Debate shows are losing their integrity

Jubilee should conduct background checks on all people that they allow on the show, and should not give names and faces of people who say blatantly abominable things. This would help encourage educational discourse and foster genuine understanding.

In today’s world, politics plays a significant role in our lives. It follows us everywhere: at campaigns, in conversations, and, most prevalently perhaps, in the media. There are so many diverse beliefs as people vary in where they stand on the political party spectrum. In the United States specifically, as of the second half of 2025, 46% of the population identified themselves as left leaning, and 43% of the population labeled themselves as right leaning.

With this small difference in the amounts of contrasting sentiments, it may be difficult to understand why one’s views align the way they do. This is where discussion proves useful. In the past few months, the media company Jubilee has gained much traction on social media. The agency itself hosts many types of games and challenges, but they’re most well known are its political debates. 

These discussions, if you can even call them that, typically follow a continuous format. There is one person sitting in the middle, surrounded by a circle of 20 other participants who collectively disagree with the main debater’s political beliefs. There are various controversial topics introduced, in which each of the outside participants race to be the one to sit across the main debater and prove their stance is correct.

While this sounds like a good idea, its reality has proven to be quite the opposite. I think that the concept in itself is well advised, and that its ultimate failure is not a fault of itself, but a fault of Jubilee. Over the course of the show, the agency has brought on so many individuals who weren’t truly knowledgeable of the topics, and whose opinions were fueled solely by hatred and prejudice.

In one of the company’s most recent debates, titled “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives,” Mehdi Hasan, a British-American broadcaster, was not properly informed of the others’ beliefs. Due to this willful disregard, the other participants treated him viciously. One person self-identified as a fascist, describing his belief in a strong religious authoritarian government, directly contradicting the purpose of that specific video. Later on, when Hasan briefly mentioned that he is an immigrant during a discussion of the positive impact immigrants have on America, he was told to “Get the hell out” by the debater opposing him.

These occurrences aren’t anomalous, seeming to happen similarly during nearly all of the debates hosted by Jubilee. It is giving platforms to bigots purposely for the sake of angering the public to receive views and to make money. While I understand that the company needs revenue, I assert that it should do this appropriately.