3 ms·

Why did Charlie Kirk only ever win debates against 19-year-old college students studying things other than politics? Have you actually watched any of these deba

Why did Charlie Kirk only ever win debates against 19-year-old college students studying things other than politics? Have you actually watched any of these debates? He "wins" the debates not by being right, but by being the loudest and most prepared with his incorrectness. This doesn't prove anything except that humans are influenced by factors other than truth. When he accidentally debates someone who is on the side of truth and knows how to debate, he gets thoroughly trounced. My previous comment was not a setup then conclusion. It was a response to two different things in the same comment.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
Even "losing" debates doesn't matter in this age. He just makes a highlight reel of whatever makes him look good to his audience. They won't ever venture out and see the full context. We have so much information conviniently accessible, but we underestimated human apathy once again.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Here [1] is a link to his channel. His most promoted (and highly viewed content) is just endless full length and unedited debates. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    You say most highly viewed content. I then click on "popular" and then I see 6-10 minute edited videos, and the 30+ minute ones are highlight reels. I see thr regular videos top out at 10m. I click on shorts and they top out at 32m. His most popular non-short just misses the top 10 videos when compared with the shorts. And then all this is on YouTube. I bet his Facebook or Instagram has much higher viewed content. So I'm not convinced.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      Click on the longer videos. The overwhelming majority are literally unedited footage of him debating people. Even the shorter clips are complete and unedited. The most popular video [1] is of the girl who shows up and tries her hardest to troll and insult him. Here [2] is the in-context segment. It is literally the exact same thing, but just with her 'segment' snipped out of the series of debates. The only out of context clips are when people are trying to misrepresent him, the things he says, or the way that he generally behaves towards the people he debates/discusses with. For instance the widely disseminated clip where he speaks against the term empathy, which is edited to remove the clip and subsequent context where he talks about it being exploited and abused, and much preferring the term sympathy - which he feels is less susceptible to exploitation. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk [2] - https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349 https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Okay. My point wasn't that there aren't unedited videos out there. I acknowledged that. It was "They won't ever venture out and see the full context.". If thrres a 10m view clip and the full lovestream has 500k views, thats 95% of the audience without the full context. The 2nd video is also a highlight reel of different segments edited together, so I'm not sure what you're showing here. There's still room to edit out any people they didn't like. Just because they show the full segment for one person doesn't mean they show them all. But i feel we're way off topic at this point so I'll cut it off here.
        somenameforme 1y ago
        The 2nd video is not a highlight reel. It's literally just a video of him doing what he does at the University of Pittsburg - inviting people up and having a debate/discussion. None of the conversations have been removed, edited, or changed in any way whatsoever. You can watch the transition between each debate to confirm for yourself. The clip, which involves an attractive girl flashing him in the middle of a debate, and is literally the most viewed video on his channel - has 10m views. The full stream from that event has 8.4m views. In any case I'd again emphasize that even that clip is not taken out of context. It includes the complete and unedited discussion with the girl.
somenameforme 1y ago
I'd strongly encourage actually checking out his debates. There often is no real 'winner' or 'loser', but mostly just an exchange of views and perspectives. Sometimes people change their views, most often they don't. Often times one or both parties walks away with a bit more knowledge. Here [1] is a debate between him and a professor (amongst 3 that showed up during just that event) that's on almost on our exact topic. The professor's argument was weak and his behavior quite undignified. The professor "lost" but it's not really the point or purpose of the debate. For instance here's another [2] (from the same campus tour) where not only was the crowd was much more for the professor, but the professor also formulated a far more viable argument, got Charlie flustered and made him say some things that certainly made his argument look foolish. Charlie "lost" that one, but again it's not really the point or purpose. I'd also add that Charlie still posted it, unedited. This is how an Open Society, the sort Karl Popper spoke of, should work. [1] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 [2] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Even "losing" debates doesn't matter in this age. He just makes a highlight reel of whatever makes him look good to his audience. They won't ever venture out and see the full context. We have so much information conviniently accessible, but we underestimated human apathy once again.

somenameforme 1y ago
Here [1] is a link to his channel. His most promoted (and highly viewed content) is just endless full length and unedited debates. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  You say most highly viewed content. I then click on "popular" and then I see 6-10 minute edited videos, and the 30+ minute ones are highlight reels. I see thr regular videos top out at 10m. I click on shorts and they top out at 32m. His most popular non-short just misses the top 10 videos when compared with the shorts. And then all this is on YouTube. I bet his Facebook or Instagram has much higher viewed content. So I'm not convinced.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Click on the longer videos. The overwhelming majority are literally unedited footage of him debating people. Even the shorter clips are complete and unedited. The most popular video [1] is of the girl who shows up and tries her hardest to troll and insult him. Here [2] is the in-context segment. It is literally the exact same thing, but just with her 'segment' snipped out of the series of debates. The only out of context clips are when people are trying to misrepresent him, the things he says, or the way that he generally behaves towards the people he debates/discusses with. For instance the widely disseminated clip where he speaks against the term empathy, which is edited to remove the clip and subsequent context where he talks about it being exploited and abused, and much preferring the term sympathy - which he feels is less susceptible to exploitation. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk [2] - https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349 https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      Okay. My point wasn't that there aren't unedited videos out there. I acknowledged that. It was "They won't ever venture out and see the full context.". If thrres a 10m view clip and the full lovestream has 500k views, thats 95% of the audience without the full context. The 2nd video is also a highlight reel of different segments edited together, so I'm not sure what you're showing here. There's still room to edit out any people they didn't like. Just because they show the full segment for one person doesn't mean they show them all. But i feel we're way off topic at this point so I'll cut it off here.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        The 2nd video is not a highlight reel. It's literally just a video of him doing what he does at the University of Pittsburg - inviting people up and having a debate/discussion. None of the conversations have been removed, edited, or changed in any way whatsoever. You can watch the transition between each debate to confirm for yourself. The clip, which involves an attractive girl flashing him in the middle of a debate, and is literally the most viewed video on his channel - has 10m views. The full stream from that event has 8.4m views. In any case I'd again emphasize that even that clip is not taken out of context. It includes the complete and unedited discussion with the girl.

somenameforme 1y ago

I'd strongly encourage actually checking out his debates. There often is no real 'winner' or 'loser', but mostly just an exchange of views and perspectives. Sometimes people change their views, most often they don't. Often times one or both parties walks away with a bit more knowledge. Here [1] is a debate between him and a professor (amongst 3 that showed up during just that event) that's on almost on our exact topic. The professor's argument was weak and his behavior quite undignified. The professor "lost" but it's not really the point or purpose of the debate. For instance here's another [2] (from the same campus tour) where not only was the crowd was much more for the professor, but the professor also formulated a far more viable argument, got Charlie flustered and made him say some things that certainly made his argument look foolish. Charlie "lost" that one, but again it's not really the point or purpose. I'd also add that Charlie still posted it, unedited. This is how an Open Society, the sort Karl Popper spoke of, should work. [1] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 [2] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448