House Motions
We attempt to engage in thought-provoking discussions that challenge conventional wisdom and explore diverse perspectives. Our debates seek to foster intellectual growth, refine our rhetorical skills, and achieve deeper understanding of complex issues. We adopt an Oxford Union-style format, paired with dinners, and under the Chatham House Rule to secure our individual confidentiality, still allowing us to share collective conclusions.
The Oxford Union debate format is a structured approach to argumentation where motions are presented as "This House believes that..." statements. Participants are divided into two sides—those who support the motion (the Proposition) and those who oppose it (the Opposition). Each side presents opening arguments, followed by rebuttals and closing statements. This format encourages rigorous analysis, persuasive rhetoric, and the ability to defend one's position while respectfully challenging opposing views. It emphasizes civility, intellectual rigor, and the art of persuasion.
To date, we have explored over 30 fascinating topics, from emotional intelligence and the morality of AI to cultural identity and the depletion of the human gene pool. Some of our most remarkable speakers have included top-level CEOs, ambassadors, and notably, Omar Hatamleh. Each edition stretches my mind to its limits, and the learning experience is among the most fulfilling things I've ever undertaken.
Special Motions
Recently, Lord Nick Markham CBE and I hosted a Francis Bacon Debate Society dinner at the House of Lords.
The motion before the House was:
"This House believes AI should be regulated to preserve human agency."
We welcomed speakers and guests from eight countries, with the furthest travelling from Los Angeles, for a discussion on one of the defining questions of our time.
I felt the evening achieved what matters most to us: forcing ourselves to re-examine our assumptions and test new ideas through serious, spirited debate.
The vote was narrow: the opposition carried the House by a single ballot, with one abstention.
The proposition argued that human agency is the substrate on which our legal and social systems rest; and that opaque models, invisible choice architecture, and dependency effects may erode it in ways our current frameworks do not yet properly name.
The opposition countered that the greater danger lies in regulating the tool rather than its misuse; that compliant actors slow while adversarial ones accelerate; and that the frontier is precisely where alignment, capability, and strategic advantage will be shaped.
Neither side truly conceded the other's premise. That, I suspect, is the honest state of the field.
My own impression is that the sharper question is no longer whether AI should be regulated in the abstract, but where in the stack regulation belongs. Deployment, liability, and life-or-liberty decisions seem tractable already. Model-level prohibition, by contrast, often feels like a proxy for a geopolitical argument we have not yet decided to have in the open.
My thanks to Lord Markham for his hospitality and support; to George Zachary for moderating with intelligence and elegance; and to our speakers and guests for making the evening what it was.
Fittingly, the debate fell on Francis Bacon's birthday. Four centuries on, his questions about knowledge, power, method, and human responsibility have lost none of their edge.
More to come in London in May, with guest speakers Anil Seth and Gary Marcus.
AI is no longer merely a technical subject. It is becoming a constitutional, civilisational, and human one.