[flagged]
This is untrue. 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. But to say he never participated in real debate shows you haven't adequately found information outside your filter bubble. There are many examples like the one below
The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc.
It’s a bit strange to say that I’m somehow uninformed because of my “filter bubble” seeing as in order to call Charlie Kirk’s performances legitimate debate you would either have to have never heard of his many, many outright lies or believe that it’s acceptable to make stuff up in a debate. (If the latter is the case we simply disagree on what constitutes a real debate)
I’m familiar with his routine, which is why I described his performances as sometimes resembling legitimate debate. He was able to at times take (from your example) twelve minutes out of several hours of owning the libs to engage in a more mild performance, but that’s not the same thing as someone that has a genuinely good-faith interest in debate. That’s just taking a few minutes to make a marketing video for his podcast/speaking tours.
The summarized exchange between you and me:
Y: "He was never involved in real debate" M: "Here's a real debate" Y: "ah, well, nevertheless"
I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes?
Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?
So are we in agreement that you were wrong?
If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example of the song is pretty relevant, wouldn't you say?
Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.
I understand the impulse to be polite about the deceased, but the guy (for just one example) -in the middle of the January wildfires in Los Angeles- took to his audience to say that the destruction that the fires caused was due to a lack of white firefighters. That is both deeply disrespectful and completely false. And entirely on-brand. https://www.rawstory.com/charlie-kirk-white-men/
GP said Charlie Kirk was respectful during debates. You tried to deny this, not by showing one of his college debates, but by taking out of context what he said on one of his shows.
If you actually watched his debates, you wouldn't have said that. https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk/videos
This is absolutely correct.
You just linked to a YouTube channel. Which totally-not-performance legitimate debate do you recommend? ”Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee“ or is “Charlie Kirk Crushes Woke Lies at Michigan State” a better place to start?
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, I’m not. If you had to pick between Versus The Wokies and Crushes Woke Lies which would you suggest best showcases how his debates were not performances meant to inflame but rather reasoned, dispassionate discussion?
I found the thing you said couldn't be found and you said "whatever, I'm still right."
They’re both pretty long, and I’m not going to spend four hours watching Charlie Kirk performances, so if you could tell me which is a better example of his legitimate debate style I would appreciate that.
Which is a better example of reasoned discussion: Crushes Woke Lies or Versus The Wokies?