Just a note to say I HUGELY appreciate everyone that's watched this pilot and left feedback! It's a trial episode, made by my production company - so we've got loads we want to fix and improve, but I'm super excited to see where we can go with it 🚀
First class Munya. This is where influence and intelligence can make a difference. Freedom of speech is powerful and sometimes it requires leadership to enable it. Thank you.
Very well done. We have a gap where social media has taken over, and nuances have been lost. Conversations help us to challenge / be challenged on our thought processes instead of only existing in our echo chamber and often (not always) following people who agree with our way of thinking. Bringing together these different thoughts face to face is bringing back something we have lost in the rise of social media. My God, I feel like we need more of these ahead of UK elections again because the bones of my body are being shaken by my ancestors, tryna tell me, "You people are going backwards"!!! Ya Allah, have mercy. What a world we live in, where Mr. Orange has most likely won (I apologise to any oranges I may have offended). 👀
The craziest thing is he arguably hasn't even scratched the surface on the other things you can theoretically do like this as a President. Going off of the constitution and what you can do. It's just other POTUS's haven't been corrupt enough or tried to actually do it. I suppose some may have done more depending on what is classified and what has been disclosed but he has really put a public spotlight on the kinds of things you can get away with as President.
Because the charges are bogus and it’s clear they have no actual legal standing or else they would have placed in jail already, plus it’s blatantly obvious the indictments are politically motivated the judge in new york with alvin bragging was literally donating to democrats and his daughter fundraising for Kamala 🤷♂️
@@bigships because the indictments were merely political the judge in new york was obviously biased, he has donated to democrats prior and his daughter was fundraising for Kamala Harris
This was such a good show! Really enjoyed listening to everyone’s opinions specially the girl in the pink. I love how articulate she presented her pov.
As infuriating as it is, I appreciate calm moderated conversation over censorship. Sounds really dangerous to force different opinions to only exist in their own spheres, forcing bias. Personally I love watching two opposing opinions in the same room - makes me better equipped to make my own educated opinion and choose whom I agree with.
@@glyndwrjohn6383 agreed! That is not censorship. I believe pointing out falsehood can only be done when acknowledging its existence. If we force it away because we don’t want to hear it we allow people with views we oppose to exist without being challenged - hence why I invite flat earthers to speak to me about their beliefs so I can promtly oppose them with facts - albeit exhausting. I wish for a world where everyone sees my truth and believe in a reality which is scientifically proven - until they do I shall keep having the difficult conversations.
@@MunyaChawawa I don't have an issue hearing how the other side thinks, I have an issue listening to people who say things that simply aren't true and don't accept factual reality. I know the idea is to connect, but there's a bigger problem when the people you're talking to cannot even agree on what factual reality is. You aren't bridging a gap when you're talking to people who don't believe that the truth matters. You're just legitimising their misconception that narrative based beliefs are equal to factual based knowledge. They aren't. A lie isn't an "alternative fact" or a contraversial opinion: it's just a lie. We need to stop legitimising lies in politics. We CAN NOT reach understanding until we can at least agree that falsehoods and lies are no good for anyone. There is too much lying at the heart of Trumpism to reconcile. That's my problem with this video.
im glad Munya is hosting these debates instead of just massive channels like Jubilee. I hope there are more of these youtube debates as i feel the sinister nature of algorithms to keep us in our echo chambers is terrible for society and even though most of us are aware of this, we spend so much time online, its easy for this to not be at the forefront of our minds when we are consuming information. It's important for us to deliberately expose ourselves to views/opinions that make us uncomfortable, to ensure we always question our own and are not just siphon off into our 'tribes'
Would love to see one of these episodes centre around the entire concept of discussions and debates in general. There is a fascinating Ted Talk by the founder of the "Birds Aren't Real" conspiracy theory Peter McIndoe, of whom was aware it was false and was more so curious about the spread of misinformation and conspiracy. At the 8:34 mark he discusses how it felt to be condemned and insulted by people calling out his conspiracy theory and was taken aback by how galvanised and emboldened he felt to push further with the movement despite the fact he was in character and fully aware what he was spreading was baseless and false. He concluded that: "They instantly condemned me, judged me and othered me. I'd found myself on the opposite side of this equation that I'd grown up around, the normal and the fringe. And in those moments when those people were talking to me, they could not have been more ineffective at what I would assume they really want. Less conspiracy theorists in the world." I don't think the way we conduct discussion and debate is taken seriously enough and ultimately we invoke structures that only push people further into stubbornness because we care more about ratioing the people we disagree with than engaging with them for mutual education. I didn't see eight people engage in a discussion, I saw eight people butt heads until they felt confident they had the final say. Edit: I find it telling that other members of this pilot posted their thanks and appreciation for the opportunity in the comments here whilst Gersch is in the comments chanting USA. I can only see what the edit has shown me so I didn't want to draw this conclusion but that behaviour suggests to me Gersch entered these debates with no interest in engaging with the dialogue and instead abused the platform to monologue instead; I can understand the rest of the group becoming exasperated with his presence. Considering this is a pilot I wish to forward some feedback: Firstly, perhaps the first discussion could be centred around something divisive but comically so (e.g. pineapple doesn't belong on pizza) just so we have a better grasp at the personalities of the people on the show without letting our biases toward more seriously divisive topics immediately cloud how we perceive their opinions. Secondly, I think the group should be afforded the opportunity to omit someone from the next question if it is increasingly clear that person is acting in bad faith to the format (i.e. not engaging with the discussion in a civil manner) and see the change or lack thereof in them when they return to the next topic along. You could do this akin to The Weakest Link with the added option of abstaining from the vote if you have no qualms with anyone. Thirdly I think we need better clarification on what your role in these topics are because for the most part you were moderating and ensuring everyone had their opportunity to chime in but there was also a willingness to challenge people on their points, especially toward the end. Lastly, and this is not really feedback so much as something I've just thought of, I think it would be enlightening to initally ask everyone why they feel the people who opposed their opinion did so because it momentarily forces them to approach the topic from the other side and put forth their perception of why that opinion has merit to them. I feel that the ability to answer this without being dismissive or insulting best demonstrates someone's willingness to engage with the discourse and furthermore it presents the opposing side the opportunity to compare and contrast how they feel with what they've been assumed to feel. Outside of that, really love that you're using your platform for good Munya.
This was a genuine question on the chase today: ‘In a 1990 'Vanity Fair' article, whose first wife claimed that he slept with a book of Hitler speeches by his bed?’ Answer: Donald Trump.
Those two lads, the one in the bright shirt is taking the mic out of this and he just likes chaos... It could be that he sees trump as a character he can use to make arguments and propositions to further his own agenda. The other dude just playing devil's advocate and maybe he won't actually feel negative effects of trump therefore he might be refusing to see other sides. Really interesting to see this kind of open debate
Whilst I was looking forward to the promise of this kind of show really disappointed in the protection of the people attending, Gersch was blatantly rude, misogynistic and there was no moderation. Several people had their points cut off in order to allow time for the right wing people to have a voice and the comment at the end about taking Nicole on a date was wildly inappropriate and not called out as ignorant. Was hoping for a mixed debate but just felt like an opportunity for controversial people to spread misinformation
Paul, thank you so much for taking this time to give feedback! You gotta bare with us - it's a pilot, loads to learn from and interestingly, most feedback was that Trump supporters weren't given enough platform or representation. It got pretty hectic at the end and you're totally right - I did miss some comments, but it's all good learning for the next episode 💪🏼
I think on something with this format you need at least one guest who has good knowledge of the subject and can counter the lies or just clarify the facts.
"Based on fear" The idea that Hitler only had respect out of fear is an outdated myth. Hitler promised to bring Germany back from the brink of destruction, and he did (and then brought about it's destruction again). It wasn't until after the prosperity that he began his warmongering and genocidal antics. He had been in power for like 6 years before invading Poland, and did lots of great things before he started committing horrible atrocities.
23:15 - Delusional. Honestly - A black woman trying to justify trump's comments about black jobs. The reason it's a problem is because it says that's only what you're good enough for. Silly and inarticulate as well
I like the initiative behind the video, but it wasn’t a balanced debate. There were 2 people in favour of Trump and the rest not. And, as much as I love Munya, if you’re hosting a debate, you can’t be asking leading questions in favour of one side only. It would have been good to have someone as eloquent as the person to the left of Munya but in favour of Trump as well
Someone can be eloquent while lying through their teeth. It's knowledge and truth that are more important and that was the issue with the 2 Trump supporters. They didn't have enough knowledge to know the truth.
Munya, this is disappointing on your side. You keep cutting off the American girl who makes sense, but is clearly letting the conservative guest finish their points. Unfollowed. Like I get this is entertainment for you, but it’s actually serious and you didn’t cast this evenly nor are you hosting this properly.
I enjoyed some of the debate but I feel that it was very biased. Having only 2 trump supporters, that seemed to know very little about trump or his policies doesn't add up for a fair and equal debate in my eyes. I am not a Trump supporter but if you'd like to get points across then make it completely transparent and clear. 2 sides, 2 opinions for and against. Then watchers can make up their own minds.
Just a note to say I HUGELY appreciate everyone that's watched this pilot and left feedback! It's a trial episode, made by my production company - so we've got loads we want to fix and improve, but I'm super excited to see where we can go with it 🚀
First class Munya. This is where influence and intelligence can make a difference. Freedom of speech is powerful and sometimes it requires leadership to enable it. Thank you.
Thank you bro! It's only the start - but I reckon we can end up having some amazing conversations on the channel! Upwards 🚀
Very well done. We have a gap where social media has taken over, and nuances have been lost. Conversations help us to challenge / be challenged on our thought processes instead of only existing in our echo chamber and often (not always) following people who agree with our way of thinking.
Bringing together these different thoughts face to face is bringing back something we have lost in the rise of social media.
My God, I feel like we need more of these ahead of UK elections again because the bones of my body are being shaken by my ancestors, tryna tell me, "You people are going backwards"!!! Ya Allah, have mercy. What a world we live in, where Mr. Orange has most likely won (I apologise to any oranges I may have offended). 👀
The format of this debate was really amicable which makes a change from the wider political discussion. More of this please, got a subscribe from me
12:39 shockingggg “not on children”. Crazyyyyyyy
How has Trump not gone to prison though.
It’s insane
The craziest thing is he arguably hasn't even scratched the surface on the other things you can theoretically do like this as a President. Going off of the constitution and what you can do. It's just other POTUS's haven't been corrupt enough or tried to actually do it. I suppose some may have done more depending on what is classified and what has been disclosed but he has really put a public spotlight on the kinds of things you can get away with as President.
Because the charges are bogus and it’s clear they have no actual legal standing or else they would have placed in jail already, plus it’s blatantly obvious the indictments are politically motivated the judge in new york with alvin bragging was literally donating to democrats and his daughter fundraising for Kamala 🤷♂️
I'm guessing the founding fathers of the United States didn't envision this scenario
@@bigships because the indictments were merely political the judge in new york was obviously biased, he has donated to democrats prior and his daughter was fundraising for Kamala Harris
@@chicoj-r1906 bro did January 6th not happen in your world
Pink sweater ate 😊
It’s so good to hear British youth debate this. Thank you for facilitating this Munya. Tatenda
Thanks for having me, it was fun. I think we can all agree that we can have different opinions and still have a conversation about it. 💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽
This is a great debate, thank you. Awesome to hear voices, not just reading comments.
This is exactly what I came into the comments section to say, so thanks for doing it for me!
Innit! The comment sections are always the best battleground - so why not do it in real life!
YES, that girl in pink really knew her stuff!! she was so good !!!!!!!!
This was a really interesting discussion and I enjoyed watching it. Thank you for sharing!
This was such a good show! Really enjoyed listening to everyone’s opinions specially the girl in the pink. I love how articulate she presented her pov.
Nicole was amazing! We will deffo have name straps next time 💪🏼
God she was so sensitive.
Nah, I couldn't last two minutes. Trump fans are loopy.
We need to stop giving actual idiots who don't live in reality a platform.
Agreed! Just infuriating listening to anyone who tries to convince people he is not an absolute megalomaniac!!!
As infuriating as it is, I appreciate calm moderated conversation over censorship. Sounds really dangerous to force different opinions to only exist in their own spheres, forcing bias.
Personally I love watching two opposing opinions in the same room - makes me better equipped to make my own educated opinion and choose whom I agree with.
I hear you, but also - good to get out the echo chamber and see how the other side thinks!
@@glyndwrjohn6383 agreed! That is not censorship. I believe pointing out falsehood can only be done when acknowledging its existence. If we force it away because we don’t want to hear it we allow people with views we oppose to exist without being challenged - hence why I invite flat earthers to speak to me about their beliefs so I can promtly oppose them with facts - albeit exhausting. I wish for a world where everyone sees my truth and believe in a reality which is scientifically proven - until they do I shall keep having the difficult conversations.
@@MunyaChawawa I don't have an issue hearing how the other side thinks, I have an issue listening to people who say things that simply aren't true and don't accept factual reality.
I know the idea is to connect, but there's a bigger problem when the people you're talking to cannot even agree on what factual reality is.
You aren't bridging a gap when you're talking to people who don't believe that the truth matters. You're just legitimising their misconception that narrative based beliefs are equal to factual based knowledge. They aren't.
A lie isn't an "alternative fact" or a contraversial opinion: it's just a lie. We need to stop legitimising lies in politics.
We CAN NOT reach understanding until we can at least agree that falsehoods and lies are no good for anyone. There is too much lying at the heart of Trumpism to reconcile.
That's my problem with this video.
I love this, can’t wait for the videos on UK politics!
im glad Munya is hosting these debates instead of just massive channels like Jubilee.
I hope there are more of these youtube debates as i feel the sinister nature of algorithms to keep us in our echo chambers is terrible for society and even though most of us are aware of this, we spend so much time online, its easy for this to not be at the forefront of our minds when we are consuming information.
It's important for us to deliberately expose ourselves to views/opinions that make us uncomfortable, to ensure we always question our own and are not just siphon off into our 'tribes'
This needs views. Well done for hosting this for balanced views.
Lots to learn but pretty chuffed for the pilot episode!
Appreciate you having me on & thank you for keeping in the thoughts on Palestine 🫶🏻
Would love to see one of these episodes centre around the entire concept of discussions and debates in general. There is a fascinating Ted Talk by the founder of the "Birds Aren't Real" conspiracy theory Peter McIndoe, of whom was aware it was false and was more so curious about the spread of misinformation and conspiracy. At the 8:34 mark he discusses how it felt to be condemned and insulted by people calling out his conspiracy theory and was taken aback by how galvanised and emboldened he felt to push further with the movement despite the fact he was in character and fully aware what he was spreading was baseless and false. He concluded that: "They instantly condemned me, judged me and othered me. I'd found myself on the opposite side of this equation that I'd grown up around, the normal and the fringe. And in those moments when those people were talking to me, they could not have been more ineffective at what I would assume they really want. Less conspiracy theorists in the world." I don't think the way we conduct discussion and debate is taken seriously enough and ultimately we invoke structures that only push people further into stubbornness because we care more about ratioing the people we disagree with than engaging with them for mutual education. I didn't see eight people engage in a discussion, I saw eight people butt heads until they felt confident they had the final say.
Edit: I find it telling that other members of this pilot posted their thanks and appreciation for the opportunity in the comments here whilst Gersch is in the comments chanting USA. I can only see what the edit has shown me so I didn't want to draw this conclusion but that behaviour suggests to me Gersch entered these debates with no interest in engaging with the dialogue and instead abused the platform to monologue instead; I can understand the rest of the group becoming exasperated with his presence.
Considering this is a pilot I wish to forward some feedback: Firstly, perhaps the first discussion could be centred around something divisive but comically so (e.g. pineapple doesn't belong on pizza) just so we have a better grasp at the personalities of the people on the show without letting our biases toward more seriously divisive topics immediately cloud how we perceive their opinions. Secondly, I think the group should be afforded the opportunity to omit someone from the next question if it is increasingly clear that person is acting in bad faith to the format (i.e. not engaging with the discussion in a civil manner) and see the change or lack thereof in them when they return to the next topic along. You could do this akin to The Weakest Link with the added option of abstaining from the vote if you have no qualms with anyone. Thirdly I think we need better clarification on what your role in these topics are because for the most part you were moderating and ensuring everyone had their opportunity to chime in but there was also a willingness to challenge people on their points, especially toward the end. Lastly, and this is not really feedback so much as something I've just thought of, I think it would be enlightening to initally ask everyone why they feel the people who opposed their opinion did so because it momentarily forces them to approach the topic from the other side and put forth their perception of why that opinion has merit to them. I feel that the ability to answer this without being dismissive or insulting best demonstrates someone's willingness to engage with the discourse and furthermore it presents the opposing side the opportunity to compare and contrast how they feel with what they've been assumed to feel.
Outside of that, really love that you're using your platform for good Munya.
This was a genuine question on the chase today:
‘In a 1990 'Vanity Fair' article, whose first wife claimed that he slept with a book of Hitler speeches by his bed?’
Answer: Donald Trump.
Those two lads, the one in the bright shirt is taking the mic out of this and he just likes chaos... It could be that he sees trump as a character he can use to make arguments and propositions to further his own agenda. The other dude just playing devil's advocate and maybe he won't actually feel negative effects of trump therefore he might be refusing to see other sides. Really interesting to see this kind of open debate
Whilst I was looking forward to the promise of this kind of show really disappointed in the protection of the people attending, Gersch was blatantly rude, misogynistic and there was no moderation. Several people had their points cut off in order to allow time for the right wing people to have a voice and the comment at the end about taking Nicole on a date was wildly inappropriate and not called out as ignorant. Was hoping for a mixed debate but just felt like an opportunity for controversial people to spread misinformation
Paul, thank you so much for taking this time to give feedback! You gotta bare with us - it's a pilot, loads to learn from and interestingly, most feedback was that Trump supporters weren't given enough platform or representation. It got pretty hectic at the end and you're totally right - I did miss some comments, but it's all good learning for the next episode 💪🏼
Bit of a concern that Pablo Escobar loves Trump so much
This is a great video! I just think the title might sway some people to think it’s biased yet it’s such a nuanced discussion
delete my comment if needed but anyone with a moustache like that … I’m not surprised to be hearing what I’m hearing 😭❤
I think on something with this format you need at least one guest who has good knowledge of the subject and can counter the lies or just clarify the facts.
This debate definitely needs a live fact checker like the CNN election debate.
"Kamala Harris is a person of ethnicity" 😂
12:16 ‘convicted villain’ is a brilliant Freudian slip
if we had trump in the uk i would retroactively go back from whence i came and become french
The people who think that other countries pay tariffs in the US are the same people who thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall that the US built.
"But not Children"...😶
This is a great idea
"Based on fear"
The idea that Hitler only had respect out of fear is an outdated myth. Hitler promised to bring Germany back from the brink of destruction, and he did (and then brought about it's destruction again). It wasn't until after the prosperity that he began his warmongering and genocidal antics. He had been in power for like 6 years before invading Poland, and did lots of great things before he started committing horrible atrocities.
'Not on Children' - makes it OK?
Gersch is unstopable
Never successfully backed up a single one of his points without scoffing at everyone else and deflecting. An unstoppable helmet
I really like Lorenzo’s point about discrimination!
Thanks christiana!
There’s already a popular show on TH-cam called the comments section by Brett Cooper so you might have to change the name 😬
AH! That I did not know - thanks for the heads up! This is a pilot episode but we'll come up with something new for the series 🙏🏼
@@MunyaChawawa How about 'Click deBait' lol
@@clairelouise9hosted by Barty Crease 🤣
They discussed the topic of Kamalas race more than Harris ever did in his entire campaign.
23:15 - Delusional. Honestly - A black woman trying to justify trump's comments about black jobs. The reason it's a problem is because it says that's only what you're good enough for. Silly and inarticulate as well
Who dis moustache uncle?
Do they not credit the people in the video?
Pilot episode - but the plan is to get some cool GFX for everyone next time!
13:04 you are so right brother
They wanted to wipe out all the jews like nazis. Who's side are you on? Isreal aren't the bad guys.
I like the initiative behind the video, but it wasn’t a balanced debate. There were 2 people in favour of Trump and the rest not. And, as much as I love Munya, if you’re hosting a debate, you can’t be asking leading questions in favour of one side only. It would have been good to have someone as eloquent as the person to the left of Munya but in favour of Trump as well
All good feedback! We had a lot of pro-Trumpers drop out last minute - but I would have loved to have more, and more time to ask questions!
@@MunyaChawawa Wonder why a bunch of people didn't want their faces seen on camera endorsing Trump and his views? Interesting
Someone can be eloquent while lying through their teeth. It's knowledge and truth that are more important and that was the issue with the 2 Trump supporters. They didn't have enough knowledge to know the truth.
THIS IS SO HYPE !!!
USA USA USA!!!
Nicole does a lot of being offended on behalf of other people. A very good discussion with a balance of viewpoints, looking forward to more!
Appreciate you watching!
I don’t think UK peeps should judge USA on their specific algorithms?!?!?
why not? the global world we live in is very much connected. what happens in the US politics will affect other countries.
Why not? Everyone is allowed to form and discuss their opinions. I mean the very fact you are commenting, showcases this fact.
Munya, this is disappointing on your side. You keep cutting off the American girl who makes sense, but is clearly letting the conservative guest finish their points. Unfollowed. Like I get this is entertainment for you, but it’s actually serious and you didn’t cast this evenly nor are you hosting this properly.
Surely we aren’t watching the same thing? She had her fair share
I enjoyed some of the debate but I feel that it was very biased. Having only 2 trump supporters, that seemed to know very little about trump or his policies doesn't add up for a fair and equal debate in my eyes.
I am not a Trump supporter but if you'd like to get points across then make it completely transparent and clear. 2 sides, 2 opinions for and against.
Then watchers can make up their own minds.
We need the Trump effect in the UK 🤓🫡🇺🇸🇺🇸
Do we heck need trump
Trump 2024 🙏🙏🫡