By Liam Mann ’27 (DCI Fellow)

Last year, DCI Fellow Declan O’Donoghue wrote a blog post about Jubilee Media’s “Middle Ground” and “Spectrum” series on YouTube. Middle Ground groups together people from opposing sides (examples: minimum wage workers and millionaires, ex-felons and cops, fit men and fat men), while Spectrum groups people from the same background (teen moms, high schoolers, men) to engage in discussions about their differences in thought, as well as find common ground. These series include some of the most-watched videos of their kind available on YouTube.

Recently, Jubilee has started a new series called “Surrounded.” In these videos, 20 people from one side of the political spectrum sit in a circle around 1 person from the other side who is an established politician or debater with extensive experience explaining their viewpoints. A claim that the central person makes is stated to the audience, and a timer ticks down. Once the timer beeps, a clock starts, and the most motivated of participants rush to the center seat to debate the claim. While the person who reaches the seat first explains their viewpoint, participants not involved in the debate can raise red flags to signal that they want the participant seated to be replaced. When more than half of the participants have raised flags, the participant is removed. This continues until the clock runs out of time, where the central debater then makes a new claim and the cycle repeats. After the claims (5 total) have been exhausted, the person at the center chooses a member from the circle to deliberate a topic of the circle member’s choosing for a 10-minute period.

The “Surrounded” series offers a new and innovative mode of discourse to a wide audience. However, I believe that its structure is less constructive and less deliberative than either “Middle Ground” or “Spectrum.” It is more of a series of mini debates in which participants try to attack each other’s arguments rather than explore the topic in a more deliberative fashion. Why is this the case? First, the red flag policy is not conducive to a productive exchange of ideas. If circle participants feel like their person is “losing” the argument, they will likely vote that person out. This may prevent significant points and ideas from being made. The red flag policy may also make it more difficult to advance conversations and for participants to change their minds. Participants may also have been more likely to engage in anti-deliberative practices, such as interruption and snide comments, to maximize their time debating.

Secondly, the 20-person structure led to great inequality of speaking time. Because participants had to rush to the middle chair to get their voice heard, the most motivated deliberators got much more time to talk than others. In fact, there were many deliberators in the videos that never spoke at all. This led to less diversity of opinion, as many people came up to the middle chair multiple times with the same logic and lines of reasoning (although they could not come up multiple times in the same question).

Third, the structure lacks a facilitator and guidelines that encourage participants to adopt more deliberative dispositions and engage in a respectful exchange of ideas. Rather than encouraging everyone to be open-minded and listen to learn from each other, the model opens the door for personal attacks and creates a more adversarial “win-or-lose” atmosphere focused on listening to re-load and respond.

I thought the best part of the video structure was the 10 minute debate that concludes each session. The central deliberator in both videos chose people that had engaged in challenging conversation and brought up good points. In addition, the prevention of red flag removal in this stage led to the continuation of idea-changing conversation instead of sudden interruption.

“Surrounded” offers a quite entertaining viewing experience, and many clips have gone viral across various social media sites. While “Surrounded” has many issues that limits the quality and amount of productive engagement that occurs, there were bright spots in the videos. Ultimately, Jubilee can hopefully continue to make videos that promote better public discourse to a wider audience and have a role in positively shaping our nation’s political climate.

By Mohamed Mustafa ’26 (DCI Fellow)

In a world where issues are often reduced to binary choices, we tend to jump to conclusions without acknowledging the nuances of complex topics. This black-and-white approach may be convenient, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of our diverse motivations, experiences, and values. Life is far more complex than a simple “right” or “wrong.” Deliberation offers a way to step back, suspend judgment, and embrace this complexity, helping us see beyond simplistic divisions.

At the start of the DCI Fellows journey, deliberation often seemed like a tool for finding compromise. But as I began engaging in conversations about difficult issues, I soon saw it as much more. Deliberation invites us to understand the “why” behind people’s beliefs and to appreciate the different motivations that drive their perspectives. One D Team discussion I recently facilitated on defensive democracy illustrated this dynamic, reminding me how deliberation can help unpack seemingly opposing views and reveal the complex motivations behind each stance.

Defensive democracy—a concept associated with the tension between protecting democratic principles and restricting certain freedoms in the name of security—tends to trigger strong emotions. For some, imposing restrictions on groups with anti-democratic agendas seemed essential for protecting democracy from internal threats. For others, any restriction on freedom seemed to risk eroding the very principles that democracy is meant to uphold. At first glance, it’s easy to view it as a black-and-white issue: either democracy is defended by limiting certain freedoms, or democracy is protected by preserving civil liberties at all costs. Yet as my D Team participants explored the topic, they discovered each perspective was rooted in motivations that were simultaneously personal, nuanced, and deeply held.

Some participants argued that limiting certain freedoms—such as banning groups with anti-democratic intentions—was crucial to safeguarding democracy itself. They highlighted examples from history where democracies fell because they allowed bad actors to act freely within their borders. Their approach was not about endorsing authoritarianism but about preserving democratic values by preventing harmful ideologies from undermining them.

Others voiced concerns that imposing restrictions, even in the name of democracy, might set a dangerous precedent. They emphasized the slippery slope, suggesting that banning one group could pave the way for further erosions of liberty. They viewed true democracy as strong enough to withstand dissenting voices, since suppressing ideas would betray democratic principles. For these participants, defending democracy meant holding firm to civil liberties, even at the risk of some vulnerability.

Deliberation allowed us to move beyond judging each stance as either “pro-democracy” or “anti-freedom.” Instead, this space provided a framework for examining the motivations behind each position. Listening to one another, participants began to realize that defensive democracy isn’t a straightforward issue with an easy answer; it’s a balancing act shaped by people’s lived experiences and their own personal interpretations of what democracy requires.

Perhaps the hardest part of this discussion—and of deliberation in general—was resisting the urge to label ideas as “right” or “wrong.” Through this experience, participants found that curiosity is essential in deliberative settings. When they approached each other’s motivations with curiosity rather than judgment, they opened themselves to new insights and ways of thinking. This curiosity allowed participants to understand not only each other’s concerns about freedom and security but also the complex values that guide their own views on defensive democracy.

Consider a hypothetical example where two groups debate banning extremist organizations to protect democratic stability. In a deliberative setting, participants from both sides would share why they feel as they do. Those advocating for restrictions might express fears about instability, sharing historical examples of democracies dismantled from within. Meanwhile, those defending free expression could argue that suppressing even dangerous ideas drives them underground, where they might thrive in secrecy. Through deliberation, each side could gain a fuller picture of the risks and values that shape the other’s position, seeing that their motivations stem from shared concerns for democracy, even if their conclusions differ.

Deliberation doesn’t mean everyone will end up on the same page. But it does foster a community in which we see each other as individuals with complex and diverse motivations. In the DCI Fellows Program and my individual D Team, I’ve seen how deliberation nurtures a more humane and compassionate community, one where people look for understanding rather than conflict. This empathy and respect are essential for a healthy democratic society, reminding us to pause, listen, and look for the colors in between the black and white arguments that are being made in a world increasingly polarized by oversimplified narratives.