General Discussion

Vox described the series as a satire of what they believe Donald Trump had turned political discussions into, "extremely competitive, theatrical, and unbalanced." They described the series as a stunt, comparing it to videos by MrBeast. They criticized the series as rage bait and for using what they described as unchallenging prompts such as "trans women are women" and "Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate". However, they noted ingenuity in how it appeals to a wide audience by showcasing varied arguments.[4]

Vulture was skeptical of the casting, particularly in the episode featuring Sam Seder, where they noted that the conservative debaters were all cast as a diverse group who were significantly younger than Seder, suggesting that Jubilee Media were trying to tell a story of youth and diversity within conservative movements.[2]

The Daily Beast writer Michael Ian Black expressed disappointment with the claims made by conservative debaters in Seder's episode, suggesting that it was evidence that people who supported Donald Trump did not have ideologies grounded in reality.[9] However, others viewed it more positively and spread videos online when they believed Ben Shapiro had lost a debate to a transgender man on the show.[1]

In reflecting on his episode, Seder was asked if he believed it was dangerous to allow people who believed in theocracies and white nationalism to share such beliefs on a large platform. Seder simply responded that he did not care if those portions were spread as clips and if he was criticized for not being as rational as his opponents. He noted that his goal was successful based on the comments under Michael Knowles' response video to the episode being critical of Knowles. Despite this, he described the episode as "disturbing".[2] He added in another interview that Surrounded's methods were better than those of Gavin Newsom, who he viewed as purposefully attempting to create division.[13]

Research came to find that setups such as the one in Surrounded could in fact be more harmful than neutral. It said that such a style makes intense political debates appear more common than they are, whereas the average American tended to debate these topics "infrequently". Research showed that when one was asked to defend their political stance, it led to increased feelings of anxiety, which researcher Erica Bailey said was the reason for the popularity of Surrounded, as it allowed people to live vicariously through the debaters.[4]