First thoughts, having never been aware of this whole "20 X Vs 1 of Y" Jubilee format before are that;

* this seems highly contrived, and

* "Now Casting 55+ year old Trump supporters for an upcoming SURROUNDED video" (on the home page)

supports that notion.

This isn't the format of Buckley V. Vidal (perhaps the start of the end of intellectual debate in the US) and nor is it a debate in the sense of equal time, three rounds (case, defense, conclusion), etc.

I've moved on to looking at:

The Problem with Jubilee’s Political Debate Videos - https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-po...

The ‘one voice against 20 extremists’ format is designed to monetise hate - https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-on...

which at a first rapid skim appear to flesh out many of the initial issues and feelings that I have.

Right now I have hedges to trim and a roof to tin so it'll be many hours before I can watch an hour and half contrived 'battle' and take notes .. but I will give it a shot.

Thanks for the link.

Jubilee does cut their videos just so you're aware. I've never heard of them ever releasing a full uncut version. They have good editors, it's hard to tell. They'll snip entire participant segments.

It was never the question that was bad faith. It is that he pretends like there is only one definition to the word, so there’s never a fruitful discussion. His entire existence at these events is to get video footage to use as marketing for his political group, not to actually debate in good faith.

An informed take from Forest Valkai on Kirk’s “what is a woman?” Debate style:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M0uCLgFMC-c

No, Kirk used the same debate bro tactics about people who were very informed and nuanced about the biological facts. Forest Valkai has explained this ad nauseum.

Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips.

He ran into plenty of college students who tried the thing you described, but he was equally dismissive of the people who knew more than him on the subject.

It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. If I ask you, "what is an adult," there's no simple and rigorous answer to that question. You can say, "you're an adult when everyone agrees you're an adult," but that's a bit circular, and it risks making you sound dumb. Or you could get into different cultural ideas of adulthood, what happens when someone who's an adult in one culture enters a different culture where they're considered a child, the role that legal systems plays in establishing an age of majority, the social agreements that give that legal system the power to enforce certain rules based on that age, and so forth. But that's not going to come over very well in a snappy debate video where the other guy gets to edit the footage of whatever you say.

If a progressive were running the debate, they would never ask a question like, "what is a woman." They don't care that Republicans think trans women are men. They'd ask, "why should your conception of womanhood be used to determine who gets put in a women's jail when putting transgender women in male prisons measurably increases prison violence?"

"What is a woman" is a nebulous cultural question with no real importance compared to the actual lives and freedoms of transgender women.

[flagged]