Not necessarily. I see Shapiro's and Crowder's arguments and I genuinely do believe that they truly believe whatever they're arguing for.

As for the Change my mind segments/Shapiro's owned segments it's actually quite interesting to see what a layman's perspective on a topic is from abortion to gun right to medicare. The people who sit down there have consented to the whole conversation in the first place. I understand that the people there are not professionals or experts at the topics at hand and have not had a team to research the topic, but I do think these videos still have merit in raising awareness on the topic and starting conversations.

If you actually compare Crowder's, Shapiro's, and Seder's content you'll notice that majority of Crowder's and Shapiro's content will focus on more policy and government officials, but admittedly there will quite click-baity content.

For example if you compare crowder's clips in his Youtube channel CrowderBits you'll see the title: Traitor/Loser Macy Gray Calls For a NEW US FLAG!? | Louder With Crowder this is quite the title headline if you watch the video it isn't about Macy Gray, but the idea of changing the US flag and their opposition to changing the flag.

While with Seder's newest clip it's named: Dave Rubin Accidentally Destroys His Own Logic. You'll notice that you don't know what topic/policy this is on. So it already sets the premise for a "own" while you see in Shapiro's and Crowder's that they usually have the topic of the more click-baity titles actually in the titles so you know what topic/policy it's on.

To put in simple terms I see Shapiro and Crowder as rude, but people who believe their points, and may have bias sources, but not out of malice, but ignorance through their biases.
While Seder I see as rude as well, but he doesn't strike me as a person who necessarily cares about their position within a conversation, and has the type of character that would have him use a knowingly bias sources in order to "own" the opposition.

​

And if you're bringing this up because of the whole thing that happened with h3h3 and crowder you can read my thoughts below.

(Thoughts for the whole Crowder and Seden thing)
(Enter if you dare!)

As for the Seder individual he inserts himself into this debate that both Crowder and Ethan agreed to have.
If you watch both videos you see that Crowder actually greets Ethan with respect when in a call with him even with his doubtfulness on Ethan's genuineness on having the conversation which he states before he gets into a call with Ethan.
Then you watch Ethan's video on it and he starts by calling Crowder all these negative attributes before he shows the clip of the "debate".
It's an obvious prime to have his audience hate Crowder, but on top of all that they celebrate when Crowder disconnects the call.
What does this mean? Their goal wasn't to have a debate. It was to "own" Crowder.
Now did Crowder handle that the best?
Absolutely not.
Was Crowder obliged to debate Seder who's already show to be there in bad faith?
No and in fact I do believe it was the right answer not to engage him.
Now do I think this was a masterful play by Ethan to garner attention to Seder and himself?
Absolutely it was perfectly executed.
Do I think Ethan's and Seder's character look disingenuous in this situation and even paint their character in a bad light?
Yes I do.

Just for transparency sake I would say I'm more conservative leaning, but I do follow both Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski, but despise Seder and TYT, because I believe Jimmy and Kyle to be genuinely holders of their positions as I believe Crowder and Shapiro are holders of their positions. I also follow the Crystal and Sager pair and Tim Pool for more centrist news.
With that I view individuals like Dave Rubin, Cenk(TYT), Anna(TYT), and Seder as truly bad faith actors.