YouTube 'Debates': Are We Getting Worse?

It seems to me that, as the years tick by, people on YouTube are getting less and less inclined to listen to both sides of any debate/discussion/argument. I don't think this is a positive or healthy change. What do you think?

[WorthlessWinner]

The impact of removing response videos is still being felt

[justingoodban]

Fair point i guess, i've tried watching kevin logan a few times and i watched some of shaun and jen's videos but i think the reason why most people avoid it is because alot of their videos are literally painful for people to watch. I think Moriarty is the only one that i've managed to watch a few videos of all the way through but after watching a fair amount of videos from the other side i feel like i've learnt literally nothing from them.

[BearingBear]

'that would be no way to engage in a debate' ... as far as my audience goes, a lot come for entertainment rather than debate. While it is 'the debate' that's doing the entertaining, it is more about the entertainment itself than the sober analysis of arguments.

There's no excuse for content creators though. Fistie once did a whole series based on some 'transphobic views' she was told I held based on a video I'd done that she'd never watched. I know you've had similar experiences, it's fucking annoying.

[jonnyalive]

One of the reasons I first subscribed to you years ago was because I remember you were asking people to watch the other sides videos.

I agree that would better for people to watch both sides and I always try to do so before forming an opinion on something, but sometimes I just want to kick back and be lazy watch one of your videos and ignore theirs because listening to someone with bad arguments doesn't seem like a great use of my spare time, even if it would be more fair to hear them out.

[TheraminTrees]

Another kind of expression of this in some YouTube videos of formal moderated debates is where one side has been edited out of the video,  leaving the speeches and responses of just one party. You're left to judge the deleted party by the other party's response alone. Would be good to see the whole event and form our own responses.

[iggypopshot]

Loss of the response video option was big loss.

[depenthene]

You might have a point, but Bearing-Rowland exchange is so lowbrow that I think most people just don't give a shit either way. They are there just to have some laughs.

[jahobr]

I watch Bearing (partly) because he is funny. I often do not care to much about the argument. I would watch "bearing is talking to his cat" and would have no desire to know what the cat's side of the argument is. It is more "standup comedy" as a debate.

[thebodrukus]

Hey man, i think this is more about people seeking conformation bias than having the time to view or listen to the opposing perspective!

[LittleMissAnonymous]

You hit the nail on the head with "not having time." There is so much more good content on youtube than there was 8 or 9 years ago, so much of it being video responses. If I can manage it, I'll at the very least skim the video the other person made. I loved watching Tf00t and VenomFangX go at it. VFX's videos were hilarious in their simplicity. It was part of the fun to watch them both.

[zero]

The majority of the time I do only listen to one side often due solely to the fact that I trust those creators enough that I don't believe they would show something out of context.
If something sounds off I definitely do check out the source just to make sure.
I watch videos mainly for entertainment and I often find it difficult to get through some of the "opposition's" videos which leaves me less incentive overall.

Buts that's just as a viewer, I cannot believe people will make video's about topics or people without first watching their videos on it to understand the perspective in context.
If a video creator doesn't even do that sort of due diligence then how can her view on the situation be trusted to be accurate in any way?

[iamgoddard]

It's a popularity contest, not a debate.

[mrpoundsign]

I love your channel and your perspective. I am really tired of what I call "pwnage culture" in "debates" and especially debate comments sections that really takes away from rationality. Thanks so much for your contribution, brother.

[Brascofarian]

Personally I'm kinda jaded these days. For example, I've watched some of Kristi Winters' stuff and I just don't think she's ever going to grow the necessary self reflection that would make her worth engaging with. It's all a game of ingroups and outgroups and very few people who are prepared to step outside that game.
I think part of the problem is that most of the people within these circles have branched out away from discussing theology, where there were Christians who felt doctrinally obliged to discuss their faith with non believers, to the current identity politics "discussions" that don't even have that to foster some kind of dialogue. It's been incredibly divisive.

[rueven]

I find myself doing it on some very specific channels. The reasoning is based on me not having the time to listen to everyone. So for instance, your channel is one where-in I trust that you are fair with your opponents.

There are many other channels that I cross reference more often.

[SiriusMined]

What you've described is also why I've usually not make videos directed to or about specific people. The whole thing turns personal, rather than the issue(s) at hand.

[SOOTY]

You have summed up YouTube debates to the tee. I do try to go over and watch the other sides point of view but still guilty of the same crime. We do need to listen to the other side otherwise we are no better than the forces we are competing against, what ever it may be.
There's an old saying that's goes something like, know your friends well but know your enemies better.

[TitenSxull]

Worse than doing this with youtube debates I've done this with actual debates. Back when I used to watch every atheist vs theist debate I could get my hands on I'd find myself skipping over the theist arguments or at least skimming them (especially when it was someone like William Lane Craig who never brings anything new to the argument).

I try not to do it anymore when it comes to actual debates but when it comes to anti-feminist anti-SJW stuff I just don't have the time or patience to bother sitting through videos from the likes of Kevin Logan, Steve Shives, or Kristi Winters. It may be intellectually lazy but I just tend to trust that those who are responding to them do so in good faith without misrepresenting what was said.

[SiriusMined]

What you've described is why I keep getting demotivated. YT is a cesspool.

[pdoylemi]

I think it is a huge problem because so many channels are not as careful to try to present a fair picture as you do. The problem is that unlike me, most people give a pass to fact checking based on who they LIKE - not whether they have taken several years to assess the reliability of the source. So for example, I like Bearings videos - but as entertainment that often makes good points, but I also know how often he is just dead wrong. Even Thunderf00t - one of my favorites, is often guilty of biased representations, so I have to fact check him more than you.

But I think the reason people have gotten LESS likely to check all sides is twofold. One is that, in the early days, people had not yet developed the loyalty or "fandom" that these new internet "celebrities" have. And when you are a "fan" and not a consumer of information, you tend not to want to see the flaws in your idol. I know I don't like to see Youtubers I like being wrong, but I need to know that. It's sort of like the Bill Cosby thing. I was a HUGE fan, and respected much of what he said - it is not fun for me to have to accept that it is at least *_likely_* that he was a gross sexual predator. There is a part of me that sort of wishes I had never heard anything about it.

Face it - this is what has kept churches in business for thousands of years - people prefer to have their beliefs reinforced, and prefer to see the purveyors of those beliefs as above reproach. SO they are reluctant to expose themselves to information that might burst their bubble.