Charlie Kirk as a debater

No, just better than Charlie Kirk. But that’s not saying much.

This is his debate at Oxford, where at least half the posters here suggest he "lost:"

First question is about birthright citizenship, which he opposes. Respectfully, I don't see him changing the subject or using any "Gish gallop" technique. He actually digs into the issue, cites Supreme Court precedent, and then says the current question that makes the topic relevant ("Should children of undocument/illegal immigrants be considered US citizens be granted full citizenship?") hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court.

His opponent asks, "Well, what alternative system do you propose." His answer: "Get rid of [birthright citizenship] and mass deportation."

One gets the impression that what you think of his skills as a debater really boils down to whether or not you agree with him.

look, i think it's a fair point about the difference between back and forth with Eastern Michigan (or Utah Valley) kids vs. Harvard. but to me what he did was effectively replace the snooty, bow-tie college republicans with low rent turning point pugilism, which appeals to (a) people dropped out of or never went to college, who want the false impression he's smarter and (b) mediocrities going to second rate directional state schools. and those people in number will far outnumber the elite school kids whose intellectualism and tone (think william f. buckley, george will, ted cruz) has heretofore dominated the party. and arguably still dictate its policy, which is for college educated bosses.

so, to me, while presented as college debating, it's arguably intended for people not at the college. they want to see someone banter with college kids and claim he won. "see, you don't need a degree."

personally, to me, a lot of this turning point or shapiro crap are fast food when you went to college for fine dining or at least steak. something went badly if you go to college and are convinced on politics by a dropout.

sorry, no, 1897, wong kim ark. at that time we had chinese exclusion laws. literally no one new and chinese was supposed to be getting in. parents come from china illegally. kid is born in SF. leaves for china, comes back, not allowed in. folks against him say being illegal he wasn't subject to our laws when born here. same schtick people are arguing now. court says he's american under birthright.

there's a case before that from the 1840s where a woman was born here while passing through. same conclusion.

period.

he had bad information. you leaned too much on a dropout.

and a lot of trump policies except for tariff wars, are basically reagan reruns with a more authoritarian approach and a pliable congress and supreme court to rubber stamp it all.

if you went to a smaller liberal arts college or grad school, you recognize the socratic nature of the exercise. you go back and forth and no one really wins unless your prof didn't prepare or gets a fact wrong. they control the floor. they can declare themselves boss, set terms, pretend you're wrong when you're right, or change the subject. in this turning point context, you're really supposed to be asking questions, which undermines your ability to argue. you get maybe a question or comment or two, and he sends it on to someone else.

if you have ever been in a "woke" classroom, like i was decades ago a couple times, you've seen the left wing version of this, though probably smarter and better prepared. you could have a brilliant point and if it's politically incorrect to the left version the prof can at any time ream you out in front of the class, and even at a great school, only some kids will be prepared and smart enough to know you actually had a point, and to see the showmanship and control freakish aspects of it.

and since we don't do lincoln douglas stuff outside of school, most debate is really about an overall impression or a serious gaffe, which speak to intellect, competence, age, frightening politics, or something like that. and in this situation you don't get to hold the floor with him. you're a student in a class who gets a minute and on to the next socratic point. you think you're a fighter but you're kind of a prop for the show as a whole. one of several.

last, if there was someone who could make him look bad it'd probably be a seminar-veteran from a good liberal arts school. outside of science classes we do 10 kid seminars where you show up ready to discuss the book every class. we don't do a ton of passive lecture stuff. one reason your state school kid maybe gets plowed is they probably do a bunch of cattle call lecture classes and are babies at it. that and if they were bright they're not at eastern michigan.

He was great at debating certain topics. When he tried to defend Trump or mix politics with Christianity, it didn't go very well. When it came to debating abortion, DEI, transgender issues, he was a great debater. Because those are honestly pretty easy topics to debate people. Most common college students couldn't even begin to articulate why they had these beliefs.

Most college students are being taught by ultra liberal professors in a lot of their gen Ed/humanities courses. They often bring politics into the classroom. Kirk was there to amplify a different perspective and to bring a diverse view point, one that has gotten professors fired, easily.

I appreciate what he did. If you haven't, I suggest you watch videos posted on his platform. Put yourself in the place of the student he is debating. How would you respond? Sometimes the student missed an easy retort, while other times the student has pretzel logic.

Charlie Kirk is the second greatest debater to ever live, which is why he is dead…and the GOAT dodged his bullet.

As (a hopefully useful) aside, there is psychologist and college professor Johnathon Haidt. Haidt coined the term "moral dumbfounding" to describe how we sometimes hold moral beliefs that appear from nowhere and do not respond to flaws in our reasoning. He did so with this simple thought experiment:

There is a brother and sister who are enjoying a bottle of wine on a mutual vacation. One of the pair suggests they make love, which they do. They use protection, and the experience brings them closer together.

When you ask people "Is what they did morally wrong?" Almost all of them will say "yes." But then Haidt asks a more provocative question. "Why?" You will get some pretty obvious responses: "They were drunk and incapable of making good decisions." Haidt points out "I never said they got drunk, and it was mutually agreed upon." Well, then..."They risk having a child with birth defects." Haidt points out: "They used protection." Well, then, "It could damage their relationship." Haidt points out: "I said the experience brought them closer together." The last leg is always the same once all objections have been answered with facts: "Well...it's wrong...because it is." That's moral dumbfounding. We have strong convictions about our beliefs, whether they accord with the facts at hand or not.

Everybody does this, especially when it comes to cases nowhere near as shocking as the one proposed in the thought experiment.

Which would take you to the famous Christopher Hitchens-Douglas Wilson debate from 2009, "is Christianity good for the world?"

They both make lots of good, compelling arguments. Ultimately, for Christianity, the Bible is used as a foundation for moral beliefs. Whether you believe in the Bible, or a creator is irrelevant to this argument. An atheist, as Christopher Hitchens confesses, is left to determine their own moral beliefs.

A Christian can refer their beliefs, or a great many of them, to teaching in the Bible, where as an atheist, ultimately, must pick and choose their own beliefs. A society can never be in agreement this way. Even if a society based their beliefs on the Bible. They still probably wouldn't be in agreement either. But there may be certain principles or morals that could be agreed upon by all. Such as many of the ten commandments, for example.

Public debates with college kids have always been stupid. When you do something as a profession, you're supposed to be massively more educated about that thing than a random college student.

I'm a cardiologist. I could easily take a completely wrong position in a discussion about atrial fibrillation management and still "win" a debate with a college biology student. I could cherry pick data and throw out personal anecdotes all day long, and no college kid would be able to put up much of an opposition.

Likewise, if you are a social and political commentator for a living, you SHOULD be able to win any debate in that realm with a college kid. It's literally your job to have a massive fund of knowledge of history and political theory, and you SHOULD be able to use that to take any side of the debate and demolish any 22-year-old.

There's nothing impressive about a professional out-debating a non-professional. But it is super embarrassing for the professional any time the debate is even close to even.

This would be the case I'd college students didn't think they knew everything. And participated in riots and boycotts because of their often incredibly misinformed ideals.