Steven Crowder: A Lesson in Cheap Conversational Debate Tactics and How to Beat Them

The importance of mastering conversational debate

Conservative media is flourishing. Take news channels like Fox News or Breitbart, both of which are seeing increased revenue even in a time when the popularity of cable media is declining.

Digital conservatism is also flourishing. Many young conservatives are no longer depending on “mainstream fake news,” instead choosing to turn to the ideological echo chamber on platforms such as Youtube.

Steven Crowder is one of the conservatives leading this rebellion against the mainstream.

The Canadian-American political commentator and comedian has a massive following on Youtube. His self-described “most politically incorrect comedy channel on the web” spreads conservativism all corners of our digital world — and it does it well. Each one of his Change My Mind videos garners millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes.

Basically, Crowder goes to some public location (often college campuses) and holds a debate over a hot-button topic with anyone willing to do so. Crowder describes it as a “public forum” where each person has a chance to change his opinion with their arguments. Now, this isn’t really true — Crowder’s not doing this series to change his mind. It’s more so framed as a portrayal of liberal idiocracy: sensitive, “triggered” students unable to properly debate and instead relying on emotions. And, I can’t lie, he does it well.

A lot of Republicans see Crowder’s videos as justification for their beliefs. They are a perfect example of the digital media that only strengthens the conservative echo chamber. Since Crowder almost always seems to “win” the debate, his claim must be inherently better, right? Well, obviously no. When he is beaten, such as in the video above, he resorts to a lot of shady tactics. Coupled with these underhand tactics, how Crowder organizes his debates also gives him a significant advantage against anybody who wants to counter his arguments.

Conversational Debate Tactics

We need to stop giving Crowder content if we want to get rid of the “triggered libtard” stereotype. But, it’s also more important than that. Learning how to debate well, especially in informal conversations, is a very valuable skill to learn.

The “style” of debate in Change My Mind is casual, conversational discussion — it’s a public area and both sides don’t have much information prepared. It’s very impromptu and informal in comparison to something like policy or Lincoln-Douglass debate. It’s also the type of debate that we’ll experience the most. Unless you debated in high school or college, you’ve probably never even experienced formal debate. Most of us have only debated informally, with friends or colleagues or, in Crowder’s case, strangers. Mastering conversational debate is far more important than any type of formal debate since it’s what we experience the most. It’ll also help us construct better arguments, quicker thinking, and an all-round more convincing argument.

Understanding the underhand strategies that plague conversation debate is the first step on that journey. If you want to win any argument, regardless of if it’s with Crowder, you need to know how to properly defend against these unfortunately common fallacies.

Straw Man

The straw man is a common strategy used by Crowder. It’s also very effective. It redefines your opponent’s entire position, often through a quick, couple-second exchange, leaving them to defend a stance that is much harder to defend than their original one. In Crowder’s most recent episode of Change My Mind discussing a possible Southern border wall, Crowder employs a straw man to corner his unnamed opponent (UO).

UO: “[Having open borders] is more out of sympathy for the people who are trying to come here. I think that they are so often vilified and demonized that you know people don’t — ”

Crowder: Let’s only talk about what you and I are talking about here. I haven’t vilified or demonized anyone. I have compassion for these people.”

Here, Crowder directs his opponent’s argument towards his own personal character, instead of his point about the necessity of having an open border. The opponent takes the bait. He tries to refute with Crowder’s argument, although he really has no way of arguing against Crowder’s rebuttal to a nonexistent argument. How can he prove that Crowder doesn’t have compassion for these people? He’s not Crowder.

Stick to the argument at hand. Don’t fall into Crowder’s “personal characteristics” trap — you will die in that hole. Address the fallacy as soon as you recognize it, and restate your original position. You could even agree with Crowder and his statement: maintain the idea that a border wall is a wrong way to show his “compassion,” and you won’t lose ground.

Ad Hominem

Crowder uses ad hominem far more than the straw man. A lot of conservative debaters, in general, use it. It’s the entire reason for this “sensitive libtard” idea.

So, what is it?

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is an argument against the person instead of their argument. It transitions the entire point of the argument. It’s no longer about XYZ issue, it’s about how “racist” or “confrontational” or “emotional” you’re getting. It’s literally one tier off the lowest possible form of debate. Doesn’t really matter. You find it in many debates, especially with anything like the political ones that Crowder hosts.

Take the first line in Male Privilege Is A Myth:

Crowder: “So you’re getting very emotional.”

Or in PROTESTER SCREAMS Then Rethinks: (quality title btw)

Crowder: “Hold on a second, we’re speaking here. You’re mansplaining sir.”

Both of these are attacks on the individual, not their argument. They allow Crowder to sway the crowd in his favor and, most importantly, entertain them. Crowder is even highlighting these personal attacks by putting them at the start of most videos. They make us look like fools, as though the entire liberal ideology is simple idiocracy.

Crowder would be far less popular if he weren’t funny. We need to stop barging in, appealing to emotions, and using nonempirical evidence. It only fuels Crowder’s popularity. We’re only doing the opposite of what we’re trying to accomplish.

Physical Intimidation

Another tactic, the worst of them all, that Crowder uses is physical intimidation. Unfortunately, it’s not that uncommon in most debates — even our presidential debates are showcases for this disgraceful display. However, it’s still effective. It rattles your opponent, often making them lose their train of thought. It’s a decent strategy to use when you’ve lost the actual debate. *cough* Crowder *cough*

Although, Crowder only uses this strategy when he’s really losing. Take his debate against Yousef in Socialism is Evil:

Yousef: “This sort of autistic libertarian idea … this idea of a nonaggression principle is just fantasy.”

Crowder: “Describe to me ‘autistic.’ It was very civil until you brought that up. Describe autistic here.”

After this, Crowder moves within a foot or so of Yousef, obviously intending to get him off track from his original argument. This is disgraceful debating. All Crowder is trying to do is move the argument away from actual arguments and to a personal character with yet another ad hominem.

Now, if you find yourself arguing against Crowder, there’s not much to do in this situation. You could ask for more space, but you might not get it (since it is Crowder’s show) and you might lose your train of thought. The best thing is just to keep a level head. Ignore the jeers and focus on the words coming out of your mouth. Also, try not to do anything to provoke Crowder. In this case, Yousef uses the word “autistic,” giving Crowder an opinion to grill him over his personal character. Try to keep it civil as possible, regardless of the poor arguments from the other side. Don’t fall for the bait.

Only Fair Debate Can Trump Political Tribalism

Really, these videos only encourage tribalist extremes. I’ve previously discussed tribalism in the context of feminism, but our political system is even more divided. A majority of conservatives and liberals both live with their own echo chambers, regardless of whether they’re mainstream or digital. It’s as though there’s no room for cooperation in modern-America — we’ve formed a chasm of hatred so large that building a bridge across it seems like a fantasy.

No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties, no parties without compromise and moderation. (Clinton Rossiter)

But, it’s not. We can bridge the divide. Sure, it will take time. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. We’re called the United States of America for a reason. America used to be run on democratic principles and compromise. Our nation will fall apart if we’re so fixed on our own views that we refuse to even try to cross the gap.

That’s why, primarily, the goal shouldn’t be to win the debate. Sure, winning is nice, but the main goal should be to change the mindset of your opponent. If both sides can debate well without using fallacies and simply appealing to emotions all the time, we can find some common ground. Our greatest power is the ability to explain and define reality through our own lens. If we choose to stay in the comfort of the herd, we will never even have our own lens. Our ideas will remain unchallenged, crafted by the thoughts of others.

We will never compromise without debating with the other side. Crowder, to his credit, does provide this chance with his “public forum.”

And, with skillful debating, we might actually change his mind and take the first steps towards compromise.