6 ms·

He's not, actually. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are m

He's not, actually. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw

defrost 1y ago
He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge."). Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash. The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.
- duckdriver 1y ago
  This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion. I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that. Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
  - bertil 1y ago
    > Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point "I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.
    - duckdriver 1y ago
      The fact that you stuff words in my mouth is actually more revealing than anything at all. I cited a video that supported my argument. You then make a complete straw man.
      - bertil 1y ago
        I reacted to the context of that video. You ignoring that and telling me that I didn’t do it is a nice illustrations of the problem I have with pretend debate.
        duckdriver 1y ago
        You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here.
        bertil 1y ago
        What have I ever written that would imply I’m pro gun violence? This comment is completely unacceptable and I demand that you delete it.
        duckdriver 1y ago
        Fair enough, I retract the second part. It was out of line. I'll modify it to: No surprise you object to someone of opposing views going onto campuses for exchanges of ideas.
        dudefeliciano 1y ago
        it never was about "exchanges of ideas" it always was about getting short "owning the libs" clips to post on social media for views and money
        duckdriver 1y ago
        There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available. Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted them and was paid for them, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy. There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. Did Charlie Kirk build a business around it with clickbait titles about "owning the libs?" Yep. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative. There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements. You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
  - defrost 1y ago
    There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before. Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props. Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back. It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
- mhh__ 1y ago
  The oxford and cambridge unions both solely function to facilitate the careers of people debating now (e.g. someone got a career out of the kirk one)
  - defrost 1y ago
    Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.
    - mhh__ 1y ago
      I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.
bertil 1y ago
The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed. He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in. This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale. Actually, not “may or may not.”
- duckdriver 1y ago
  Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation. The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in constructive conversations. This video is ABSOLUTELY an example of a constructive conversation.
  - bertil 1y ago
    Constructive conversation would be you asking why we didn’t think this was, learning from our perspective. It’s when you use questions marks for something else than snark. You don’t seem to know what that looks like, so you telling me WITH BIG SHOUTY LETTERS that ABSOLUTELY it is… That feels a bit self-defeating to stay polite.
    - duckdriver 1y ago
      So now you want to pretend that "constructive conversation" doesn't refer to Kirk's debates, but rather our exchange? When you have to change the terms of the discussion, it's because your argument is weak.
      - bertil 1y ago
        You are the one using him as a reference. Neither of you care to understand what the other person is saying and grow from others’ experience; you only care to pretend to debate with people who already agree with you, and find witty quips if not. Otherwise, you would have stopped your reply at the first line. That could have been a great question if you cared enough to read to the answer before dismissing it.

defrost 1y ago

He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge."). Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash. The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.

duckdriver 1y ago
This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion. I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that. Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
- bertil 1y ago
  > Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point "I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.
  - duckdriver 1y ago
    The fact that you stuff words in my mouth is actually more revealing than anything at all. I cited a video that supported my argument. You then make a complete straw man.
    - bertil 1y ago
      I reacted to the context of that video. You ignoring that and telling me that I didn’t do it is a nice illustrations of the problem I have with pretend debate.
      - duckdriver 1y ago
        You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here.
        bertil 1y ago
        What have I ever written that would imply I’m pro gun violence? This comment is completely unacceptable and I demand that you delete it.
        duckdriver 1y ago
        Fair enough, I retract the second part. It was out of line. I'll modify it to: No surprise you object to someone of opposing views going onto campuses for exchanges of ideas.
        dudefeliciano 1y ago
        it never was about "exchanges of ideas" it always was about getting short "owning the libs" clips to post on social media for views and money
        duckdriver 1y ago
        There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available. Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted them and was paid for them, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy. There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. Did Charlie Kirk build a business around it with clickbait titles about "owning the libs?" Yep. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative. There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements. You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
- defrost 1y ago
  There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before. Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props. Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back. It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
mhh__ 1y ago
The oxford and cambridge unions both solely function to facilitate the careers of people debating now (e.g. someone got a career out of the kirk one)
- defrost 1y ago
  Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.
  - mhh__ 1y ago
    I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.

bertil 1y ago

The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed. He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in. This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale. Actually, not “may or may not.”

duckdriver 1y ago
Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation. The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in constructive conversations. This video is ABSOLUTELY an example of a constructive conversation.
- bertil 1y ago
  Constructive conversation would be you asking why we didn’t think this was, learning from our perspective. It’s when you use questions marks for something else than snark. You don’t seem to know what that looks like, so you telling me WITH BIG SHOUTY LETTERS that ABSOLUTELY it is… That feels a bit self-defeating to stay polite.
  - duckdriver 1y ago
    So now you want to pretend that "constructive conversation" doesn't refer to Kirk's debates, but rather our exchange? When you have to change the terms of the discussion, it's because your argument is weak.
    - bertil 1y ago
      You are the one using him as a reference. Neither of you care to understand what the other person is saying and grow from others’ experience; you only care to pretend to debate with people who already agree with you, and find witty quips if not. Otherwise, you would have stopped your reply at the first line. That could have been a great question if you cared enough to read to the answer before dismissing it.