A recent YouTube video featuring conservative commentator Charlie Kirk debating 25 liberal college students on Sep. 9 set social media ablaze. The video, which touched on some of America’s most divisive issues, from abortion to affirmative action, amassed over 17 million views on YouTube and millions more across other platforms, particularly TikTok.
This viral phenomenon emerged against a backdrop of increasing political polarization in America. Over the past two decades, studies have shown a sharp rise in political polarization, where ideological alignment with party affiliation has strengthened significantly.
The Kirk debate, therefore, offered a unique window into how political ideas are exchanged and challenged in contemporary America. Yet, there’s something notably concerning about these viral political videos: they transform serious discussions into spectacles.
As these debates prioritize viral moments over substantive discourse, nuanced arguments often fall by the wayside. Complex issues are reduced to soundbites, and the loudest or most provocative voices frequently dominate the conversation, overshadowing more informed and nuanced perspectives.
This tendency toward sensationalism was evident in Kirk’s performance, which featured inaccurate claims and questionable analogies. During one exchange about abortion, he bizarrely compared a six-week-old fetus to an elderly person with dementia and incorrectly claimed that “fetus” means “little human being” in Latin.
Such moments show how viral debates can easily spread misinformation, misleading viewers under the guise of political discourse.
The format of the debate itself also proved problematic. Students were allowed to raise flags when they wanted a different speaker, with a new student stepping in when 11 of the flags were raised. This led to criticism as students often voted out peers who were making valid or deep points, disrupting the flow of substantive discussion. Moreover, Kirk frequently cuts off students, preventing them from articulating meaningful opinions.
However, comments and public reactions in the media have somewhat mitigated these harms. Platforms like TikTok have become virtual public squares, where discussions continue long after the initial debate has concluded.
Some questioned the ethics of giving controversial figures like Kirk a platform, while others commended the students for remaining calm and factual. These comments and the ensuing discussions they spark can enrich the discourse, extending the debate beyond its original context.
Then, this viral phenomenon raises important questions about the nature of political engagement in the social media era. Can platforms traditionally associated with entertainment host serious political discourse? How do we balance the appeal of sensationalism with the need for substantive debate?
Despite these challenges, one thing is certain: in a world where disengagement is easy, millions chose to engage with this debate. Whether driven by entertainment value or genuine interest, this engagement encourages critical thinking about the information we consume and the voices we choose to elevate—particularly for younger audiences, who, through their frequent use of platforms like TikTok, encounter political ideas they might otherwise overlook.
This is particularly important in today’s polarized landscape, where echo-chambers—environments where a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own—are pervasive. Algorithms feed users the information they want to see, reinforcing their preexisting beliefs. In this context, the virality of these videos have the power to expose viewers to new perspectives, challenging the echo chamber effect.
Moving forward, the challenge lies in harnessing this viral energy to foster a more informed, thoughtful, and empathetic society. Relying solely on post-hoc corrections from comments isn’t enough to solve the fundamental issue.
Ultimately, the goal should be to elevate the quality of public discourse, moving beyond the spectacle of confrontational debates to more constructive dialogues. This doesn’t mean eliminating passionate disagreement, but rather channeling it into more productive forms of engagement that genuinely inform and challenge viewers.
Democracy depends on the ability to bridge divides and find common ground. Spectacles like the Kirk debate may grab headlines, but it’s in the more thoughtful conversations that real progress is made. It’s time to start having more of those.