Opinion | Campus debates make a harvest of student humiliation

Opinion | Campus debates make a harvest of student humiliation Categories: Columns Opinions Opinion | Campus debates make a harvest of student humiliation Campus debates are an uneven playing field, allowing experienced political commentators to build their reputations and garner perceived superiority. Macey Vest, Opinions Columnist • October 14, 2026 Liz Sleper Turning Point USA commentator Ben Shapiro speaks to a crowd of students and community members at the Iowa Memorial Union Main Ballroom in Iowa City on Thursday, October, 8, 2026. When it was announced that Ben Shapiro would be coming to the University of Iowa, I started to think about how we consume debates. Online, there are numerous podcasts, TV shows, and YouTube channels dedicated to debate. We cheer when our preferred side makes the other look a fool, but make excuses when our preferred side is made the fool.  Political debates are now just another form of entertainment.  Debates aren’t about being right anymore; they are about who looks right. The performance of it matters more than what they are actually arguing for, making the opponent look stupid or naive rather than actually disproving their position.  In this environment, the appearance of intellectual superiority is enough. There’s something unconvincing about treating these encounters as meaningful tests of political ideas, especially on college campuses. These debates are often treated as proof that one side knows what it is talking about and the other does not. But that conclusion seems too convenient.  Shapiro, specifically, has spent years making a career out of arguing. The students he debates are usually just students, whose only qualifications are the required rhetoric courses. They might know their beliefs well, but that doesn’t mean they have the same experience defending those positions in front of an audience, under pressure, and against political commentators like Steven Crowder, Micheal Knowels, Charlie Kirk, and even Steven Bonell II, better known online as Destiny. Still, when a student stumbles over a response and Shapiro fires back with a polished rebuttal, it can look like a swift victory. The clip gets shared and viewers pick their sides. Whether the argument actually holds up is irrelevant. The difference matters. A student can have a reasonable argument, but still struggle with the performance these debates require. They may stumble over words or fail to respond to an objection they have never considered before.  An experienced debater knows how to take advantage of these moments. In front of a crowd, these differences become even more noticeable. And the internet expands this audience. These clips reach an audience of thousands or even millions of people. This matters because young people are using social media to follow politics. A 2024 Pew Research Center report found that about half of TikTok users under thirty use the platform to keep up with political news.  With the power of editing, these experienced debaters take one decent argument from an event, and splice it up to make themselves look good, even if the rest of the debate did not work in their favor.  As consumers, we see that embarrassment and get a cruel satisfaction out of it. A study on virality online shows that content provoking high-arousal emotions, including anger, anxiety, and awe, was more likely to be shared.  In other words, what makes something go viral is not just whether people like it, but how strongly it makes them feel something. A clip of a commentator embarrassing a student can provoke a number of emotions from outrage to excitement. A careful and measured discussion of policy rarely gets the same payoff.  When political content reaches people in short clips, the performance can become the entire argument. Viewers never see what came before or after the moment shared. They see a confident commentator deliver a sharp response, a student struggling to answer, and a clear winner. This is where campus debates become especially useful to the people who make a career out of them. A commentator does not need to convince every person watching that their political position is correct. They only need to create the impression that they are the smartest person in the room. There is something predatory about turning that imbalance into a spectacle. The students’ mistakes become entertainment and proof of the commentator’s superiority. This strategy is proven to work too.  Turning Point USA, which holds many of these campus events, gets thousands of views from these clips online. Its YouTube has almost eight million subscribers. Also, according to ProPublica, it pulled in 115 million dollars in 2025 through donations and merchandise sales. All this is to say, the person with the greatest advantage has the most to gain.  Going against a fellow seasoned debater does not mean the professional would not automatically win, but they would have fewer opportunities to rely on the other person’s inexperience. They could not count on hesitation or an awkward explanation. They would have to demonstrate that their arguments hold up against someone who actually knows how to test them. The debate would be less about who can make the other person look bad, and more about who’s reasoning stands up better. This is exactly why we need to look at campus debates more closely. If a commentator’s reputation relies on defeating students who lack comparable experience, it is fair to question what those wins actually show. Their debating skills may be genuine, but the ability to outperform a beginner is not the same as outperforming someone on the same level.  If the commentators want to prove the strength of their arguments, they should be willing to defend them against people who can challenge them on equal footing.  Until then, their campus victories deserve some healthy skepticism. 0 Like This Story Share on Facebook Share on X Email this Story Print this Story More to Discover More in Columns Opinion | YikYak is bringing out the worst in UI students Opinion | We don’t need to “trade” on everything Opinion | Hotels need to stop taking advantage of parents More in Opinions Opinion | Political ads are burning out voters Opinion | Being under the influence is not an automatic yes Opinion | The loudest cheers I’ve ever heard About the Contributor Liz Sleper, Visuals Editor she/her Liz Sleper is a junior studying Journalism & Mass Communications with a minor in English. This is her second year with the Daily Iowan, where she worked previously as a news reporter and a photojournalist. She spends her time reading or doing yoga, and she’s slowly becoming better at cooking.