Pollitix – Debates

⭐ FEATURED 🌍 INTERNATIONAL 🇬🇧 National 🎓 Expert 🏛️ MP

Motion

"This House believes the United Kingdom should apply to rejoin the European Union."

The UK officially left the EU on 31 January 2020 following the 2016 referendum in which 52% voted Leave. Since then, trade friction, reduced freedom of movement, and questions over the Northern Ireland Protocol have reignited debate. Recent polling shows growing public support for a future relationship with the EU, though full membership remains controversial.

📊 No votes yet — open the debate and cast yours

⭐ Featured Debate🇬🇧 UK Nationalby @pollitix_official

⚔️ Arguments

📊 Poll

✅ FOR Rejoining

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

UK goods trade with the EU has fallen by an estimated 15% since Brexit, while comparable non-EU countries saw growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects Brexit will reduce the UK's long-run GDP by 4% compared to staying in the Single Market. Rejoining would restore frictionless access to our largest trading partner and reverse real-terms damage to living standards already under way.

📎 Source: OBR — Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report 2024

✅ Add a FOR argument

❌ AGAINST Rejoining

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

The British public voted to leave in a lawful democratic referendum and that decision must be respected. Rejoining would require the UK to accept the euro pathway, return to EU court jurisdiction, and give up the independent trade policy we now have. The political cost of renegotiating membership terms would also be enormous — the EU would not offer the opt-outs we previously held.

❌ Add an AGAINST argument

📊 Debate Poll — Cast Your Vote

Should the UK apply to rejoin the European Union?

✅ For

0%

❌ Against

0%

🤔 Undecided

0%

Cast your vote above to see the running result

⭐ FEATURED 🎓 EDUCATION England

England 🎓 Expert

Motion

"This House believes university tuition fees should be abolished in England."

England has some of the highest university tuition fees in the world — currently up to £9,250 per year, rising to £9,535 in 2025. Students in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland pay significantly less. Graduate debt now averages over £45,000. Scotland abolished fees entirely; supporters argue the English model burdens young people with decades of debt while critics of abolition warn of the cost to the Treasury and questions of fairness between graduates and non-graduates.

📊 No votes yet — open the debate and cast yours

⭐ Featured Debate England

Englandby @pollitix_official

⚔️ Arguments

📊 Poll

✅ FOR Abolishing Fees

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

The current system is a fiscal illusion: the government writes off around 50% of graduate loans anyway, meaning the Treasury is already effectively subsidising degrees — just doing so inefficiently by routing money through a debt-creation machine first. Abolishing fees and funding universities directly through general taxation would be more transparent, eliminate the psychological debt burden on young people, and cost the state only marginally more than the current system.

📎 Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies — Higher Education Funding Analysis 2024

✅ Add a FOR argument

❌ AGAINST Abolishing Fees

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

Graduates earn on average £10,000 more per year than non-graduates over their lifetime. Asking all taxpayers — including those who didn't go to university, often in lower-paid work — to fund degrees that primarily benefit high earners is deeply regressive. The current income-contingent repayment model is actually progressive: you only repay when earning above £25,000 and low earners are protected. Abolition would be a subsidy to the already-advantaged.

❌ Add an AGAINST argument

📊 Debate Poll

Should university tuition fees be abolished in England?

✅ For

0%

❌ Against

0%

🤔 Undecided

0%

Cast your vote above to see the running result

⭐ FEATURED 🗳️ DEMOCRACY 🇬🇧 National 🎓 Expert 🏛️ MP

Motion

"This House believes the voting age in UK general elections should be lowered to 16."

Scotland and Wales already allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in devolved elections. In 2014, Scotland extended the franchise to under-18s for the independence referendum. At 16, citizens can legally work, pay taxes, join the armed forces, and consent to medical treatment — yet cannot vote on the governments that set those rules. Labour included extending the franchise in its 2024 manifesto.

📊 No votes yet — open the debate and cast yours

⭐ Featured Debate🇬🇧 UK Nationalby @pollitix_official

⚔️ Arguments

📊 Poll

✅ FOR Votes at 16

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

Research from the 2014 Scottish independence referendum — the largest experiment in 16-year-old voting in UK history — found that 16 and 17-year-olds voted at higher rates than 18–24 year-olds, and were better informed about the issues. Enfranchisement in the home, at school, alongside teachers and family builds durable civic habits. Delaying until 18, when many have left home and social networks that support engagement, is the wrong moment.

📎 Source: Electoral Reform Society — 16 & 17 Year Old Voters in Scotland 2014

✅ Add a FOR argument

❌ AGAINST Votes at 16

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

The state itself does not consider 16-year-olds fully autonomous in most domains — you cannot buy alcohol, tobacco, or a lottery ticket, serve on a jury, or take out a mortgage. The right to vote is one of the most consequential civic acts. If we are serious about cognitive and social maturity as the standard, 18 is already a compromise position. Lowering the age further would open the door to the influence of schools, parents, and social media over impressionable young people in ways that would be problematic for independent democratic choice.

❌ Add an AGAINST argument

📊 Debate Poll

Should the voting age be lowered to 16 in UK general elections?

✅ For

0%

❌ Against

0%

🤔 Undecided

0%

Cast your vote above to see the running result

⭐ FEATURED 🌱 ENVIRONMENT 🇬🇧 National 🎓 Expert

Motion

"This House believes the UK government should ban all new North Sea oil and gas licences immediately."

The UK government under Rishi Sunak awarded over 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences in 2023, including for the controversial Rosebank field. Labour pledged in 2024 to not issue new licences but faced pressure over energy security and Scottish jobs. The Climate Change Committee has warned that unchecked North Sea extraction is incompatible with the UK's legally binding net-zero 2050 target.

📊 No votes yet — open the debate and cast yours

⭐ Featured Debate🇬🇧 UK Nationalby @pollitix_official

⚔️ Arguments

📊 Poll

✅ FOR the Ban

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

The IEA's Net Zero by 2050 roadmap states unequivocally: no new oil and gas fields are needed if we are to limit warming to 1.5°C. The UK's own Climate Change Committee endorses this framing. Licensing new fields now locks in decades of extraction infrastructure and undermines the UK's moral credibility as a former COP host to lead on climate. The Rosebank field alone would produce more carbon than the combined annual CO₂ output of 28 of the world's lowest-income countries.

📎 Source: IEA — Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector

✅ Add a FOR argument

❌ AGAINST the Ban

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

The UK will still need gas and oil during the transition — demand does not disappear overnight because we stop issuing licences. If we don't produce it domestically, we import it, often from less regulated, higher-emission sources such as US LNG transported by tanker. Domestically produced North Sea gas has a lower carbon footprint per unit than imports. Banning licences destroys 100,000+ Scottish energy jobs without reducing global emissions, it simply relocates them.

❌ Add an AGAINST argument

📊 Debate Poll

Should the UK ban all new North Sea oil and gas licences?

✅ For

0%

❌ Against

0%

🤔 Undecided

0%

Cast your vote above to see the running result

⭐ FEATURED 📱 TECHNOLOGY 🇬🇧 National 🎓 Expert 🏛️ MP

Motion

"This House believes social media companies should be held legally liable for harmful content posted on their platforms."

The Online Safety Act 2023 placed new duties of care on platforms like Meta, TikTok, and X — but stopped short of direct liability for individual harmful posts. Calls for stronger accountability intensified after the 2024 UK riots, when misinformation spread rapidly on X, and following mounting evidence linking social media algorithms to self-harm in teenagers. Ofcom now regulates online safety, but campaigners argue the regime lacks teeth.

📊 No votes yet — open the debate and cast yours

⭐ Featured Debate🇬🇧 UK Nationalby @pollitix_official

⚔️ Arguments

📊 Poll

✅ FOR Legal Liability

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

A newspaper that published defamatory content would face immediate legal action. A broadcaster airing material inciting violence would lose its licence. Yet social media platforms profit from exactly this content via advertising revenue, face no equivalent consequence, and hide behind Section 230-style protections designed for passive hosts — not active algorithmic amplifiers. Legal liability would transform the incentive structure: platforms would finally have a financial reason to prioritise safety over engagement.

✅ Add a FOR argument

❌ AGAINST Legal Liability

P

@pollitix_official

📌 Debate Starter

Making platforms liable for third-party content would trigger mass censorship — platforms would over-remove anything remotely controversial to avoid liability, chilling legitimate political speech, satire, and journalism. Small platforms and new entrants would be wiped out by the compliance cost, leaving only the mega-corporations with the legal resources to survive. We should regulate the algorithm and mandate transparency, not create a liability regime that hands more power to exactly the platforms we distrust.

❌ Add an AGAINST argument

📊 Debate Poll

Should social media companies be legally liable for harmful content on their platforms?

✅ For

0%

❌ Against

0%

🤔 Undecided

0%

Cast your vote above to see the running result

Where Political Ideas
Are Tested

⚔️ Start a Debate

🏛️ Public Figure?

Where Political IdeasAre Tested

⚔️ Start a Debate

🏛️ Public Figure?

Where Political Ideas
Are Tested