As debate style content grows in popularity, companies have become more desperate to garner clicks and views. Rather than offering new perspectives on issues affecting humanity, social media has turned debates into digital battlefields split by partisan lines.

One channel which has weaponized debate in an extreme fashion is Jubilee, a YouTube channel that quickly blew up for its discourse surrounding controversial social and political topics. Videos such as “1 Conservative vs 25 Liberal College Students” and “Can Israelis and Palestinians See Eye to Eye?” have gained up to 15 million views in just the past year.

While the intent of Jubilee, encouraging opposing groups to come to a middle ground, sounds promising, it’s clear that the company prioritizes virality over coming to a compromise in any sense. The same channel that’s mission is to “provoke understanding and create human connection” has put a spotlight on extremists and self-proclaimed fascists. The channel that once highlighted the opinions of day-to-day Americans in early videos now features public figures with already large audiences, including Candence Owens, Charlie Kirk and even Pete Buttigeig. Have we lost the plot?

Jubilee has been heavily criticized for its polarizing and oversimplified format that creates an echo chamber. Opinions of viewers are reinforced as they watch content that aligns with their political beliefs. This is particularly present in the series titled “Surrounded”, which includes an expert who is seated in the center of 20 people belonging to an opposing group. No matter the strength of the arguments presented, the minority opinion will always become overshadowed by the majority group, whether its conservatives, liberals, environmentalists or flat-earthers.

However, Jubilee presents a larger threat. Hateful rhetoric is given a safe space without moderation and bigotry is sensationalized. In fact, the channel’s main source of success are these instances of ad hominem, personal attacks on one’s character, typically irrelevant to the factual content of the argument presented. Jubilee has repeatedly allowed racist, misogynistic and xenophobic comments to fly under the radar.

This was most notably seen in a video posted in September 2024, where journalist and broadcaster Medhi Hassan was questioned about his ethnicity by an opposing debater and was told to “get out” of the country by another. Although the channel does use an active fact-checker for information cited by participants, there is nobody to take control when the room becomes too heated. There is no producer to step in when prejudice becomes the focus of conversation rather than genuine discussion.

Bigotry is not only hidden in plain sight, but it’s turned into viral moments and sound bites. As Hasan himself noted after the video was filmed. “Those moments are quite literally being plucked out of space and time … the surrounding context of that moment no longer matters.”

Individuals holding discriminatory beliefs have not only been featured on the channel but have been given elevated platforms. Richard Black, one of Hasan’s opponents in the video, took the internet by storm for his refusal to condemn the Nazis and his opposition to the use of free speech. Black was identified by news sources as the organizer of far-right violent protests in Berkeley, California that occurred in the spring of 2017.

This brings us to the question, what is the benefit of Jubilee and the similar channels that have taken over social media? Has debate become a lost art?

It is possible for social media to foster productive discussions around politics. But for now, viewers should remind themselves that Jubilee is a corporation rather than an unbiased news outlet. The name of the game is profit, not the empathy and human connection that we have been promised.

Jennifer Slawson can be reached at [email protected].