Stuckey and Mader Engage in Debate

During a segment of “Jubilee’s Face Off,” host Allie Beth Stuckey anticipated a typical debate format as she entered her discussion with Monte Mader. However, she soon realized it was more of a “monologue-off.”

Both participants were permitted to present two claims each. Stuckey’s assertions included that Christians should oppose abortion and that they cannot support same-sex marriage. Mader countered with two statements: that America is neither a Christian nation nor will it ever be and that the patriarchy contradicts the teachings of Christ.

According to Stuckey, the debate had a unique structure; each claim was allotted 16 minutes total, divided equally between the two speakers without interruptions. She expressed that this setup turned it into a series of monologues rather than a dialogue.

“We were just giving monologues. It felt more like ‘Here’s my point, now here’s your point,’ which didn’t really allow for a robust exchange of ideas,” she explained. The format, she noted, made it challenging to respond directly to any claims made.

Stuckey pointed out how overwhelming it was to keep track of multiple claims made in quick succession. “You could only choose certain points to counter, and there wasn’t really a chance to pause and question contradictions,” she said. She emphasized the importance of defining terms, which she felt was crucial for any debate, but unfortunately, the format didn’t allow for that.

In one instance from the discussion, Mader stated that a fetus is “not a baby.” Stuckey countered by clarifying that terms like “embryo” and “fetus” still refer to human beings. “Just because we use different words doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about a human,” she asserted.

She further challenged Mader’s argument regarding viability, saying it seemed arbitrary to use it as a standard for personhood. “Saying viability determines whether we can end a life is a strange measure to rely on,” she added.

Stuckey highlighted numerous points she could have challenged but felt the structure limited her ability to engage deeply. She noted the risk of being led down irrelevant paths by confident speakers presenting seemingly factual statements—a tactic known as a red herring.

Throughout her remarks, she reiterated how the discussion format ultimately hindered a robust exchange, leaving many of her responses unaddressed.