From Jubilee to Charlie Kirk, debate videos are leaving us scratching our heads

It seems like the country has been in a long shouting match since 2016. Go on YouTube or scroll through X and that emotion will surface. Videos abound on social media in which someone claims to have “silenced” or “destroyed” another party in a political debate. There are now almost inevitable clips of conservative figures like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro arguing with liberal college students and left-wing commentators on social platforms. Meanwhile, videos of random people with diametrically opposed political views sitting in dark rooms discussing hot-button issues, often highly offensive or misinformed, are on the rise. are.

In late September, a YouTube video titled “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 25 Trump Supporters” went viral, drawing attention for its absurd battle royale-like setting. It recorded 9.6 million views in two weeks. The video depicts 19-year-old liberal TikTok critic Dean Withers (a.k.a. “Woke Teen”) being thrown into a den of young, eager Trumpers bent on proving him wrong. It is. One by one, he debates reproductive rights and the legitimacy of Kamala Harris with his opponents across the table. One clip in which he appears to trip up a woman during a discussion about abortion and IUDs has garnered millions of views on X.

This is just one of the controversial and deeply troubling scenarios media company Jubilee explored in its popular YouTube series “Surrounded.” The series’ setting appears to be a satire of what debates have become in the Trump era. Very competitive, theatrical, and unbalanced (both literally and emotionally) to boot. What in theory should be an exchange of facts and logic has become the ultimate blood sport for certain “thought leaders” who are often willing to trade opinions and distorted truths. There is. These verbal fighters are more interested in online-only “victories” than engaging in meaningful discourse.

It’s been proven that there is a desire to see people shouting at each other across the political spectrum. Such broadcast conflicts have been the bread and butter of cable news networks such as CNN and Fox News. Still, these recorded debates primarily promote the pessimistic idea that the United States is too polarized to be saved. They are often the front line for all the misinformation, conspiracy theories, and regressive attitudes that pollute the political landscape and impact people’s daily lives. So why can’t we stop watching them?

While this criticism has certainly been amplified in the Trump era, the observation that public debates have become circuses is not entirely new. You can go back decades. In the 2000s, Jon Stewart despised Crossfire (a lot). In the ’90s, “Saturday Night Live” parodied the unproductive and raucous nature of political panel shows “The McLaughlin Group” and later “The View.” However, in the digital age, this type of content has been mass produced and further degraded. No longer do we have to watch shows like CNN or Real Time With Bill Maher to watch opposing parties argue with each other and manipulate facts. Instead, go to the New York Post’s website and watch two random people shout about the legitimacy of the Black Lives Matter movement in a series called “Face Your Hater,” or watch Strangers on Vice’s YouTube Watch groups discuss traditional and modern masculinity. channel.

Ryan Broderick, a freelance journalist who writes the Garbage Day newsletter, started noticing an intensification of these viral conflicts since the Obama era. The Obama years saw a growing cultural backlash against progressive policies and rhetoric (i.e. the Tea Party movement), ultimately culminating in Trump’s presidency. election. It was a time when liberals and moderates were encouraging each other to “cross the aisle” and discuss politics with their Trump-supporting relatives during the holidays. He describes these filmed social experiments as “an impulse from very naive digital media companies.”

“This whole style of content became so popular because there was an impulse from the Obama era that if we just talked to each other, we could avoid all the unpleasantness of the last 10 years,” Broderick said.

Some of these videos are at least designed as a slightly more benevolent attempt to see if two supposedly conflicting identities can find common ground, or at least engage in civil conversation. There are also some things. The YouTube channel Only Human has a series called “Eating With the Enemy.” In this series, two people from different backgrounds, such as a drag queen and a Catholic priest, share a meal and discuss political issues such as same-sex marriage.

Others are a little more dramatic and heated, like watching daytime panel shows or scenes from Real Housewives, such as Vice’s popular “Debate” series on YouTube. Even if a moderator guides the discussion, it is not designed to find a compromise or to convince one side of the other’s argument. Instead, it feels like a fruitless investigation aimed at conveying the country’s deeply divided ethos. For example, one discussion between a group of “anti-feminists and pro-feminists” discussing transgender issues with many women ends with some of the participants talking about their experiences on camera. Ultimately, they remain affirmed in their established beliefs rather than being moved by other arguments.

Jubilee’s “Surrounded” series feels more like a MrBeast-inspired game show in its pure stunts. Even the way the channels highlight the number of people discussing each other resembles his over-the-top model. Prompts like “Trans women are women” and “Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate” that appear in the top corner of the video are neither harsh nor challenging. These feel primed to become “rage-bait” clips meant to titillate or anger viewers for millions of clicks.

Still, this content is kind of genius in that it attracts and satisfies different audiences because there’s usually someone you can agree with and believe has made a better argument. For example, if you watch the Jubilee video where Charlie Kirk is being taught more educated debates by college students, and you’re still a fan, you might believe he won the debate. Broderick said that despite the combative nature of the videos, Jubilee inadvertently creates this kind of “feel-good centrist” content designed for everyone.

“I don’t understand how you can watch this and think Charlie Kirk is great,” Broderick says. “But from what I’ve seen of right-wingers looking at this piece, they’re like, ‘Oh, he makes more sense.’

Conservative commentators in particular are pushing online debate culture to competitive and self-serving extremes. The phrase “argue me, bro” is primarily associated with a community of militant right-wing commentators online like Dinesh D’Souza and Steven Crowder (aka the “change my mind” meme guy). I am. You can verbally spar with liberal politicians, women, or virtually anyone who disagrees with them on the internet.

For celebrities like Kirk, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson, these videos have become a promotional tool to prove their authority in the marketplace of ideas, or more precisely, on the battlefield. Many of them host debates or upload head-to-head matches to media platforms, so they can edit and promote themselves as outsmarting their opponents. For example, Turning Point USA’s YouTube channel features a video of Kirk on a speaking tour, allegedly “destroying” “arrogant” and “naive” students on a liberal college campus. There is. These videos aren’t really about creating interesting dialogue, but rather about humiliating your opponent and highlighting their stupidity.

Leftists like YouTuber Destiny and livestreamer Hasan Piker are also gaining visibility and clicks for their enthusiasm for debate with conservatives. Journalist Max Read, author of the newsletter Read Max, says the line between “self-promotion and movement-building” can be very thin when it comes to these habitual debaters. Masu.

“I understand the idea that you’re not just raising your profile; you’re trying to raise your politics’ profile and get more people involved,” Reid said. “However, I tend to be more tolerant of YouTubers who create explanatory response videos than participate in debates.”

Dean Withers, who has participated in several Jubilee videos, hosts livestreams on TikTok and discusses political topics with users. He also posts solo responses to right-wing talking points. He says he understands that people’s criticisms of the content of his arguments are clicky and counterproductive. But he says he uses these interactions as an opportunity to educate his audience.

“The main prerogative of my platform is to tell people watching the debate what’s at stake, why it’s important and why they should agree with me,” he said. say. “I know that getting my opponent to agree with me is likely never to happen.”

For someone like Withers, who was in middle school when President Trump was elected and whose political consciousness developed in the age of social media, debating with strangers online seems like an obvious approach to activism. You might see it. However, research has found that this phenomenon may be creating a more harmful picture of how humans participate in political discussions.

A March study found that political debates on social media often give the impression of being more combative and divisive than they actually are. Specifically, Americans are more likely to discuss political topics online with people they know and trust, such as family and friends, than with strangers, and they view these interactions with positive emotions. Research has shown that there are many things left behind.

Study co-author Erika Bailey, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said such heated, Jubilee-like debates “rarely occur in real life.”

“These discussions may seem ubiquitous because we are constantly being fed them through screens, but my research shows that the typical American doesn’t care about the issues that matter. We rarely discuss it,” she says. “Of the most common topics, such as vaccines, reproductive rights, and police enforcement, only about half of Americans have discussed these topics in the last year.”

In rare cases, you may have to defend a political position, but it can still be quite a difficult task and cause feelings of anxiety. This seems to be one of the reasons we can’t stop watching these videos. Overall, such interactions seem uncomfortable, but it can be comforting to see an expert, or someone who claims to be an expert, confidently express an opinion. .

“Participating in discussions often reveals that our knowledge and understanding are incomplete,” says Bailey. “Watching debate videos is cathartic because you can cosplay as a good debater who can easily defend your position. Also, these clips highlight the most persuasive aspects of the exchange. It also helps that it’s edited to make sure it shows the moment.”

Humans also tend to engage more with content that evokes a strong emotional response. This is one of the reasons why even the most obvious “anger bait” on social media is hard to avoid, whether you’re a regular clicker or not. This kind of behavior, and the algorithms that encourage this type of controversial content, creates an inescapable and destructive cycle of content.

There’s a lot of content out there like Jubilee, but the stagnation and overproduced structure of these videos is rooted in a comforting truth. This level of conflict over political discourse may be unpleasant, but the good news is that it is not natural.

“This may be surprising given the polarization situation,” Bailey said. “But humans typically tend toward social cohesion. At the end of the day, we don’t really want to fight. We want to belong.”