Avery Adelini is a biological sciences freshman and political opinion columnist for Mustang News. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Mustang Media Group
What should have been a calm, peaceful day on Dexter lawn was broken by the a loud, microphone-enhanced voice
“Homosexual couples are unnatural, and they do nothing to further our society,” the voice said to nobody in particular.
Quite a statement, but it was obvious ragebait, especially coming from the guy who was sitting at a booth that read “prove me wrong” on the front of it. A poster on the stand showed that he represented “Pick Up The Mic Initiative,” an organization that brings debate-style booths to college campuses.
The reality is that there is no way to have a productive conversation with the people running these stands because good arguments and sound logic apparently don’t matter. They only care about how the “debate” looks on the surface, with most organizations even filming student interactions to selectively edit them and skew the narrative to fit their agenda. Debate-style political booths are structured to be as unbalanced as possible and put you at as much of a disadvantage as they can.
There is only one way to “win” in these debates: to not pick up the mic at all.
Booths like these have been gaining popularity on college campuses as of late, including at Cal Poly. Someone with gaudy posters, a microphone and loud opinions will sit behind a table at a high-trafficked area and beg for people to debate them. The setup is specifically designed to draw attention and spark confrontation.
The extreme speech, provocative posters, microphone stand and, most importantly, the instigative figure behind the table are often there for one purpose: to make you look stupid so they look smart.
The people behind the booths want to offend students by declaring their extreme beliefs so they can bait you into approaching them, often emotionally. Once you dare to pick up the mic, they cut you off, talk over you and ignore you to make it look like they’re “beating” you.
Take note of how the subjects in videos of these booths speak to each other. Their speech is accusatory, harsh and condescending. Although both sides are free to express their opinions, the discussion is not truly “open” because neither person is willing to consider the other’s perspective, remaining firmly attached to their own beliefs. While free speech is an important right, it loses much of its value when used only to provoke, insult or create conflict rather than encourage understanding.
During these events, the hosts have no interest in compromise or genuine conversation, which only encourages those debating them to take on a similar attitude. By choosing to argue with one of them, you’re making yourself a part of the problem.
Clips of these interactions often go viral on TikTok and Instagram, drawing in waves of both fervent supporters and angry critics to the comment section. This only encourages more debates of this nature: performative, unbalanced and antagonistic.
This isn’t dialogue. Its content. These interactions are easy to cheer on and easy to hate, establishing a positive feedback loop of online engagement.
Think about it: do these stands actually do anything? Do they cause any substantial change? Do they foster understanding, or do they just widen the gap between those of different political views?
Attempting to have a meaningful discussion here is useless. It doesn’t matter what you say, because picking up the mic means that you’ve already “lost.” The best solution, as frustrating as it might be, is to simply ignore.
It’s difficult to walk past debate stands that loudly and openly disagree with you, especially when you have to walk by their megaphone and booth on Dexter Lawn to get to class.
But it’s important to understand that debate-style booths are not the place for understanding. The other party is not going to listen to you. They will never get “proven wrong.” They just want to see you try (and fail) and profit from the interaction online.
Approach situations such as these with modesty and caution. Understand not everyone will be receptive to an open conversation, and you won’t be able to control every situation.
Instead of engaging, take a second and assess if your voice is going to make meaningful change or contribute to polarization. Channel your efforts into spaces where they will have real impact, like organised movements, a coffee chat or through supporting groups that are actually working to create change.
By interacting with these debate booths, you’re giving them power. Don’t hand it to them. Have the humility that these booths lack and just walk away.