Around Easter term last year, almost all my social media pages were flooded for weeks with content from the Charlie Kirk Cambridge Union debate. In the weeks and months following, I also saw a slew of Kirk spin-off content produced by Jubilee, usually spliced into clickbait-able and rather theatrical clips. However, what most notably struck me were two videos, almost identical in content with seemingly opposing titles. The first proposed to capture Charlie Kirk owning a Cambridge student in the debate, the second – popping up only a few minutes later – claimed to capture Charlie Kirk being owned by a Cambridge student in debate. Naturally, I was struck by how the debate could produce such polarised perceptions of what makes a legitimate and well-founded argument.

The Cambridge Union, a debating chamber which purports to remain “a unique forum for the free exchange of ideas and the art of public debate”, invited Charlie Kirk for an extended Q&A event to its chamber in May 2025. The Union released a call allowing members to sign-up and challenge Kirk permitting them the right to reply. In theory, the format puts both parties on a level playing field. Both have equal visibility and the right to put forth their argument. Both have the opportunity to prepare the content they bring to the discussion. So what’s missing? In theory, good old-fashioned, fair debate would bring a consensus on the topic at hand, no? Yet, in reality, the debate and its reception pose more complicated issues in practice – issues that are only exacerbated by modern methods of media dissemination.

“When the criteria for what counts as ‘truth’ has historically been tied up with structures of power, the task to prove yourself becomes doubly demanding”

The common theme I found in debates that failed to generate productive exchanges, whether that be among the debaters themselves or the corresponding camps watching from home, is a lack of consistency in what constitutes a sound argument. When we cannot come to an agreement on what the criteria for ‘truth’ look like, how can we go about reaching an answer? What often generates the most frustration in these debates is the confrontation between ‘plain, indisputable, common sense facts’ and perspectives that view those ‘facts’ as reflections of bias already.

Jubilee’s 1 Conservative vs 25 Liberal College Students video featuring Charlie Kirk demonstrates this jarring phenomenon quite well. In a debate on the claim ‘abortion is murder and should be illegal’, Kirk challenges his opponent with the question: “what does foetus mean in Latin?”, to which Kirk gives his own answer: “little human being”. He subsequently continues to build his argument off the claim that foetus’ Latin translation offers some kind of authority legitimating a fundamental truth in his argument. His opponent is taken aback, and it’s clear why – it’s at that moment when she realises she is not just contending with a debater of opposing views, but a debater with an entirely opposing criteria for what constitutes, truthfully, as ‘fact’.

“If we continue to ignore some of the less obvious barriers to fairness that debates pose, we risk veering further towards mere platforming”

When we provide speakers with a forum for the publicisation of their ideas through debate, and forget to account for how polarised public perceptions of truth can be, I fear we risk platforming speakers anyway. Union debates might break down some of the physical and structural barriers that prevent access to a fair platform, but do they always provide the room to break down issues of legibility? Debaters trying to sway the opinion of the public end up performing two tasks at once: breaking down their opponent’s entire intellectual system and making a case that values their own perspective. Part of me finds that the freeness and fairness aspect of debate is lost here. When arguments present alternative viewpoints, they often involve alternative forms of evidence. When the criteria for what counts as ‘truth’ has historically been tied up with structures of power, the task to prove yourself becomes doubly demanding.

Media sites like Jubilee and social-media-reposters have tapped into this. Videos of the Cambridge Union and other public debates are continually and strategically cut up in order to make a debater’s argument appear foolish and at complete odds with ‘common sense’. Not only are these reproductions weaponised for a political figure’s campaign under the guise of ‘free debate’, but they use editing power to exaggerate particular elements of a debater’s appearance or character predisposed to criticism based on existing stereotypes and biases. When the opportunity for a debater to set up their argument is cut out of the clip and reproductions simultaneously caricaturise them it becomes easy to paint a figure as hysterical.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the power of confrontation and exchange. But if we continue to ignore some of the less obvious barriers to fairness that debates pose, we risk veering further towards mere platforming. What we need, then, is greater awareness about what the reception of debates looks like in today’s digital sphere. Greater caution is needed in such a polarised world. At times, this may be a responsibility that falls on the debaters themselves, and at others, perhaps public understanding is not yet at the stage where platforming particular speakers is productive at all.