In recent years, political and social movements have called for statues of various historical figures to be taken down, , leading to protests and public outcry. Statues of Confederate leaders, Christopher Columbus, and other historical figures have been defaced or removed, prompting widespread debates about which aspects of history should be celebrated in public spaces. 

Proponents of removal argue that public statues are not just historical markers but symbols promoting historically controversial values, arguing that statues of figures tied to actions seen as harmful should not occupy public spaces. They argue statues of figures such as Christopher Colombus or Robert E. Lee should be taken down. They also argue that these statues may serve as a painful reminder, or even honoring of, what some view as harmful injustices. 

Opponents of removal emphasize the importance of preserving statues as historical artifacts, even if the figures they depict are controversial. They argue that removing statues risks erasing or oversimplifying the complexities of history. For them, statues can serve as tools to spark conversations and provide educational opportunities about the past, both its achievements and its flaws. Many opponents advocate for adding context through plaques or interpretive displays to address the full story of the figure, rather than removing the statue entirely. 

So, what do you think? Should controversial historical statues be taken down? Students can answer, “Yes, they should;” “No, they should not;” or a nuanced answer in between! Be sure to submit your responses by January 30 to be considered for this week’s contest. 

Are you from Florida, South Carolina, or California, and liked this topic? If you’d like to debate this topic in-person and in a competitive setting, visit incubatedebate.org to register for a debate competition near you!