Dean Withers debates 20 MAGA women.

[Swede]

No kidding MAGA.

[joshdawg]

1. Withers +20, these women zero. LOL!

But, thanks to them for trying.
Lol.

[Srkdqltr]

2. Who is this a n d why do we care?

[Quixote1818]

3. He's one of the biggest rising stars of the left and an extremely skilled debater. nt

[BannonsLiver]

6. Calm down.

[maxsolomon]

8. He's an extremely online zoomer kid that takes on dumb ass MAGAts all day long.

While smoking cannabis vapes.

[EYESORE 9001]

10. Good to see a young person

following in my footsteps

[Bettie]

9. You know how people say "Thse kids today don't know anything and they don't care about anything"....

Dean is the opposite of that steriotype.

He's smart, quick, and really good at making his point. He, and others like him, are the future of our party.

[mr715]

13. He also, unlike other people in the Democratic space...

calls these people bad people.

He doesn't mince words. He doesn't say "You've been misinformed". He flat out says you believe stuff that makes me want to puke and "you're a disgusting person for believing x y z"/

And they're best retort? Get off my lawn, kid! I have life experience.

[Bettie]

15. Yes, that too

he doesn't go for the conciliatory "well, both sides have a point", because they don't.

And he is very matter of fact about telling them exactly what he thinks.

[HaveACat]

19. I agree

We need more young people in politics. However, the arguments to these questions bored me to tears and I had to stop watching. I'll try to pick it up later.

[Torchlight]

11. Sounds serious

Good luck

[Klarkashton]

26. It's fairly easy to find out for yourself.

Let's leave it at that.

[Johnny2X2X]

4. Been watching pieces of this

The fact a young man has to convince 20 women that they are not lesser than men and they are just as capable is frankly jaw dropping. The patriarchy has made these women hate women.

[NoMoreRepugs]

5. These women and girls are an embarrassment to the gender.

[Srkdqltr]

7. This is a setup. Actors. YouTube is a swamp of this stuff.

[Wiz Imp]

12. Sorry. No Actors on Jubilee Surrounded videos.

The right wingers are legitimately that stupid. I haave no idea why you think they aare actors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you think they accomplish anything productive is a completely different point. But the idea that the people are not expressing their own actual opinons is not only wrong, it is ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrounded_(web_series)
Reception

Vox described the series as a satire of what they believe Donald Trump had turned political discussions into, "extremely competitive, theatrical, and unbalanced." They described the series as a stunt, comparing it to videos by MrBeast. They criticized the series as rage bait and for using what they described as unchallenging prompts such as "trans women are women" and "Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate". However, they noted ingenuity in how it appeals to a wide audience by showcasing varied arguments.[4]

Vulture was skeptical of the casting, particularly in the episode featuring Sam Seder, where they noted that the conservative debaters were all cast as a diverse group who were significantly younger than Seder, suggesting that Jubilee Media were trying to tell a story of youth and diversity within conservative movements.[2]

The Daily Beast writer Michael Ian Black expressed disappointment with the claims made by conservative debaters in Seder's episode, suggesting that it was evidence that people who supported Donald Trump did not have ideologies grounded in reality.[9] However, others viewed it more positively and spread videos online when they believed Ben Shapiro had lost a debate to a transgender man on the show.[1]

In reflecting on his episode, Seder was asked if he believed it was dangerous to allow people who believed in theocracies and white nationalism to share such beliefs on a large platform. Seder simply responded that he did not care if those portions were spread as clips and if he was criticized for not being as rational as his opponents. He noted that his goal was successful based on the comments under Michael Knowles' response video to the episode being critical of Knowles. Despite this, he described the episode as "disturbing".[2] He added in another interview that Surrounded's methods were better than those of Gavin Newsom, who he viewed as purposefully attempting to create division.[13]

Research came to find that setups such as the one in Surrounded could in fact be more harmful than neutral. It said that such a style makes intense political debates appear more common than they are, whereas the average American tended to debate these topics "infrequently". Research showed that when one was asked to defend their political stance, it led to increased feelings of anxiety, which researcher Erica Bailey said was the reason for the popularity of Surrounded, as it allowed people to live vicariously through the debaters.[4]

[Srkdqltr]

14. Excuse me, i guess they are wonderful and just as adorable as they can be.

[Wiz Imp]

21. Huh?

Bye!

[ruet]

16. You Don't Know What You're Talking About.

Just stop.

[Srkdqltr]

17. Of course

[Torchlight]

18. That's one guess

[FascismIsDeath]

20. I'm 99.999999% sure you are dead wrong about that but you have the chance to provide proof.

[Wiz Imp]

22. You can be 100% sure. The person has no clue what they are talking about.

[FascismIsDeath]

24. I was trying to be a little bit flexible, lol

[Wiz Imp]

25. For anyone who thinks Jubilee Media's "Surrounded" show isn't real...

Democratic politicians who have appeared include Pete Buttigieg, Ro Khanna, James Talarico and Isaiah Martin. Does anyone really think these people would go on this show to argue with actors? Also, after Dean Withers' first appearance as the person being surrounded, he was invited to the white house. Do you really think Joe Biden would do that for someone debating actors?

[FadedMullet]

27. He had his choice of 20 MAGA women or 20 MAGA men. He based his choice on the culmulative IQs of.......

........both groups. The women, at slightly less than 1600, were fractionally "smarter" than the men.