The problem with Jubilee and other monetized debate
BY: CARRINGTON C. DAVIS
Staff Writer
Jubilee and other debate channels, in their attempts to get views, are developing a vacuum chamber of hatred that is pushing division rather than the connection and education of a fair debate. The debates themselves are largely imbalanced by either size of the opposing force, education of debaters on a topic, poorly structured time limits and the choosing of people who want to lecture rather than converse.
“You’re a fan of the Nazis?” Mehdi Hasan from the video “1 Progressive vs 20 Far Right Republicans” asked participant Connor.
“I, frankly, don’t care being called a Nazi at all,” Connor said.
Later on, Hasan said, “We may have to rename this show, because you’re a little bit more than a far-right Republican.”
“What can I say?” Connor replied.
“I think you say, ‘I’m a fascist.’”
“Yeah, I am,” said Connor.
I believe that if Jubilee continues like this, valuing views over debaters safety and education, it will allow for hate groups to have an easier time spreading their message instead of learning to change. Jubilee has people admitting on their channel to being fascists, and then allowing them to continue spreading their message for the chance of their video going viral.
When debaters’ claims are fact checked by Jubilee, while coming from the reputable source Straight Arrow News, the wording on their video’s text can be too vague or long, with no clear distinction of whether the person’s fact was correct or not from first glance alone. With these debate videos being, on average, three hours long, not having a clear color distinction between right and wrong facts can confuse the audience when debaters are countering each other at a rapid pace.
To understand this better, let’s talk about one of Jubilee’s most popular debate styles: “Surrounded.” Surrounded is when an individual with a particular viewpoint goes against a large group holding the opposite view, such as a conservative figure against 25 liberal students (Chaile Kirk vs 25 Liberal College Students). While the concept of these debates isn’t bad, the way in which Jubilee performs them can be. Having people run and fight for a seat immediately takes away equal opportunity in the debate. Someone not as educated can be leagues faster than someone who is. If that educated person somehow beats the faster one, they can still be voted out by Jubilee’s flag rule before getting the chance to thoroughly explain their points. Having stress like that makes people feel the need to be louder, more abrasive and quick to cut the main debater off– which furthers the divide between them.
If Jubilee’s motto is to “provoke understanding and create human congratulations,” this form of debate seems to be doing the exact opposite– especially when considering their other debate style, “Middle Ground.”
Middle Ground is another series on their YouTube channel that explores whether two different groups of people, opposed in their beliefs, can come together mutually and find common ground. Some of their more controversial examples are Obese vs Anorexic, Pro vs Anti Deportation, Feminist vs Anti Feminist, Unhoused vs Millionaires, etc. While usually smaller than the “Surrounded” debates, the actions of having these people debate each other can be quite harmful. In Middle Ground debates, while the goal is to find mutual understanding, this usually doesn’t happen. In fact, we see more of a lecture approach from people. This debate style also doesn’t require some of the groups to be heavily informed about the issue they’re discussing.
A comment taken from the youtube video “1 Progressive Vs 20 Far Right Republicans” summarizes this perfectly. “Jubilee this isn’t even a debate anymore. It’s just pure hatred that these people have in their hearts. Giving these people a platform is insane to me.”
