“Prove me wrong” debates are still happening on campus, with or without Charlie Kirk.
The assassination of the conservative activist did little to diminish his influence. If anything, the livestreamed, confrontational debate booths have proven durable beyond his lifetime — and even beyond the conservatism he represented. Seven months after Kirk’s death, National Ground Game, or NGG, self-characterized as the Democratic counterpart to Turning Point USA, brought the same form of debate to the Savio Steps in front of Sproul Hall.
On April 22, NGG made its final stop of The Unf*ck America Tour at UC Berkeley, openly calling for conservative students to “COME AT US” on its Instagram account.
Starring three politics livestreamers seated behind microphones in a tent, the debate drew a crowd on Sproul Plaza. Of course, the real audience was not the curious flock of students that came and went, but the silent majority scrolling through social media, consuming clips processed and packaged into short-form video content.
The debate’s most successful Instagram reel garnered approximately 11,700 likes and 14,000 shares as of May 4th. The video features an anonymous debate participant in a costume reminiscent of the antihero in the movie “V for Vendetta” fused with comic-book supervillain aesthetics. Self-introducing as King B. Schmuck, they open their monologue with “So I want to be America’s next authoritarian president … Our government is too broken to be fixed.”
Captioned “We found the future of the MAGA movement,” the video ends with the participant flashing the debaters with their middle finger before exiting the frame with a theatrical bow as the debaters banter calmly in the booth. Editing out the major commentaries voiced by Schmuck, the reel only provides its intended audiences with an impression of absurdity, juxtaposed with the debater’s sneers as if these opinions are too trivial to warrant real engagement.
However, King B. Schmuck never identified with MAGA in the conversation. In fact, I spotted the same figure near the Downtown Berkeley BART station with a sign inviting pedestrians to vote on billionaires, with the two choices being “lock them up” and “we need them.”
Taken together, the clip and the sign suggest a deliberately ambiguous — if not ironic — performance. The labeling of Schmuck as MAGA is ungrounded, yet is undeniably effective as content. The comment section is flooded with memes, generalizing this clip into a broader mockery of tropes associated with conservative “chuds.” The discourse surrounding this debate, therefore, became much less a reflection on the current political system than an indulgent catharsis exuding prejudice and contempt. Despite NGG’s limited reach compared to TPUSA, its media strategy poisons discourse and deepens partisan entrenchment.
At its philosophical, fifth-century-B.C. origin in Athens, debate has been imagined as a collective search for truth. The Socratic method rules that a debate should start from shared beliefs, test them through relentless questioning to reveal contradictions, refine their coherence and birth ideas through a slow midwifery of thought.
College debate booths have been devoid of this process, providing us instead with a simulation of it. The audiences are presented with a choreography of a debate hollowed of its essence. There’s no room for compromise, no time to nurture thoughts, no conditions that allow dialogues to unfold. Unlike any other rhetorical device that clarifies and strengthens an argument, these formats amplify performance: They exhaustively enrage and stimulate the participants for inflated rhetorics and bloated evidence, and thus create a myth of triumph using antagonism and sensationalism.
The camera set, pointed at the face of the participant, zooms hungrily into every subtle expression, ready to capture a moment with potential for virality.
Greater visibility empowers rhetorical dominance. Just as The Unf*ck America Tour self-characterized on its official website, the tour attempts to build “a solid electoral strategy” by using its online content to “combat the red pill pipeline” and inspire young voters to join its mass voter registration program.
Conservative organizations, such as TPUSA and Reawaken USA, have long harnessed this method of performing political antagonism. Whether it be TPUSA Faith’s Make Heaven Crowded Tour or Reawaken USA’s campus events, speakers employ Christian values to rally support for conservative causes, aiming to eliminate “wokeism from the American pulpit,” as TPUSA Faith puts it. By inciting conflict and alienation, they curate solidarity in opposition to other groups, positioning LGBTQ+ inclusion and immigration as threats to religious and national identity.
These tides of antagonism are circulated through social media, giving rise to an imagined community across different organizations sustained by the recognition of common enemies.
A striking reminder of this strategy is reflected in an interview with James Owen, the co-founder of Reawaken USA, after the organization’s stop at Berkeley.
“We got six students arrested,” Owen told The Daily Californian’s Stacks magazine, taking pride in successfully ragebaiting the opposition into a reaction deemed threatening or dangerous.
It’s enervating and disillusioning to see NGG adopting the same logic. In the recap post of their panel debate with TPUSA’s Berkeley chapter, the cover zooms in on the face of Miguel Muñiz — chair of California College Republicans and a vocal conservative organizer in the student body — appearing visibly irritated, stamped with bold red text: “MAGA KID TWEAKING.”
Whatever one thinks of Muñiz and his ideology, reducing him to a hysterical caricature only reproduces the same logic of antagonism. It’s hard to see how the quasi-bullying of a college student can meaningfully transform into tangible grassroots political action.
NGG cannot unf*ck America by using the exact same method that f*cks it up. As everyone plays by the rules of the algorithm for social media, true political discourse runs dry.
A winning electoral strategy is not blind submission to the games of content, sensationalization and spectacle. Without organization, simple outrage and urgency cannot evolve into momentum. In the face of the information regime, we must not waive the rights and responsibilities of participating in democratic discourse. We must not risk diluting the true power of grassroots organization by replacing what makes it effective: the fragile possibility to hear each other and engage in dialogue.