Since 2017, conservative political commentators Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro have riled up a viral debate culture of sensationalized party politics. They step onto college campuses and into online discourse platforms with a goal to embarrass and shut down left-leaning college students.
It’s hard to miss the headlines: “Charlie Kirk DESTROYS Pro-Abortion Arguments in EPIC Debate,” “Woke Students Try (and Fail) to Take Down Ben Shapiro” and “Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?” These overstated clips have been attracting millions of views over the past few years, largely to entertain their primary audiences, push right-wing agendas and provoke unprepared students — cementing America’s political polarization. As such, college students are increasingly becoming political pawns for a number of conservative commentators who exploit campus debates to make viral content.
Though claiming to educate others and promote rational discourse, their debate styles often control the narrative and belittle their opponents on college campuses and platforms like Jubilee.
Instead of debating experienced left-wing political commentators, these right-wing talking heads intentionally target college students who are often inexperienced in debate, studying subjects other than political science and uninformed in the particular policy area they are being grilled about.
Right from the start of these scenarios, the odds are tilted in favor of the commentator. The conservative debater — with years of media training and rhetorical experience — sits with his “prove me wrong” sign and a slight, smug grin, facing off against a nervous college student, often mid-question, with no preparation, no moderator and no equal footing.
Both parties enter the exchange focused solely on defending their points, with no real intention of reconsidering their views. After a few back-and-forth exchanges, it becomes clear that neither side is moving toward mutual understanding. Soon enough, the debate shifts to personal attacks or one side ends up surrendering. In the end, both parties walk away having gained nothing — except a deeper resentment for each other, more solidification in their own views and a failure to advance any meaningful cause.
It’s a zero-sum game that teaches young audiences and even college students that it’s more important to clap back than listen to others and that politics is about humiliation rather than collaboration. Instead, they should be understanding of their opposition’s points and debate them with respect — not attempt to demean them in front of large audiences.
Had these conservative commentators debated Pete Buttigieg, an experienced democratic debater, there would’ve been a different dynamic and a fair fight.
Buttigieg, a well-reasoned, articulate democratic debater, has a more thoughtful approach to debating. This type of debate doesn’t provide the instant political entertainment and viral moments that the internet is so accustomed to. He is focused on delivering nuanced, civil dialogue — something many right-wing political commentators do not prioritize.
By simple comparison, Kirk’s Jubilee appearance amassed 27 million views and Shapiro’s received 15 million, while Buttigieg’s gained a mere 3 million at this time. This isn’t by mere coincidence. The two groups have different agendas and different ways of delivering them. On one hand, Kirk and Shapiro aim to provoke and dominate their debates, while Buttigieg tends to focus on policy nuance and measured discussion, which doesn’t get the same sensationalized fame as the others.
Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, has spent years on his “You’re Being Brainwashed” tours, traveling from college to college across the country — and continues to do so. The incentive? To amass millions of views from right-wing audiences and portray the left as uneducated, highlighting only the most rage-baited and poorly executed debates to get a reaction from viewers. They hope to elicit a heated response from their debate subjects, get them to mess up their argument and make a fool out of them — which isn’t fair or civil.
In debating these students, Kirk and Shapiro, along with political commentators like Candace Owens, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson and many others, are not educating or changing any opposition’s views with their approach of resorting to fallacies. To name a few, they will often downplay others’ points, misrepresent arguments and either insult their opponent directly or talk down to them as if they are less informed. This behavior is disrespectful and leads to more division between parties. Regardless of political affiliation, this behavior is unacceptable. It shouldn’t just be about supporting one party over the other.
How did the focus shift from serving the best interests of the United States to merely advancing our party agendas?
Having these so-called debates only leads to more division and undermines the fundamental principles of democracy: open dialogue, mutual respect and informed participation amongst all.
In the end, these conservative political commentators are doing nothing to advance citizens’ political knowledge. Sensationalized campus debates are using unassuming students as political pawns to further right-wing agendas and surface-level critical thinking skills. They entrench partisan politics — aiming to win debates, amass as many views as possible and embarrass students online by any means necessary.
To end this political polarization, people need to stop consuming showy TikTok debates by Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk. It’s a trap.
Julia Kremenetsky is an Opinion Intern for the spring 2025 quarter. She can be reached at jkremene@uci.edu.
Edited by Isabella Ehring and Gabrielle Neve Landavora