3 ms·

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 deb

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.

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.