Charlie Kirk as a debater

So are you arguing 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote?

No, rather that 18 year old American students in general are less informed these days (read stupid) than others elsewhere (like Cambridge). Americans hate to read/hear this, because they have been raised under the propaganda delusion of 'exceptionalism". The truth is that education and intelligence has mostly been a consequence of immigration - like the german jews of the 1930's (Einstein, etc.) who came to America to evade Hitler. This is not the same as making money (the main preoccupation of America), rather the gaining and exploring knowledge for its own sake and its own reward. This is something Kirk would not be able to understand - he wasn't really debating (just like Trump doesn't), really just looking for affirmation of his own beliefs from a naive audience (18 year olds who are not politically astute).

You took the time and thought to write this rubbish why? Your post speaks for itself: trolly and in poor taste and timing. Regardless of your politics, there is no need to spit on the man's grave. He may be dead, but we all lose because of people like you. Tempted to report it, but let's just leave it up for now so your stupidity can speak for itself.

Report it all you want. At what point would it be acceptable to challenge Kirk’s ideas or the belief that he was an excellent debater? A year from now? Two years? In my initial and follow up posts, I made sure to be respectful to Kirk and give him credit for what he was good at. So you either have very poor reading comprehension or you’re just plain ignorant, one or the other. Now challenge me on something of substance rather than going off on a whiney rant, and I will be more than happy to spank your wimpy, obtuse asz like a spoiled child.

His job was not to debate, so much as express counter-cultural opinions that are not acceptable using the norms of mainstream media. He could be polite and disarming with a well-timed compliment, but, let's not kid ourselves, he was there to "own the libs" and get cheers from other likeminded people. He's being hailed as far more polite than he actually was...but, you have to temper that with the new norm that civility really doesn't matter when you state your case. What matters is how palatable your arguments are. Almost everything he said was unpalatable, unless you agreed with it.

Anyone that knows what it is, and how to look for it in action, knows that Kirk was and Ben Shapiro is a Gish Galloper of the highest order (which means they are not, in fact, very good at debate in a classic sense).

A Gish gallop is a rhetorical and debate technique where a person attempts to overwhelm their opponent by presenting a large quantity of rapid-fire, individually weak arguments without regard for their accuracy. The opponent, unable to address every point in the limited time available, can appear unprepared or incorrect to an unfamiliar audience, which gives the gish galloper a false appearance of victory.
The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after creationist Duane Gish. During debates against evolution scientists, Gish would bombard his opponents with an endless stream of unsubstantiated claims, half-truths, and misrepresentations.

Further, both of them frequently employ(ed) non-sequiturs and Affirming the Consequent, among other logical fallacies.

Charlie Kirk was effective at spreading a message and affirming the positions of the like-minded, but he never really debated anyone. Saying he was a great debater would be like saying someone is a Major League Baseball All-Star because they enjoy soft toss in the back yard.

Kirk was just copying Phyllis Schlafly. She would go around to college campuses and try to stir up students by speaking against the Equal Rights Amendment and feminism in general. She would take questions from students. They would get flustered and nervous. Schlafly would then take advantage of the disparity in experience and the student's stage fright to own the libs before people were into owning the libs. The only variation was that Kirk combined this kind of political discourse with the open air debates in the quad that some Christian evangelical preachers would do at universities.

Kirk just had a bunch of dumb set ups that college kids would walk right into. He would ask whether you would want your kid to be like Clarence Thomas or Kendrick Lamar. The lib kids would say Kendrick Lamar because Clarence Thomas wants to take away a woman's right to choose, etc. Kirk would "own" them by pointing out that Lamar used to be in a gang and has cheated on his wife, etc. The college student gets flustered and just goes back to Clarence Thomas wanting to do bad things as a judge. But had Kirk debated anyone over the age of 35, he would have been slammed down with the obvious response that Clarence Thomas was very credibly accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill and has been implicated in a gift giving scheme with billionaire backers.

Biden: showered with his daughter.

Bill Clinton: slept with Monica Lewinsky.

What is one? Do you believe a woman have a penis?

^^^ says it all. Nothing in your posts contain anything of substance to challenge. Claiming to be better than someone after they've passed is a real flex. Hope you're proud.

I only claimed to be a better debater than Kirk , which I am. I also acknowledged that he is far better at building a politically relevant organization, which, as I also acknowledged, is something that I could never do. How about this: I have a better command of the English language than Ronald Reagan. Of course he was intelligent in other ways and had abilities that I do not have. Whoops, there I go again, Claiming to be better at something than a person who is deceased. Shame on me. Or, to quote Shakespeare: a pox upon me for a clumsy lout!

you sound like a fkin idiot with special needs having a temper tantrum.

ok?

Kirk was a Master Debator

You proved exactly what Charlie did. If his opponent brought that issue up about Clarence Thomas, Charlie would deflect the conversation, and that would somehow make him "right?"

Congrats on defending Clarence Thomas's actions. Release the epstein flies.

Says the person who writes solely in lower case. But if you believe that Charlie Kirk was a first rate intellectual and masterful debater, then that’s cool and the gang with me. You dig?

Clinton never slept with Lewinsky. Sleeping was probably the last thing on his mind.

(Republican values) Trump: Walked backstage during Miss America/Miss Teen American pageants to "inspect" while girls were changing. Also, "when you're a celebrity you can do anyting, grab them by the p$^$y, anything"

Besides, Bill was just being generous giving her a little presidential plug.

Schlafly at an actual debate over the ERA:

That is actual debate with a moderator, very different than Kirk's MO. Also, she spoke at Wellesley as an invited speaker. If that happened today, she would be deplatformed. Sorry for the "zero points for Gryffendor" approach, but I'm skeptical of the parallel.

But I get it. Here is Schlafly getting the Kirk treatment:

Nobody used the term "homophic" on Schlafly's time, because by modern standards, *everybody* was homopobic. Being gay was still considered a mental illness, and you could not live openly as a gay American, much less march in a parade outside the Castro district.

Kendrick Lamar is a great example of the modern left. They took his song "Alright" and co-opted it as the unofficial anthem of BLM. But Lamar actually believes that a lot of problems in the black community are caused by low self-esteem. He was chastised on Twitter by Alicia Keys for those views. Lamar grew up in Compton. Keyes did not. Who has more credibility?

And Clarence Thomas proves another point, as no one in his time used the expression "credibly accused," yet everyone who wanted Roe v Wade to stand felt he should not be confirmed due to the accusation. Thomas called it a "high tech lynching" years before Twitter, and, though he refrained from offering an opinion on the crucial case at the center of the controversy during the hearing, boldly proclaimed that he would overturn Roe v Wade "tomorrow" once confirmed. He only had to wait a few decades, but he kept his word.

These are all great examples of the Culture Wars, where one side digs in an is recalcitrant toward the other side's views. That was Kirk's shtick to a "t." The terms may have changed but the contradictions I have pointed out are mild when you consider the pattern. It leaves me wondering where we are headed.

At least Jimmy Kimmel was uncancelled. I'm positive that he won't show a bit of grace or humility. Why should he? Nobody wants that.

my, my aren't you the great debater on a message board LOL