Debate or rage-bait?

The video is titled, Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart One Conservative?

The Conservative is Charlie Kirk.

The 25 students are game.

The video has 35 million views.

My next claim is that Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate.

I think that you're going to say because she's black and she's a woman, she was appointed because Joe Biden promised to be a good idea.

This video was produced by Jubilee Media, a new media company that draws millions of viewers with debates like Kirk vs.

Kids.

Many people have praised Charlie Kirk for engaging in these debates, including yesterday, Vice President J.D.

Vance, who filled in on Kirk's podcast.

Everyone knew him as this fearless debater, this guy who would take the conservative message into hostile places and inspire younger generations to have courage.

At the end, though, Veep took a dark turn.

There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder.

Coming up on Today, Explain from Box: debate or rage bait?

I need a job with a steady paycheck.

I need a job that offers health care on day one for me and my kids.

I want a job where I can get certified in technical roles, like robotics or software engineering.

In communities across the country, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over $23 an hour with opportunities to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs and apprenticeships.

Learn more at Aboutamazon.com.

Not all journalism is the same.

Take The Guardian.

Our coverage has something unique, fierce, and dependence.

Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say, so we're free to report the whole picture.

We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe, expose corruption wherever we find it, and give fresh perspective on everything-from wellness and soccer to culture, the climate, and more.

Read, watch, and listen to The Guardian for free at theguardian.com.

I'm Noel King with Spencer Kornhaber.

He's a staff writer at The Atlantic.

His beat is popular culture, and he wrote about Jubilee.

Jubilee Media is an online video content empire that has all sorts of entertaining videos that circulate on YouTube and TikTok.

They include videos about very anodyne subjects like dating.

I have a question.

In a relationship, are you baby girl or is the partner baby girl?

What the hell is a baby girl?

Like

pop culture.

How can you tell if someone is an anime super fan?

It also includes a lot of political content.

Democrats are more patriotic than Republicans.

And my understanding of Democrats being very patriotic is destroying the nuclear family, burning down flags, burning down buildings.

We see just destruction in our cities.

And generally the gist of Jubilees' approach is that they get regular people, or people who at least seem regular, into a room, a bunch of strangers, and have them talk about sort of difficult subjects, whether that's politics in the Middle East or what you find attractive.

You know, kind of third rail topics become spectator sport entertainment in a Jubilee video.

Tell me about the founder and what he's trying to do.

You spoke to him, right?

Yeah, Jason Wiley is his name.

And he is someone who hails from the world of business and tech.

He was a consultant in his early 20s, making a lot of good money.

But he felt like he wanted to do something that would enrich the world.

We want to create content that will make the world a better place.

And use technology and online content to bring people together and spread a positive vision of society.

I think, in the midst of what we feel like is some of the most divisive times, that actually human connection and really understanding folks and having dialogue and empathy is quite a good thing.

Before he worked in consulting and business, he was an intern on the Barack Obama campaign.

He worked with the Clinton Health Initiative.

He was sort of like a young, idealistic millennial.

He also comes from a Christian background in Kansas.

I grew up as the younger child of two Korean immigrants.

And both of my parents are not only Korean, but they're also professors.

That kind of background led into him founding Jubilee.

And he initially started it as a nonprofit where he would make kind of socially conscious videos, sort of like PSAs or short films with a message.

you know, in hopes of using content to make the world better.

In case you haven't heard about the Jubilee Project, the mission is to make videos of people stepping out of the comfort zone for a day or doing something they love for a good cause.

Around 2016-2017, after Donald Trump's election, he felt like there was an opportunity for him to do something that was a for-profit business that would kind of dial up the entertainment value, but also make a very explicit effort to not just spread a positive message, but get people to move out of their ideological echo chambers and talk to one another from the right and the left.

And so that became the Jubilee we see today.

There is a show on Jubilee's YouTube channel.

It's called Surrounded, and it speaks to this idea that you should get out of your bubble and talk to people who disagree with you.

It also has generated a lot of controversy.

Tell me about surrounded and how it works.

Yeah, surrounded is absolutely wild to me.

Black culture is toxic.

Let's go.

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.

You are literally emotional liberalism.

I am not putting off emotional liberalism.

You're putting off unfounded lies based on conservative information.

Conservative man.

Man,

when I first came across it,

it was during the

last year's election cycle.

And the first studio I came across was titled, Can One Woke Teen Survive 20 MAGA Supporters?

He did not say that he was black.

He's not a U.S.-born citizen.

Let's talk about the birth amendment.

There was legitimacy questioning his birth certificate.

Sheriff Jarar Pyle, who I'm friends with, looked into into the claims of that birth certificate, and there was questions of whether it was falsified.

And just the title alone, you're like,

how could this even exist?

It just sounds like something you'd see almost like in a satire of a very aggressive

and dystopian political culture, honestly.

But then I watched the videos and they really are both sort of cringy and

tense.

Listen,

the idea that women have to sleep with men to get into position.

One moment.

She's saying that.

Why don't have I finished talking real quick?

We have to open our legs to get jobs.

That's exactly how she used it.

But also fascinating and fun, and just these lively documents of human behavior, human communication styles, ways that people try to convince one another that they're right.

How do you define communism?

Yeah, basically, it's mob rule.

It's Marxism.

It's mob rule.

It's false.

Literally all wrong.

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Okay.

The format has one person on one side, typically some sort of expert, debating 20 or 25 people on the other side of the aisle.

And those people are not necessarily experts.

Those feel like kind of normal people picked off the street, though in many cases they really were cast for having some sort of connection to the subject matter.

And over the course of the debate, that one person goes head-to-head with one person from the outside of the circle, and they debate some provocation that the person on the inside of the circle has stated.

My next claim is: conservatives don't actually care about family values.

So it's a very kind of like aggressive, lively, action-packed scenario for a debate.

One of the videos that caught my attention early on was the one with the, you know, now late Charlie Kirk debating a group of young liberals.

All right, Parker, what is a woman?

A woman is an adult human person that has a desire to be in accordance with the particular set of social and cultural norms that are typically associated with female sex.

Now, define a man.

You're looking at one.

XY chromosomes and age.

Okay, but does God the Father have XY chromosomes?

You know, he really went toe-to-toe with these college kids on all sorts of really hot topics.

What is it about, let's say, a six-week baby that has a heartbeat that is less moral worth than an 88-year-old right now with dementia in a home down the street?

Do you think men can give birth?

I think that...

Yes or no question.

I think that a person who is assigned male at birth, I don't think they're both.

Assigned male at birth, so people are not male at birth?

I think that a person...

See, your evidence that college is a scam, my friend.

You know, no one in that room really agreed with Charlie Kirk, But as you watch the video progress, there was this sort of kind of odd sense of humor and kinship that developed between the college students and their like ideological rival.

You know, they were kind of taunting each other, but it seemed like they were all sort of like in on the joke, and the joke being that this is a ridiculous way for anyone to talk to each other.

How popular is Surrounded exactly?

And what kind of influence does it have?

Is it just people watching or does it mean anything?

Well, it's a good question of what its impact is.

As to its popularity, it's true that some of these videos are in the millions of videos.

So we're talking, this is one of the most influential sources of political content on the internet, period.

The question of what these videos actually do to society and to their viewers, what kind of messages they spread, is one that's certainly open for debate.

Ideally, it creates a more robust democratic dialogue.

The question for me is whether that is really happening, which is very hard to figure out,

or if it's just creating this sort of spectator sport sense of political discourse that really actually might end up driving people to more extreme corners and also in a way trivializing our political debate by making it into this piece of entertainment.

Since Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah, I think a lot of people have been debating the debate, right?

Charlie Kirk at his best.

People who loved him will say he went to a campus, he would sit down with people who didn't agree with him and he would go for it and he would let them go for it and he would hear them out and he would interrupt.

And that's what democracy is supposed to be about.

And so even people that really don't like his politics have said,

this is what it should be all about.

And yet, you know, I hear you saying, millions of people watch this.

Does it really move us forward at all?

Since Charlie Kirk was killed, I wonder if your thinking has evolved in the past couple of days on this at all, about the value of this.

I would say, yeah, I'm actively kind of questioning some of the things I thought.

I never made up my mind exactly about whether this truly was a good thing or a bad thing.

Yeah, you're a reporter.

You know, reporter critic, some lot of some opinions, but it's more me trying to analyze what's actually going on here.

And I, you know, I think

unsatisfying as it is to say, it's a mixed bag.

But one thing that I feel more since Charlie Kirk's death is the extent to which our online media ecosystem is turning politics into this game of almost like characters or avatars or sort of like warriors and champions for their respective sides.

And people who are watching at home are getting invested in those sides and having a rooting interest almost like you would for a sports team or a pop star.

Not to say that politics is ever this pure realm of substantive exchange of ideas, but in a way, this something like Jubilee, which is trying to get us back to the notion of politics as a debate, as a free-flowing form of ideological exchange, may actually just be feeding the superficial and sort of dehumanizing aspects of being engaged with politics or viewing politics.

That was the Atlantic's Spencer Cornhaber.

Coming up, a professional debater speaks.

Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab.

At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs.

That's why, when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices.

You can invest and trade on your own.

Plus, get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs.

With award-winning service, low costs, and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab.

Visit schwab.com to learn more.

Support for today's show comes from Vanta.

If your mind can be blown by compliance automation, let Vanta blow your mind, says Vanta.

Vanta is a trust management platform that says they help businesses automate security and compliance.

Demonstrating trust to customers and prospects is critical to closing deals.

I wouldn't know.

That's according to Vanta.

but it can also be costly and complicated.

Vanta says they help companies of all sizes, large, small, medium, get compliant fast and stay that way with industry-leading AI automation and that continuous monitoring you do know so well.

So, whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2 or ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta says their trust management platform makes it quicker, easier, and more scalable.

Vanta also says they help you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, which could help you win those bigger deals sooner.

You can visit vanta.com slash explain to sign up for a free demo today that's vanta.com slash explained

support for today explained comes from upwork if you run a business you know that scaling your business requires the right expertise at the right time i sometimes wonder how many of you are running businesses out there i would love to know please email me noel at king.com with upwork you can find specialized freelancers in IT, web development, AI, design, admin support, marketing, and more.

Experts who they say are ready to help you take your business to the next level.

With more than two decades of experience, Upwork has a simple and ambitious goal to pioneer a better way of working.

Companies at every stage turn to Upwork to get things done and find more flexibility in the way they staff key projects and initiatives by accessing a global market.

place full of top talent.

Plus, Upwork makes posting your job easy with no cost to join.

You can register, browse freelancer profiles get help drafting a job post or even book a consultation you can visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free that is upwork.com to post your job for free and connect with top talents ready to help your business grow that's upwork.com upwork.com

You're listening to Today Explained.

Where did you learn to debate?

Where did I learn to debate?

I think around the dinner table.

My family is very disputatious.

The Hassans are known for having strong views.

So there was a lot of debate around the kitchen table, the dining table, political, social, cultural, religious.

All of it, huh?

Yeah.

Still to this day.

Who's that?

That's Mehdi Hassan.

He's the author of Win Every Argument.

He's a progressive.

He's founder of the new media company Zetteo.

And his debate with 20 far-right conservatives went viral over the summer.

We planned to do a show on the Jubilee debates and the argument about whether they are of value or not.

And we called you because you appeared in one of these debates that went very viral.

And then Charlie Kirk was assassinated in Utah and many people said Charlie Kirk was doing it right.

He was showing up.

He was debating people he disagreed with.

That's the right way to do politics.

Do you agree with that?

No, I don't believe that Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way.

To quote former Vox boss, now New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, a good friend of mine.

I totally disagree with Ezra on that piece he wrote.

I don't think Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way.

I do have to add the standard caveat because Fox keep clipping some of us on the left out of context.

Obviously, he shouldn't have been killed.

Obviously, we all condemn his murder.

Obviously, a political assassination in response to speech you don't like is unacceptable in America and very scary.

But if you're asking me about the content of what Charlie Kirk did when he was alive, it was awful.

It was horrific.

It was reactionary.

It was bigoted.

From his show to his quote-unquote debates, this idea that he was some kind of Socratic debater trying to get to the truth.

No, he wasn't.

He was doing a prove-me-wrong tour over the years where him and Ben Shapiro and others go to college campuses, find some guy with you know blue hair who says something provocative and then dunk all over him and then clip it up and go viral and then have a YouTube video saying Charlie Kirk slash Ben Shapiro destroys college student.

All right.

What about Jubilee?

So Jubilee is a little bit different.

Jubilee claims to be non-partisan.

They say that they are trying to get people from all sides to get in a room together.

I mean on paper what they're aspiring to is

at minimum neutral if not good.

What turns up on YouTube is not necessarily always the case.

I think they have gone quite far in their audience selection, certainly on my show.

I think it's now universally recognized.

I think even Jubilee would recognize, even though they haven't put out an official statement, but I would hope they would recognize that their vetting did not work.

If they did indeed deploy vetting, it was an audience, you know, I thought we'd have one or two crazy people in.

It was one or two normal people and 17, 18 crazy people.

When I say crazy, I mean outright self-proclaimed fascists, racists, and the rest.

I am Native American.

Whites are Native Americans.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Well, I'd like to start to say I really don't find the Constitution that important.

I find it to be like a 300-year-old document.

You have to have at least some things in common in order to actually have a civilization.

And the immigrants, especially illegal immigrants that come into this country now,

disrespect us.

They hate everything that we believe.

They don't even speak our language.

Tell me why you decided to go on surrounded.

There were multiple reasons.

One is, as I say, I like a good argument.

And 20 to 1, there's a good odds.

I'll take those odds.

So, you know, the idea of going into the lion's den and debating a bunch of people who disagree with me, I thought would be fun.

That's number one.

Number two, I spoke to my good friend Sam Seda from the Majority Report who had done a Jubilee.

And he told me that it's worth doing.

It's not a setup.

It is actually have value.

You will reach a whole new audience.

And, you know, people like my daughter and my nieces and others were saying, oh, yeah, Jubilee.

We know Jubilee.

All the kids watch Jubilee.

And it's amazing since I did Jubilee, how many younger people are now coming up to me in the street versus older people because they recognize me from that circle debate show?

So it was a chance to reach a new audience.

That was number two.

And number three, you know, it looked like a lot of right-wingers have been dominating that space.

You know, prior to me going on Jubilee, all the top-rated people who had done Jubilee on YouTube with the most views were Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Candace Owens,

Michael Knowles.

That was, you know, the lean of YouTube and Jubilee.

And I thought, well, actually, maybe people like me and Sam Seda can, you know, know, try and give a different point of view.

And what happened?

What happened was the craziest two hours of my professional life as a journalist.

I was not expecting, and maybe I should have been, but I was not expecting the kind of people I sat across.

I'd watched a lot of Jubilees.

I knew there's some nut jobs.

I knew there's some extremists.

I'd watched Sam Cedar's show.

I knew there were a couple of people who came and said white supremacist things and far-right things and dumb things.

But I didn't expect one after another people to be telling me to my face that I should get.

Get the hell out.

I don't even like...

I should get the hell out.

Yes.

Why?

I don't want you here.

Do you care more about helping Americans or immigrants in this claim?

Immigrants are Americans.

I'm an immigrant.

I'm an American.

Well, immigrants are not Americans.

Americans are the people that were born here.

That's not true.

That I'm a proud fascist, as one person told me.

Very early on in the debate.

Hey, what can I say?

I think you can say I'm a fascist.

Yeah, I am.

What?

Normally people want to deny the effort.

We spent the last week with Republicans up in arms that anyone would call them fascists.

And that's what led to the death of Charlie Coe.

And yet here I was sitting in a warehouse in L.A.

with a bunch of young, mainly white people saying proudly, yes, we are fascists.

We are racists.

How do we debate fascists?

Like, should a person debate fascists?

No, I'm not.

And that's why I said at the time, if you watched that clip, about halfway through the conversation, I said, what are we doing here?

I don't debate fascists.

And all of the right-wingers watching in the circle, they got very upset because Jubilee then moved this guy out.

And

so many of them spent the next two hours, every time they came up to the chair to debate me, they would say, oh, you're banning people you don't agree with.

First and foremost, I don't believe you're pro-American in the value system that you claim to uphold, especially with free speech, if you're not willing to debate people that don't share your values.

So isn't the whole entire point of the debate to debate people that you don't agree with?

And I was like, that's not what it is.

I don't debate fascists because fascists don't believe in democracy.

They don't believe in debate.

They don't believe in my equal worth as a human human being.

So why would I debate such people?

There is no debate to be had with people.

Fascism at its core is an anti-democratic, authoritarian, and yes, very violent ideology.

So no, I don't believe there is value to debating fascists.

And if I'd known that people would be sitting down, you know, you know, dismissing the Holocaust and of Jews or saying I'm a fascist or saying, you know, the country was built for white people or whatever it is, I would not have gone on that show.

Clearly, or I would have said, get other people.

Look, I come from a proud anti-fascist tradition on the left where you don't platform fascists, you don't indulge them, you don't meet them halfway.

You defeat fascism by defeating the ideology, by offering something better and by being truthful.

You know, a person who appreciated your appearance on Surrounded might say, look,

these fasciotypes are out there.

They're influencing young people in a real way.

At least you showed up and gave them a run for their money.

No, that is the silver lining, I guess you could argue.

I guess, and this is going to make me sound very egomaniacal and immodest, so I apologize in advance.

So I guess people could say, if you're going to debate fascists, might as well be someone who's good at debating.

And that's what I'm known for doing.

So it better me than someone else who goes on and gets their ass handed to them.

So in that sense, I get it.

But the counter argument I get as well, a lot of my critics were saying to me, just by going on, you legitimized them.

Just by going on, you amplified them.

Just by going on, you gave them credibility and respectability.

They were able to clip up their clips and put it online and say, look, look, look, we own this mainstream journalist.

We told him to get the F out of our country.

Do you think you changed anyone's mind by appearing on Surrounded?

Certainly not in that room.

No.

And that wasn't the goal.

What is the goal in debating, if not to change minds?

So my goal is not to change my opponent's mind.

Very rarely can you change your opponent's mind.

My goal is to change the people watching at home, whether they are watching on an audience live in an auditorium when you're debating on stage, as I have done, or whether you're debating on YouTube and you know that 10 or 11 or whatever 12 million people now have watched that Surrounded show.

You're hoping that in that 12 million or 11 million people, there are even a handful of people who are, you know, these days it's very hard to find truly open-minded, truly independent people.

Most people are partisans, whether they want to admit so or not.

But you hope that you found some independent folks to go, hmm, that's a good point that I hadn't heard before.

That's a good statistic that I wasn't aware of.

That's a good way of framing the issue that I haven't heard from my elected leaders.

And look, people have reached out to me over the years, maybe not on the surrounded show, but for example, something else I've spent the last year and a half doing non-stop debates on, both in New York, on stage, in Toronto, at the Monk debates, on Piers Morgan's show, is Gaza, right?

I've done a lot of debating about Gaza, another very polarizing issue.

And people have reached out to me and

I have had messages from people saying, I have switched my positions on this issue after listening to you.

I didn't think about it in the way that you possess.

And you have helped me change my positions on this genocide.

Would you ever go back on a Jubilee show?

Would you ever do this again?

Hard to say.

Not anytime soon, but I think, look,

my advice to people, and people have been calling me, other members of the media who have been invited by Jubilee have, of course, called me now to say, hey, do you think I should do it?

And my advice, I'm not going to tell you whether to do it or not do it, each to their own.

What I would say is, if I did go back, I would take more precautions as to who I'm going up against.

I failed at my own test.

I wrote a book called Win Every Argument.

And the first chapter is, know your audience, right?

Know who you're going to be in front of, know who you're going to be speaking to.

And I thought about the YouTube audience, and I didn't put as much thought into who are these 20 people?

How are they being selected?

How are they being vetted?

What will they be saying?

I turned up, Noel, with all this like information about, you know, for each of my claims, I made five, four claims.

And each claim, I had like, you know, I do my prep.

I come with my receipts.

I had my, you know, 14th Amendment.

I had my, you know, all this stuff, stats.

And then I realized it doesn't matter with these people.

They're not interested in engaging in the substance of what we're talking about.

I'm sitting here going, Donald Trump doesn't respect the Constitution.

Their response is, who cares about the Constitution?

We need a fascist dictator.

Like that is, you know, where do you go with that?

Mehdi Hassan, he's the founder of Zateo Hadi Muagdi and Devin Schwartz produced today's episode.

Amina El-Sadi edited.

Patrick Boyden, Adrian Lilly are our engineers and Laura Bullard is our senior researcher.

I'm Noelle King.

It's Today Explained.

Join Vanguard for a moment of meditation.

Take a deep breath.

Picture yourself reaching your financial goals.

Feel that freedom.

Visit vanguard.com/slash investinginyou to learn more.

All investing is subject to risk.