The Hollowness Of Right-Wing ‘Debate Me’ Culture

‘Debate me’ culture doesn’t deliver what it promises

So called ‘debate me’ culture has become a central part of online, right wing media in recent years; stemming from the right’s belief in their intellectual superiority over the left. The phenomenon is advertised as being grounded in genuine ideological curiosity, but in reality it is little more than a weapon used by the right to mischaracterise their opponents. For all the right-wing obsession with debate, ‘debate me’ culture fails in creating illuminating discussions and getting each side to understand each other better. Instead, it worsens partisan divides by legitimising each side’s worse assumptions about their opponent.

The most prominent example of ‘debate me’ culture came in 2018 when Ben Shapiro unsuccessfully tried to get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to debate him — even going so far as to offer Ocasio-Cortez $10,000 as a favour for debating him. ‘Debate me’ culture was then brought to the forefront of political discussion when AOC famously declined Shapiro’s offer, comparing his request to catcalling, as it was based off “bad intentions” and entitlement.

The AOC/Shapiro disagreement illustrates the flaws of ‘debate me’ culture — it increases partisan tensions between online conservatives and Democrats, while allowing each side to further caricature their opponent. The aforementioned exchange played into right wing narratives that the left’s arguments are too weak to hold up in a debate, and furthered the left’s belief that the right were sexist and entitled. Yet, Ocasio-Cortez was right to turn down the debate offer, because right-wing ‘debate me’ culture is a fraud.

It should be obvious looking at those who propagate ‘debate me’ culture that they’re not doing so in good faith. Shapiro’s Youtube channel regularly puts out videos with titles claiming that the prolific conservative “destroyed” or “obliterated” or “smacked down” his opponents. Shapiro is not the only person guilty of doing this, and this language is not exclusive to the right, but what it demonstrates it that ‘debate me dudes’ see their opponents not as people to engage with sensibly, but as people to embarrass and use as a political means to an end. When someone regularly uses such language when describing their opponents, it’s not surprising — or unreasonable — that their adversaries have little confidence in them to conduct a debate in good faith.

These “Debates” act as a chance for privileged right-wingers to serve as gatekeepers to intellectual discussion

Even at the best of times, debates are never the definitive determiner of what’s right and what’s wrong. Often bad arguments are simple and compelling, while good arguments can be complex, hard to explain and uncompelling. The idea that ‘debate me’ culture could determine once and for all who’s right and who’s wrong politically, would be ludicrous even if the debates were conducted — and offered — in good faith. That they’re not, only makes more of a farce out of their promise.

When requests for debates aren’t ignored or declined, the event itself makes a mockery out of the entire practice of debating. The person who called for the event often hosts the debate on their own Youtube channel — rather than having it hosted by a neutral arbitrator; giving them control over editing and, more importantly, control over the direction of the debate. In most cases, they have an entire media team that their opponent lacks and to win the debate, they will often go about quoting questionable statistics and research that their opponent has no chance to fact-check and counter in the moment. Unsurprisingly, the person who called for the debate is usually heralded as having humiliated their opponent and said opponent can usually expect a barrage of abuse in the coming days and weeks (if not longer).

During a time of dangerous division, partisan hatred and ad hominem attacks, productive debate is needed more than ever — it’s a shame ‘debate me’ culture doesn’t offer that

The reason ‘debate me dudes’ win these debates isn’t because of the strength of their ideas, it’s because of the power they hold over their opponent. Usually, they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of subscribers and come from privileged backgrounds. Their opponents often come from significantly less privileged backgrounds and come to the debate at a significant disadvantage. When debating issues surrounding gender and race, things can get even dicier for the opponent; with legitimate attempts to bring awareness to systematic unfairness and discrimination being dismissed as ‘identity politics’ or ‘victimhood mentality’ (even though much of modern day right-wing politics is based on white identity politics and a sense of political victimhood). This puts the opponent in an almost impossible bind that prevents them making up any significant leeway. Too often these debates act as a chance for privileged right-wingers to serve as gatekeepers to intellectual discussion — using their power to embarrass and intimidate their opponents, who disproportionately come from marginalised backgrounds. They use their power and the tactics they learned at elite universities to gain a foothold over their opponents, and then dismiss the lived experience of their adversaries as constituting ‘feelings not facts’. The end result is a debate that is almost unwinnable for the underdog opponent.

It’s impossible to leverage your power as a host over your opponent and randomly quote facts and stats at them, and expect enlightening discussion to ensue

When opponents do win, it’s a triumph achieved against all odds; achieved by walking a very fine line by simultaneously appearing as passionate but not angry, strong willed but not forceful and, confident but not smug. When opponents win, it’s often because they managed to create a bigger bully pulpit than the proposer of the debate. When former Presidential candidate Marianne Williamson was seen as winning a debate with self-described classical liberal Dave Rubin, or when BBC journalist Andrew Neil was seen as defeating Ben Shapiro in a tense interview, both benefited from the support of online left-wing media; who gleefully echoed the language of “destruction” and “obliteration” that the right likes to use. In both cases, neither won through winning over those who disagreed with them, they just successfully played to their base of supporters.

The Shapiro/Neil exchange perfectly illustrates the hollowness of ‘debate me’ culture. Shapiro didn’t lose the exchange because he’s unintelligent or intellectually lazy (he’s neither). He lost because it’s impossible to leverage your power as a host over your opponent and randomly quote facts and stats at them, while expecting enlightening discussion to ensue. During a time of dangerous division, partisan hatred and ad hominem attacks, productive debate is needed more than ever — it’s a shame ‘debate me’ culture doesn’t offer that.