YouTube debates: Apologetics goldmine or frivolous rage-bait?

Article first published in Evangelicals Now, 30th October 2025

In recent months, the online sphere has seen the remarkable viral rise of the long-form YouTube debate format.

For example, the popular “Surrounded” debates, hosted by the channel Jubilee, features 1 prominent debater or public figure taking on 20 individuals with an opposing view, in a format that crosses a gladiatorial battle with speed dating. The 90-minute videos regularly hit more than a million views, with some episodes, such as when liberal journalist Mehdi Hasan took on 20 “Far-Right Conservatives”, reaching over 13 million. This is notwithstanding the shorter clips from the debates that regularly go viral on social media.

The “Surrounded” debates often feature explicitly theological subjects. For example, the latest episode saw conservative Christian podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey debating 20 liberal Christians on the issues of gay marriage, abortion and progressivism.

The YouTube debate format was also one of the favoured tools of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, before his brutal murder at Utah University last month. Kirk attracted audiences of thousands in person and millions online for his debates on political, theological and ethical topics, often under his strapline “prove me wrong”.

We have even seen some intriguing interlocutors capture the online conversation, such as when Louise Perry, author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, debated the morality of pornography with notorious pornstar and “sexfluencer” Bonnie Blue on the Modern Wisdom podcast.

A Golden Age for Apologetics?

On the face of it, this rise in popularity of YouTube debates ought to be encouraging for Christians. Christian apologists are gaining platforms to proclaim and defend biblical truths to audiences far larger than anything Billy Graham could have dreamed of. And in a culture in which speakers holding contentious beliefs frequently find themselves cancelled and deplatformed (ironically in the name of “tolerance”), the YouTube debate format is proving that there is still a public appetite for rigorous debate and airing of ideas that challenge listeners’ worldviews.

There is clearly a great evangelistic opportunity here for Christians. From the Reformers capitalising on the printing press, to C.S. Lewis’ wartime broadcasts that eventually became Mere Christianity, to Billy Graham’s tele-evangelistic ministry, Christians have a long history of utilising new technology to reach their generation with the gospel.

However, before we declare the dawn of a new golden age for Christian apologetics, the picture may not be as simple as it first appears.

 

Revival or Rage-Bait?

Although it is undeniable that debates, including on traditional apologetics subjects, have captured a large online audience, this may not necessarily reflect a new public appetite to discuss theology. The success of YouTube debates owes partly to the ability of unscripted combative debates to generate clips that are infuriating, outrageous or shocking, and therefore more likely to go viral. Furthermore, two-sided debates are one of the few types of online content that does not simply reverberate around echo chambers of like-minded users. Having multiple conflicting views represented allows the social media algorithms to spread debate content more widely than straight partisan content.

However, more fundamentally, I suspect large numbers of people watch YouTube debates primarily for the spectacle. We find it interesting and entertaining to see passionate debaters clashing on worldview differences, but this does not necessarily translate to us being willing to change our own minds. This chimes with research done by UCCF which found that Gen Z students attending university missions events are very open to hearing different ideas and viewpoints, but this does not necessarily correspond to a willingness to change their minds.

A New Kind of Apologetics

I do believe there is significant spiritual fruit that can come from the YouTube debate format. I have much admiration for Christians who are willing to enter the ferocity of debates such as “Surrounded”, and I strongly believe that Christians should be defending the place of debate and disagreement in the public square, especially in universities.

However, the reality is that we live in a postmodern culture where truth is seen as relative, and facts and arguments are often trumped by personal convictions and “lived experiences”. Therefore debates, even if they go viral on social media, can only get us so far.

I would suggest we need to focus on developing a new kind of “postmodern apologetics” that deals primarily not in arguments and evidence, but in stories and narratives. We should strive to put forward what Glynn Harrison calls “a better story”. Rather than fighting to show why we are right and our opponents are wrong, I think our primary aim should be to show how the bible’s story is better that what the world can offer. In our zeal to defend why the gospel is true news, we must not neglect to demonstrate that the gospel is good news.