In his 1682 epigram, “Some Fruits of Solitude in Reflections and Maxims,” William Penn wrote, “In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.” Clearly, Penn had never seen a Jubilee debate.

Mehdi Hasan, progressive political reporter and creator of Zeteo Media, took part in a Jubilee Surrounded debate titled “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives” posted on July 20. In this nearly two-hour debate, Hasan went up against self-proclaimed fascists and white supremacists, one who told Hasan, an American citizen, “you’re gonna have to go.”

In a post-debate interview with The Guardian, Hasan asked an important question that plagues the left in how they interact with the far right, contemplating: “Is there value in doing these debates?”

Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk popularized these dichotomous debates when he trekked onto college campuses during his “Prove Me Wrong” and “The American Comeback” tours. In these stops, students would approach his booth, often flanked by hundreds of Kirk supporters, broach a specific topic and Kirk would proceed to “own” them.

In Spring 2025, Kirk came to USC for a stop on his “American Comeback Tour.”  Many Trojans stepped up to the plate to debate Kirk, including his former Jubilee opponent Naima Troutt. In this interaction, there was a moment where Troutt mentioned her prior debate with Kirk and his continual interruptions of her. When Troutt emulated this strategy in March, Kirk looked visibly exasperated. Kirk’s typical control of the narrative fell apart when his own style was reflected back at him.

This kind of debate between two extremes, whether that be Jubilee’s progressives vs. far-right conservatives (read: fascists) or flat earthers vs. scientists, does have an inherent problem.

The Earth is round, that is an immutable fact, no use debating. Fascism is a historically proven corrosive force, no use debating. The tactic of far-right pundits is not to engage in debate, but rather to twist the audience’s questions into fitting a particular narrative, removing nuance. It’s salesmanship, not debate.

But this article is not about Charlie Kirk or the toxic and controlling ecosystem he created. This article is about how people should interact with that toxic and controlling ecosystem. There are two options: ignore it or engage with it.

Unfortunately for non-confrontational folk, ignoring a problem in hopes that it goes away is naive to the power of the alt-right debate sphere. It is difficult to ignore when it overtakes campus, like Kirk’s tour did last spring. Instead, one must rhetorically confront the far-right and beat them at their own game. The left has to sell it better than the right does.

As a microcosm of this larger concept, take the semesterly student debates between the Trojan Democrats and USC College Republicans. In these debates, both student organizations are given the topics — from immigration to healthcare to the Department of Government Efficiency — ahead of time to construct arguments and anticipate counters.

Most participants are there for a genuine conversation, but occasionally, there comes a special right-wing provocateur who bases their entire case on how best to rile up the opposition: the goal being “owning the libs” and not a fruitful dialogue.

For example, Dakota Driemeyer called former Vice President Harris a “known Marxist” and said he was “100% for Project 2025.”  Here, Trojan Democrats have an opportunity to meet this moment with their own firebrand who can keep the opponent on the defensive.

The goal of debating any provocateur is not to convince them of your points — they’re not there for a productive conversation — but to convince a potentially undecided audience member. This may seem like a marginal impact, but the only way to stop a descent down the far-right rabbit hole is to enter the far-right rabbit hole.

People will stay in their own echo chambers until they are exposed to alternate viewpoints. Essentially, you have to meet people where they are. If hateful rhetoric is their only exposure, they won’t change on their own volition.

However, there are degrees. For example, anti-abortion activist Lydia Taylor-Davis arrived on USC’s campus as part of a debate-style campus tour similar to Kirk’s. However, Taylor-Davis lacked Kirk’s fame; thus, few people showed up to debate her and she was unable to milk incendiary content out of the stop. Here, intentionally engaging with a creator as insignificant as her wastes time and you just end up fodder for right-wing keyboard warriors. Picking battles is crucial.

Since this angry cage fight kind of debate is pervasive, we still must be able to converse about ideas without resorting to violence as a tentpole of democracy. Without civil conversation, nothing else can stand. Engage with people, don’t shy away from controversy. But most of all, don’t bring a pen to a knife fight.

Disclaimer: Charlotte Dekle was formerly a member of Trojan Democrats. Dekle is no longer affiliated with the organization.