My Plan To Become A Debate Bro And Destroy My Online Enemies

Andrew Wilson peers into the camera. A conservative online debater known for viral videos dunking on liberals, he’s wearing a black shirt in front of a black background. Smoke floats around him.

“Your job is not to show mercy,” he says. “Your job is not to back off and allow them to maintain their false ideas. That’s not your job.”

Those are the words that open the trailer advertising his debate course, Debate University: an online seminar for debate bros, by debate bros that was released earlier this summer. As dramatic music plays, the phrases “VERBAL COMBAT,” “DOMINATE ANY DISCUSSION” and “DEBATE IS A WEAPON” flash on the screen, sandwiched between clips of Wilson arguing with his opponents on podcasts, live streams and in-person events. For just $249 and 5 hours and 48 minutes of your life (plus an additional $49 a month for access to an exclusive members Discord), you too can master the art of crushing your opponents in rhetorical battle.

And so, I decided to enroll.

I wasn’t going into Debate University totally blind to its approach. There is an epidemic of political debate videos taking over the internet, and those of us who spend an inordinate amount of time online are familiar with the genre. The raised voices and personal jabs. The smug smiles meant to goad the opponent and the rage-bait internet comments that follow. The video thumbnails with sensationalist descriptions like “WOKE SOYBOY FREAKS” or “CRAZIEST F*CKING MAGA CRASH OUT.” The modern world of debate is messy, it’s aggressive — and it just might be the future of political discourse, on and offline.

If you don’t believe me, just look at the number of people watching. The YouTube channel Jubilee, which often hosts staged debates on political topics, boasts over 10 million subscribers where they showcase videos like “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?” No topic is too taboo: abortion, veganism, religion, premarital sex and beyond. The dating podcast “whatever” — whose host Brian Atlas co-created Debate University with Wilson — has over 4.5 million subscribers on YouTube where men and women debate about chivalry and politics. For the most part, though, today’s debate culture largely features men — many of the combatants are called “debate bros.” A handful of women also participate, though Debate University hardly rolls out a red carpet for them: “Women can't debate for shit,” Wilson says in the course.

The format is a winner for debate brawlers and spectators alike. For one thing, it is monetizable: In our hyper-partisan world, people are eager to seek content that validates their beliefs. The comment section is rife with spectators from both sides of the political spectrum cheering for their champion and booing their opponents. There’s also a high-stakes ideological component: People feel the need to destroy an opposition that is increasingly being perceived as evil, not just one with different views. This isn’t about engaging in a good faith exchange of ideas or facts, but about performance and about winning through humiliation.

In recent weeks, there’s been a newfound interest in debate bros and their approach to political discourse following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, who was one of the key figures of the movement. As head of the conservative youth advocacy group Turning Point USA, Kirk toured college campuses to publicly argue with mostly Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents, as he sat under a tent that read “Prove Me Wrong.” It was at one of these events at Utah Valley University that he was shot and killed by a gunman. His death then fueled its own debate on whether Kirk was engaging with politics in the “right way.” But regardless of which side of that clash you fall on, it’s clear there is a young and growing fanbase who have been inspired by his penchant for a certain kind of debate — loud, in front of a crowd, in favor of conservative values.

“So many people, a huge amount in fact, reach out often because they want to learn these skills for themselves,” Wilson says in the introduction video.

Eager to see if I could climb atop the messy food chain of the online political world — or at least get a glimpse at those shaping the increasingly venomous political discourse online — I began my studies.

After watching 89 videos and hours of lectures — taught by Wilson and Christian debaters Chase Haggard and David Patrick Harry — here’s what I learned about how to spar like a debate bro:

#1

Unleash the savage within

Perhaps most striking about this course is the sheer brutality of the language used to describe debating. This isn’t your nerdy debate club from high school, where buttoned-up students compare statistical data as they argue over the death penalty — all in the hope that the extracurricular scores them a spot at an Ivy League school. From the earliest videos, the lecturers want you to know that debating in the modern world is a high-testosterone activity. And it’s why you’ll see them use an abundance of combat-oriented language in their lectures: weapon, verbal judo, battlefield, scalpels, knives, tools, shields, sword, violence, verbal assault, self-defense.

Wilson even suggests that debate is a modern substitute for men’s need for physical combat. “The days of being able to fist fight, being able to use violence, being able to settle disputes in a physical manner, those days are dead,” Wilson says in one video. (That smoke curling around him is from a cigarette, which he takes drags from throughout the course). “While I would agree sometimes that can be useful, you're not allowed to do it anymore. So what's left to you? What's left to all men is kind of the art of verbal judo.”

“Whether it's a friend arguing with you, a girlfriend arguing with you, a wife arguing with you, a boss arguing with you, somebody of a different political persuasion, arguing with you,” he continues. “Your job is to convince these people that you're correct and convince anybody who can hear this argument that you're correct. That your worldview is the right one.”

#2

Classical debate structure is still relevant

Perhaps most surprising to those skeptical of the debate bros’ tactics is that the technical portion of the course is quite informative and professional, especially if you’re about to engage in structured debates.

After the first 20 minutes spent on manly encouragement, the following hours of the course cover the basics of debating, all while using traditional terms. We learn about the five different stages of an informal debate: the proposition, opening statement, body, closing statement and aftermath.

Among the key advice that emerges from these sections is the importance of research: Yes, research is crucial to ensure your argument is rock solid, but it’s also important to study the opposite side as well — not because you’re willing to change your mind but because that knowledge will only make you stronger. Wilson uses boxing as an analogy to illustrate the benefits of research: “It's like understanding that you can not only dodge all of their punches, but you put yourself in a position where you can counter punch and hit really, really hard.”

And like any good debate course, it zeros in on practical concerns like how to counter loaded questions baked with malice (Shoot back with your own loaded question that highlights the absurdity of the situation) or tips on countering debate tactics like overwhelming your opponent with information (“Say, ‘Look, I want to engage with every point you just made. Can we do them one at a time?’ That really just kind of sucks all of the energy out of the tactic,” Wilson says). Some of the videos in these sections are more academic, diving into philosophy and parsing highfalutin vocabulary, such as epistemology (“the study of knowledge”) and ontology (“the study of being”).

#3

It helps to have a penchant for being disagreeable — and a thick skin

Modern online debate requires a few special techniques because so much of the arguing happens in front of a live audience via streaming. There is a section dedicated to “How to Deal with Haters,” a sincere concern for anyone who shares an opinion online and willingly subjects themselves to public ridicule. Don’t let the haters dictate your content, Patrick Harry advises, and ban people who are being disruptive on your platform.

“Make strong arguments, but don't be afraid of people who disagree with you. That is normal, and in fact, sometimes the haters are actually beneficent to the growth of your audience. Sometimes what they do is actually bring more people in,” he says.

And the lecturers encourage their students to develop a thick skin. They say that it’s OK to be wrong — and you often will be when you’re a newbie who is still refining your worldview. They’ll emphasize that making people feel uncomfortable during debates isn’t always pleasant — but you’ll have to do it anyways if you want to be good at debating. They’ll even celebrate personal traits that may trip you up in real life: “Chances are, if you bought this course, you're a pretty disagreeable person. And that's OK, that's good. That's going to help you out a lot,” Wilson says.

#4

Leftists have identifiable weaknesses

Although Debate University isn’t advertised as political, its target audience is obviously those who lean conservative.

In addition to Wilson, who often battles leftists on his debate show "The Crucible,"the other two lecturers are Christian debaters who often delve into religious topics on YouTube and Discord. The videos for the debate course are hosted on Rumble, a platform that is widely used by the right and boasts of being “immune to cancel culture.” Despite debate bros existing across the political spectrum — the New York Times recently wondered whether liberal debater Dean Withers was the solution to Democrats’ young men problem — its most prolific stars are conservatives like Kirk and Ben Shapiro.

So, it’s no surprise then that the debate course instructors exhibit a particular disdain for liberal and leftist opponents. What is enlightening, however, is that they see leftists as having predictable weaknesses as debaters.

In the "Slimy Leftist Tactics" section, Patrick Harry points out that many of the leftists he’s encountered are false experts: “I found that a lot of leftists, what they'll do is they'll have a little bit of knowledge of something, and then they'll create this whole grand narrative and present themselves as some expert on a topic.” Don’t be intimidated by the fake posturing, he says, because “that's a perfect time to demonstrate your knowledge and undermine their house of cards.”

In that same section, Haggard characterizes some leftist opponents as pseudointellectuals who “[speak] to sound intelligent, not speak to be understood.” These people, he says, will obfuscate and never get to the core of their argument because they simply don’t have the substance. Haggard’s tip is to use a rhetorical trick: Whenever the leftist brings up a complex phrase or topic, throw it back at them and watch them get flustered as they try to explain a concept they don’t understand well.

In the very last seconds of his video, Haggard’s portrait of the leftists he’s encountered is clearly laid out: “They are only there to serve themselves, serve their own image and watch anime porn,” he says.

#5

Winning is everything

The most striking takeaway of the course, though, is the intense focus on winning. And it’s not the kind of victory where you shake hands and agree to disagree. The objective is to obliterate your opponent, and the assumption is that the other party has the same goal.

“Knowing how to use debate as a form of self-defense and a form of attack against those people who would want to break your ideology down and destroy you is never going to do anything but be helpful to you,” Wilson says. In a later video, he also adds, “Your job is to represent your worldview and destroy their worldview.”

There’s obviously no right or wrong way to debate. But it’s also true that the approach and goal of today’s debate bros is radically different from those of the past. Socrates saw debate as a way to pursue wisdom. John Stuart Mill thought exposure to opposing arguments helped us refine our own beliefs. Christopher Hitchens saw it as a tool for intellectual growth. What many have long believed is that active listening itself can help us understand our opponents — and vice versa — ultimately helping us evolve as a whole. In other words, civilizational progress requires the comparison of ideas, which can lead to improvement.

Of course, that can’t be achieved when one worldview is determined as the sole truth, and yet that is the guiding principle of the course.

It’s also a philosophy that is reflected across the internet, embedded in the minds of anyone engaging in political discourse, particularly at a time of extraordinary polarization. It explains why disputes online can turn nasty so quickly: There’s no room to listen when your only goal is to dominate. It also perpetuates an “us vs. them” mentality, where only those who share the same worldview are good and righteous. The internet, with its option for anonymity or at least distance, only makes it easier to be vicious to someone you’ll never have to meet face-to-face.

In conclusion...

While winning, dominating and crushing online opponents seems to be the whole goal of Debate University, there are a few moments when the lecturers recognize that such a combative approach to human interactions can have real-life impacts.

In fact, the course includes an entire video on relationships — specifically the need to hold back on annihilating some opponents, like close family and friends. That way, you don’t destroy all the bonds you’ve created that actually matter outside of social media.

“You don't want to alienate everybody in your life, and this is one of the reasons why I don't recommend constantly debating your immediate family, because if you're constantly on the attack, that forces people to be on the defense, and that does not create strong relationships,” Patrick Harry says. It’s an important enough lesson — perhaps because people tend to forget it in the bliss of arguing and winning — that it warranted its own section in the debate course.

And there’s another video where Wilson acknowledges the reality that you can lose debates, too, that you can’t always be the one to DESTROY your opponent. In a short video titled, “What Winning Looks Like,” for 5 minutes and 54 seconds, Wilson actually advises humility: “You can hold a position for a long time and have your entire ideology built off of it and have it decimated in a debate so badly that it's actually painful.”

“When somebody shows you that you're wrong, proves to you that you're wrong, you're willing to embrace that,” he says. “It's really difficult for people to do that, but it's something you need to do.”

It’s a rare moment that stands out from the overall ethos of the debate course. But it also feels fleeting: Wilson eventually reverts back to his usual persona by the end of the clip as he points out that the goal is to learn from those losses, to regroup and then to rebuild “your ability to orate the correct position — always.”