With over nine million subscribers, the “Jubilee” YouTube channel is gaining attention for a unique debate series, “Surrounded,” which can pretty much be summed up as the mud-wrestling version of political discourse.

The setup involves a lone conservative or liberal sitting at a table in the center of a room, surrounded by a large circle of voters from the other side of the aisle. A timer is set, and once it starts, those in the outer circle race to the chair opposite the individual at the table in the middle. Whoever gets to the seat first gets to pick the topic of debate and initiates the line of questioning for the interrogatee.

In one of these recent episodes, Ben Shapiro was the sacrificial lamb, as he sat at the table in the middle of a group of Kamala Harris supporters. Known for his impressive grasp of facts, history, and policy and being well-versed on the issues that most people are concerned about these days, there is no doubt that facing off against Ben would be a challenge. However, viewers soon learned that the real challenge would come not from an exceptionally talented debater but from getting even one person from a group of left-wing activists to defend their ideas with some semblance of rationality.

The circled group of Democrat voters anxiously awaited their chance to grab the seat across from Shapiro so they could discuss the things that matter most to them: DEI, abortion, and transgender “rights.”

There was a glimmer of hope for substance when the subject of illegal immigration came up. Yet the anti-conservatives’ unwillingness to acknowledge the historic rate of invasion or even use the terms that define this crisis accurately quickly crippled the chance for productive dialogue on a leading issue.

A young man with red hair and glasses proved as much when, instead of talking about the catastrophe of criminals from other countries taking over apartment complexes or overcrowding schools and shelters, he chose to play word games with Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations. With what seemed to be the goal of stumping Shapiro with the question of how deportations of this magnitude would work, he focused primarily on twisting Ben’s words. By doing so, he produced little more than a viral clip of babbling nonsense.

Shapiro offered the suggestion of starting with those who have a criminal record — sending them back to their home country first. The young man ignored this reasonable proposal and determined Ben’s comments to mean: “So, you want 20 million undocumented immigrants to stay in America?”

The surrounding observers then nodded in agreement with their peer, giving him a false sense of confidence in his comprehension of a situation that he clearly did not understand. As other topics followed, so did the same lack of competence.

A young lady decided to debate Shapiro on the favorite subject of liberal women: abortion. She asked him to define the word “abortion,” to which he offered, “The forcible termination of an unborn human life.” Her counter to his definition was, “Why do you hold that definition? Wouldn’t you assume that something like a c-section would be considered an abortion?”

Her take on the subject continued on its downward spiral, as she insisted that the word “abortion” can apply to any situation in which a baby leaves a woman’s body — dead or alive. A particularly bold move came in rewriting the medical literature, as she suggested that delivering a live baby via c-section is no different than a procedure in which the baby is intended not to survive.

For the rest of their two-minute discussion, she committed to this depravity, asserting that what constitutes an abortion is entirely subjective, therefore no laws should be made to ban it. According to her, banning abortion is the same as banning the healthy, natural delivery of a live baby.

Though logic and morality seemed absent from their brief visit, it did provide insight as to why doctors who want to treat women’s health conditions might have questions about what the laws are surrounding female healthcare and why they might be apprehensive about taking on cases related to obstetrics at all. As pro-abortionists tie miscarriages into the same category as abortion, the expanding definitions could make it more difficult to ensure that birth procedures are not hampered by doctors who aren’t sure what they can and cannot do in the delivery room.

Lack of clarity in medical terminology creates risk in healthcare — not restrictions on immoral practices.

Speaking of which, the most talked-about challenger in this hours-long “Jubilee” episode came when an individual who looked like a man aggressively took a seat at the table and wasted no time in announcing that she had the genitalia of a woman.

The first question she asked of Shapiro was, “Can men get pregnant?” When he answered correctly, “No, men cannot get pregnant,” the collective gasp from the crowd momentarily emptied the oxygen from the room.

Another of her questions was, “Do you believe in the existence of trans men?” Looking for clarification, Ben asked, “Do you mean women who believe they are men? … Women experiencing gender dysphoria?” Those who identify as trans are often told that we, on the rational side of this argument, do not believe they exist. However, the debate is not about their existence as a human being but about whether it is possible to change your gender and then force others to pretend that superficial or medical alterations give you the ability to dictate a new reality.

Another significant component of the trans issue is the Left’s relentless insistence that these ideas need to be taught to children as fact and that any resistance to this is a sign of bigotry and hatred.

Throughout this tirade, she repeatedly asked Shapiro why he could live the American Dream the way he wanted, yet as a trans person, that same opportunity was being denied to her. Never mind that she is an adult woman living as a man, demonstrating that she is currently playing out her own version of that dream.

Growing increasingly enraged by Shapiro’s attempts to engage civilly, she went into full meltdown mode and fired off a barrage of talking points about everything from abortion to capitalism. She was angry about everything and seemed to need a conservative to take it out on. Eventually, Shapiro quit trying to interject and just allowed her to rant about every grievance imaginable.

And according to the Left, this was a win.

A media headline from The Daily Beast read, “How Ben Shapiro Was Silenced by Harris-supporting Trans Man.” Another from Pink News said, “Right-Wing pundit Ben Shapiro ‘eviscerated’ by trans man’s questions on Surrounded debate show.”

“Eviscerated” is apparently the new word for being subjected to someone yelling nonsensically for four minutes straight.

Ultimately, there’s no substitute for purposeful dialogue between political parties to hammer out our ideas and come to the best conclusions. However, as clearly demonstrated in so much of today’s public discourse — whether it be online, in person, in Congress, or in the media — it has become nearly impossible to have balanced, civil discussions about the issues that matter. As a result, many areas of society are suffering the consequences.

Some people and platforms seem to be genuinely interested in bringing back civil conversation. Unfortunately, the only real accomplishment that seems to come from these ventures is an entertainment product, not a productive dialogue.

The constant bickering and increasing division do more to monetize YouTube videos than repair human relationships.