule versus minority protection. It asks whether a government’s democratic mandate should be understood narrowly—deliver what most voters want—or whether legitimate government also requires safeguarding rights, balancing competing interests, and representing those who are unpopular, marginalised, or simply outvoted.
Supporters will emphasise clarity, decisiveness, and electoral accountability: if the majority choose a direction, government should enact it without being “held hostage” by minority demands.
Opponents will warn that “only the majority” can slide into tyranny of the majority, where the state becomes a tool for dominance rather than a framework for coexistence. The motion forces people to confront what they think democracy is for: power, participation, protection, or pluralism.
Debate: The jury is not fit for purpose in modern Britain.
This motion puts one of Britain’s most culturally resonant institutions on trial: the idea that ordinary citizens should decide guilt or innocence. It asks whether juries—rooted in democratic participation and public legitimacy—can still deliver justice in a world of complex forensic science, digital evidence, long trials, and intense media coverage.
Proponents of the motion will argue that juries are vulnerable to misunderstanding technical evidence, unconscious bias, and emotional persuasion, and that they contribute to delays and expense.
Opponents will counter that removing juries risks concentrating power in the state, weakening transparency, and eroding public trust in verdicts. The debate turns on what “fit for purpose” means: accuracy, speed, fairness, legitimacy, or some combination—and what we are willing to trade to get it.
Debate: Traditional schooling methods are still form the best education.
This motion invites a clash between rigour and relevance. It asks whether the familiar pillars of schooling—structured curricula, classrooms, high-stakes timed exams, and written assessment—are still the most reliable way to educate young people for adult life. Supporters will frame traditional methods as the fairest, most scalable way to teach knowledge, discipline, and critical thinking, and to sort qualifications in a way employers and universities can trust.
Opponents will question whether those methods reward performance under pressure more than genuine understanding, and whether they neglect creativity, collaboration, communication, and modern forms of literacy. At heart, the debate is about what we mean by “best”: best for social mobility, best for wellbeing, best for the economy, or best for human flourishing.
Debate: Democracy imperfect
"This House believes that, although flawed, liberal democracy remains the best safeguard against tyranny."
Liberal democracy is imperfect. We test whether its flaws are fixable safeguards or signals of deeper failure. Short opening cases, rapid floor questions, then a closing vote.
Key terms set upfront: “liberal democracy” = competitive elections, rule of law, protected rights; “tyranny” = unaccountable power.
Expect arguments on voter trust, institutions, protest, and reform versus replacement. Suitable for OU undergraduates in any discipline. No prior reading required.
Debate: accessibility over heritage
“This House would always put the accessibility of buildings ahead of heritage.”
The motion puts inclusive access above protecting historic fabric. Supporters say equal access is a right and step-free routes, lifts and clear wayfinding should proceed even if listed features go, citing legal duties and broad social benefit. Opponents reject “always,” argue for proportionality and case-by-case design, and warn of irreversible loss, high cost and weaker authenticity. The live issues are necessity, viable alternatives, value for money and decision-making authority.
Debate: Art and controversial artists.
"This house would discount the reputation of art when an artist commits serious wrongdoing."
Supporters say praising the art can elevate the artist and harm victims, so schools, prizes, and public funds should drop such works; content warnings are not enough if the artist still gains, and repeated, well-supported claims should count even without a conviction.
Opponents argue we can judge art on its merits; “serious wrongdoing” is hard to define; dropping works risks erasing history and limiting choice; and a better approach is to teach with clear context and redirect any profits to good causes.
Debate: Bystander intervention
This House believes people should safely intervene when they witness harassment, hate or abuse in public.
When does stepping in change a harmful public norm—and when does it simply raise the risk of escalation for everyone involved?
Should bystanders act even if the targeted person prefers no intervention, and who gets to decide what “safe” looks like in the moment?
If citizens intervene more, does that strengthen community safety—or quietly let authorities off the hook for prevention and response?
How do race, class, gender, or uniformed status shape whether an intervention is read as “help” or “provocation”—and does that make a universal norm unfair?
Is filming (to preserve evidence) a responsible form of intervention, or does it risk voyeurism, misrepresentation, and harm to the person targeted?
Debate: Religion and its relevancy?
This House Believes that having a religion is no longer necessary in the 21st century.
Debate: Taxing extreme wealth
Debate "This House believes taxing extreme wealth is necessary to reduce inequality"
Should the UK introduce new taxes aimed at the very richest—for example an annual wealth tax above a high threshold, tighter inheritance/CGT rules, or caps on reliefs—because that’s the fairest and most effective way to narrow the gap between rich and poor?
Modern man in crisis
This House believes contemporary masculinity is in crisis
What the debate is about:
Are men and boys facing a distinct set of social and health challenges (education gaps, mental health, loneliness, violence—both as victims and perpetrators) that justify targeted public policy—or is the “crisis” frame misleading and harmful?
Low Accountability in Public life
This House believes accountability in UK public life is at its lowest in years
What the debate is about:
Have the mechanisms that keep ministers, MPs and public bodies answerable—codes, transparency, independent regulators—weakened, and do we need firmer, statutory fixes?
Remove social media anonymity
This House would remove anonymity from social media accounts
What the debate is about:
Should major platforms require real identity verification (not necessarily public display) to reduce abuse, fraud, and misinformation—even if that changes how privacy and whistleblowing work online?
Taxing Extreme wealth
This House believes taxing extreme wealth is necessary to reduce inequality
Should the UK introduce new taxes aimed at the very richest—for example an annual wealth tax above a high threshold, tighter inheritance/CGT rules, or caps on reliefs—because that’s the fairest and most effective way to narrow the gap between rich and poor?
Debate: Patriotism can be coercive
Debate motion:“This House believes that patriotism, symbolised by the flag, is a form of soft coercion.”
Patriotism is often celebrated as a unifying force, stitched into the fabric of flags and national rituals. But is it always voluntary, or does it quietly pressure us into conformity?
When the flag is raised, are we freely expressing loyalty — or subtly coerced into silence, obedience, and belonging on someone else’s terms?
In this debate, we’ll test whether patriotism, symbolised by the flag, is a healthy source of identity and pride, or whether it operates as a form of soft coercion — shaping what we dare to say, how we act, and who is considered “truly” part of the nation.
Debate: cAN expertise tackle Wicked Problems?
An ever increasing complex world demands interdisciplinary thinkers ready for messiness. Do we need radical curricular reforms, or simply smarter ways to build on core skills?
Debate motion: "This House believes education needs rethinking to tackle today’s wicked problems.”
Do degree courses funnel us into narrow specialisms? Tonight we’ll argue whether breaking free from rigid specialisations—through team-based, interdisciplinary learning—is the only way to confront these messy, real-world issues, or if deep specialist knowledge must remain the backbone of any effective response.”
dEBATE: Should We Overhaul the Civil Service?
Critics argue that Britain’s traditional, hierarchical civil service is stuck in slow motion, unfit for rapid challenges. Defenders counter that its neutrality and expertise are our best defence against political churn. Time to decide: evolution or revolution?
Debate motion: “This House believes the civil service needs root and branch rethinking.”
Advocates contend that the Westminster model, with its hierarchical grade system and siloed departments, is too slow and risk-averse to tackle complex modern challenges. Defenders of the status quo argue that civil service neutrality and continuity are vital bulwarks against political interference and that incremental improvements preserve institutional memory and stability. This debate invites us to consider whether radical transformation or careful evolution better serves democratic governance.
Debate: Does AI Strip Away Our Human Spark?
Artificial intelligence (AI) – software that mimics human thinking or creativity. Is relying on AI tools for writing, art or decisions making us less… well, human? Proponents warn that offloading our creativity to code risks turning us into bystanders; opponents say AI can turbo-charge our ideas and free us from drudgery.
The debate motion: “This House believes that using AI undermines human authenticity.”
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to algorithms and systems that perform tasks traditionally requiring human intelligence, such as language generation or image recognition. Those in favour maintain that reliance on AI for creative, emotional or decision-making tasks risks diluting genuine human expression and agency—reducing us to mere operators of opaque software. Opponents argue that AI can augment human capabilities, freeing us from repetitive work, enhancing creativity, and even opening new avenues for authentic self-expression through novel media.