I watched hours of Jubilee debate videos so you don’t have to.
Do Jubilee debaters have rational discussions?
I love a good debate. My friends and family can attest to that. Not only do I love a spirited discussion in my personal life, I am also an avid watcher of online debates. Though they range in quality, well-structured YouTube debates are addictive. Jubilee is one such highly polished YouTube channel which enjoys using debate-style formats for their content.
Two of their most popular formats are called Middle Ground and Surrounded.
In Middle Ground, multiple people on both sides of an issue step forward to agree with a prompt. After explaining why they agree, disagreers are asked to step forward to explain their position and debate the other side.
In Surrounded, one person is encircled by multiple people on the other side of the debated issue. The main debater gives a claim, then the floor is open for anyone in the circle. They must rush to the opposite chair to debate the main star, and can be voted out by fellow participants.
I understand that debate is not most people’s cup of tea. Thus, I will give my best summary and the highlights of some of the most popular Jubilee debate videos on YouTube.
Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists
What can be said about Jordan Peterson that hasn’t already been said? The professor emeritus is an enigmatic farcical parody of himself at this point in his career. The lobster-loving, carnivore-eating Canadian is fascinating, but wacky. Embraced by conservatives who consider themselves more intellectual types, Peterson is an expert at turning word salad into a one man performance. At one point in the debate, Jordan Peterson even has the gumption to balk at the suggestion that he is Christian, despite the entire premise being that Peterson would debate 20 atheists on theology topics.
The Highlight: Parker, while debating the claim “Morality and purpose cannot be found within science”, asks Jordan Peterson whether he believes in an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Peterson, in his classic style, asks, “What do you mean by ‘believe’?”
Parker later asks Peterson if he would lie to protect Jews hiding in his attic during the Holocaust. Peterson outright rejects answering this basic ethics hypothetical. He instead says, “I would do everything I could to make sure that I’m never in that situation. By the time you’ve got there, you’ve made so many mistakes that there’s nothing you can do that isn’t a sin.” Yes, Jordan Peterson essentially argues that hiding Jews from Nazis is a sin, because lying might be involved.
Most Rational: Greg came prepared and wrote notes before his turn. He seems able to use Peterson’s framework against him well and show his logical fallacies. His argument that Peterson retreats into a “semantic fog” nailed exactly what is wrong with Peterson’s debate style. A close second is Ian, who notes that God of the old testament does not follow the Christian ethics that Peterson believes are the foundation of truth and reason, as God commands acts such as slaughter of women and children. You can tell he argued well because Peterson warns him, “Don’t be a smartass”.
Least Rational: Though Peterson tries his classic linguistic tricks, he comes across as the least rational of the entire group. He darts away from any question he dislikes by getting into arguments about definitions. When he’s backed into a corner, his go-to line is something akin to, “You really are something, aren’t you.”
Progressives vs Moderate Democrats
This debate is quite calm. Mostly the discussion focuses on analysing the 2024 election and whether Kamala was a good candidate. Everyone seems to have come to similar conclusions about the Democrats’ failings. The leftists on the panel mostly critique that the party is scared to go more left-leaning, and they argue that the optics of swinging further left are of no concern to the party as a whole. The liberals see optics as paramount, and believe the party going too far left has cost them voters.
The Highlight: On the first prompt, “The far left made us lose the election”, no one originally steps forward. The producer announces that in prep questions, some members said they agreed. The hesitant agreers finally revealed themselves. It’s the first time I’ve seen participants afraid to express their true position, especially one that seems so milquetoast, all things considered.
Most Rational: Mason, who is a regular in these videos, is the most skilled communicator of the group. He is able to make the case for a more progressive party well without smearing the current establishment. He notes that Kamala’s campaign was not great, but that she was under intense pressure and a time crunch to make her case to the American public.
Guy, who runs the channel I’m Really Important, is a close second, who is the only person to step forward to defend Biden’s term in office. He notes, “I think when people look back at the history and what happened with Biden, they will appreciate him a lot more.”
Least Rational: Though everyone comes across as pretty rational, Soraya is the least skilled of the debaters. She comes across like she’s going through an identity crisis, which makes her seem a bit more doom and gloom than the others. She is very concerned about optics. During the claim “The far left made us lose the election”, she states, “I think in general what we’re saying is it’s not that we disagree with a lot of the things that the far left believes in, it’s so much more of the way that it’s communicated and their approach.”
Pro- vs Anti-Trump Republicans
This debate was a bloodbath! This is the messiest debate of the ones I’ve watched. It’s an interesting foil to the Progressives vs Moderates debate in that, whereas the Democrats overall argued optics and policy minutiae, the Republicans start mudslinging nearly from the outset. No one seems willing to argue or listen in good faith, and multiple times the moderator has to cut off screaming matches.
The Highlight: Lady MAGA, a gay man with a Trump-themed drag persona, is probably the star of this debate. She notes that she had to “step away from the Alphabet Mafia” due to her political beliefs. My favorite read she gives is, “I won’t call you a RINO. I’ll call you a Democrat.”
Most Rational: Sam, an anti-Trumpist, is by far the most rational of the group, demonstrating a conservative wanting to “pit values against values” instead of blindly following Trump and his narratives. In such a messy debate, he never stoops to everyone else’s base level.
Least Rational: Lori, a pro-Trump participant, comes off as least rational, on the defensive from the start. She is quick to personal attacks. She is loud and screechy. She expresses doubt that E. Jean Carroll was raped by Trump despite her winning her case. Overall, she comes across as the most vicious, with endless apologia for Trump’s gravest sins.
Pro- vs Anti-Deportation
A timely debate to be had now that the Trump administration has ramped up its deportations through ICE. There is definitely some back and forth between the participants, but overall the tone is respectful. Though the pro-deportation side does speak disparagingly of immigrants who do things ‘the wrong way’, they do seem open to fixing issues with the immigration system and creating some pathways to citizenship.
The Highlight: No one agreed with the prompt “Illegal immigrants are responsible for most of the crimes”, which at least shows that everyone is living in the same reality. It’s been shown time and time again that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens, so the fact that everyone on the panel can acknowledge that gives me some hope despite the other issues presented.
Most Rational: Matthew talks a lot in the debate, which might count against him, but he is the most eloquent on the anti-mass deportation side. He makes the case that multiple bills have been proposed to help streamline immigration, but they have all been passed over because immigration is a great wedge issue to rile up the Republican base. He also presents well the moral framework that immigration brings a diversity to the country that is valuable, both economically and socially.
Least Rational: Lori, once again representing the conservative side, comes across the most meanspirited while defending her position. She at one point changes the topic when the point is brought up that deportations are being done without due process, by claiming that January 6th protesters were not given due process, which is just false.
Doctor Mike vs 20 Anti-Vaxxers
This debate seems the most challenging to watch. Doctor Mike seems at a loss on how to even debate the skeptics, as anything he tries to present as fact is discarded by his opponents who believe they have access to better information elsewhere. The whole thing devolves into conspiracy theories quite quickly, with participants cherry-picking statistics and sources that fit their worldview. There’s lots of ire directed at Dr. Fauci, Rockefeller, and Big Pharma. Doctor Mike starts off early on saying that he respects skepticism and that bodily autonomy is important, but he also stands firm that medical science has proven vaccines are effective, though not 100% risk-free. The amount of misinformation on this episode is intense, and nearly every participant has at least one claim fact-checked.
The Highlight: Doctor Mike asks Devon, “Is there anything I could say to you today that would change your mind?” The answer is “Probably not.” Really, that’s all you need to know about how this debate went.
Most Rational: Doctor Mike is of course the most rational, being a doctor who is arguing against pseudoscience. He might be the most rational, but he also seems the most defeated by the debate.
Least Rational: Though he isn’t present, RFK Jr. is the least rational, as one of Doctor Mike’s claims is “RFK Jr. is a public health threat.” Everyone that comes to defend RFK Jr. seems quite erratic. If I’m being serious, however, Devon, who goes up to debate multiple times, literally starts one of her sessions by saying “HIV does not cause AIDS”. Doctor Mike doesn’t really know what to do with that.
Men’s Rights Activists vs Feminists
This is a Middle Ground episode that actually finds a middle ground, which is rare despite the title.
The debate has all the classic MRA talking points: men in custody battles, military conscription, and high suicide rates. All valid issues, but the MRAs for the most part come at issues with a binary lens.
The Highlight: Two people — Nico and Pearl — step forward for the claim, “Andrew Tate is having a positive influence on society”. Despite the spiciness of the topic, the discussion is fascinating. The feminists on the panel note that he’s admitted to human trafficking and scamming unsuspecting men out of money. That doesn’t seem to influence Pearl and Nico’s positions, though.
Most Rational: Ariel reps the MRA side, but he comes at the prompts most rationally. He acknowledges that sexism is worse for women and that they are lacking rights. He acknowledges trans and non-binary identities, and advocates for gender abolition. He genuinely seems up for real conversation, and he’s thoughtful when he speaks.
Least Rational: Pearl, who actually has her own online following, attacks her feminist opponents with the same tired MRA arguments. She brings up child custody multiple times, which was debunked quite thoroughly by other participants. She says OnlyFans models don’t get respected because “it’s easy to take your clothes off”. She comes unequipped to have a real debate of the issues. She is purely in it for validation and shock value.
Charlie Kirk vs 25 Woke Students
Charlie Kirk, known mostly for his conservative activism with Turning Point USA, is no stranger to these types of student debates. He often goes to college campuses to speak on far-right conservative issues. In this debate, the participants come at him in a rapid-fire manner. Each person seems to speak only for a few minutes before being voted out, making for a much messier debate. I don’t know if college students are just more impatient than others, but I think unfortunately it makes Charlie Kirk seem more rational than he actually is. Overall, I think the college students did a poor job of identifying Kirk’s logical fallacies and fell into obvious rhetorical traps.
The Highlight: Parker, a TikToker by profession, notes that Charlie Kirk’s definition of a man does not encompass God the Father. But as he notes, Kirk is happy to use his “preferred pronouns” absent of biology. This was probably the most unique argument in the trans debate, and one that stumped Kirk.
A close second is in the final debate with Naima, in which Kirk points to a classic racist meme of “13-50”, which states that Black people are 13% of the population but commit 50% of crimes. Naima rightly points out that mass incarceration and overpolicing in Black communities is to blame. This argument shows Kirk’s mask slipping. He’s just a racist trying to be an intellectual.
Most Rational: Mason, who we also saw in the Progressives vs Moderate Democrats debate, once again wins most rational. He matches Kirk’s condescending attitude but makes salient points whenever he gets to the chair.
Least Rational: Unfortunately, most of the participants were unable to give coherent arguments against Kirk, who has mastered the art of creating ragebait claims. No one person wins least rational, but most emotional goes to Maren, who repeats loudly, “No, I’m speaking” at Kirk for an uncomfortable amount of time.
Muslims vs Ex-Muslims
In this debate, the participants are quite soft-spoken and respectful. The main points of contention are gender roles and homosexuality in Islam.
The Highlight: Kafir twice brings up the fact that the Quaran allows men to have sex with female slaves. He notes that it shows an imbalance between men and women. He also says he can’t rationalize how two consenting adults of the same sex cannot be together, but a man and an enslaved women is acceptable.
Most Rational: Atia, representing the Muslim side, gives thoughtful and honest responses. She notes that she struggled with her faith growing up, but has come to embrace it as a young adult. A close second is Janet, an ex-Muslim and lesbian from Iran, who politely expresses frustrating with women’s role in Islam.
Least Rational: Jad, while arguing against homosexuality, conflates the issue with incestuous relationships. No matter what the others say, including some of the Muslims, he refuses to acknowledge the fallacy. He seems knowledgeable, but also unwilling to engage with nuances.
1 Atheist (Alex O’Connor) vs 20 Christians
Alex O’Connor is a name that I was unfamiliar with before this debate. It seems that he debates theology in a lot of his YouTube work. This debate was fascinating as O’Connor’s breadth of knowledge of all things theological as an atheist is astounding. Even his claims took me by surprise, such as “Jesus never claimed to be God”, which he expertly defends with knowledge of the gospels, both synoptic and not, down to etymology of certain words.
The Highlight: Alex states the claim, “There is insufficient evidence to believe in the resurrection”. During his discussion with Than, who approached the topic with a deep theological knowledge, Alex notes that in Matthew 27 it is reported that many bodies rose from their graves. It stumps many of the debaters because they either must acknowledge Matthew’s account as untrue, or believe that such a miraculous event was not reported by any other sources.
Most Rational: Alex O’Connor is just such a skilled orator that it’s difficult for anyone to argue against him effectively. He knows the Bible well, including quoting from it. He also is able to explain his worldview without bringing emotion into the equation. He even notes with his claim “Suffering makes God’s existence unlikely” that suffering is different than the emotional language of ‘evil’. He also notes that he won’t use words like ‘innocent’ when talking about slaughtered Canaanites as the word is too emotionally charged.
Least Rational: Emily seems like a nice person (she even gives O’Connor a bracelet when she sits down), but she was not equipped to have a nuanced theological debate. She comes to the prompt “God commands genocide in the Bible” but doesn’t engage with the claim whatsoever. She just says “God is love” and “Our God is a just God”. Alex has to point out, “Well, that’s what I’m critiquing”.
Another woman, Alexi, also comes off as a bit off her rocker when her response to the historicity of the resurrection claim is to say that a corporeal version of Jesus appeared to her in her bedroom.
Thanks so much for reading!