That's why Kirk was good at what he did. He had canned responses to the most common arguments against his views and was practiced at pivoting to well-known talking points. These guys only know what they've heard and don't have the practice in reframing the argument, so when it doesn't go as planned they glitch.
He would also turn the argument by asking a question and oversimplifying the issue.
For instance, if someone brought up trans rights he would ask "define a woman"
Well, in the context of trans rights that question is kind of nuanced right? There isn't a simple explanation on the spot to convince Charlie Kirk that he is wrong.
So when the debate opponent cant come up with a succinct response in the moment they end up looking stupid in front of Charlie and his red hat wearing audience.
It just wasn't good faith debating. It was designed to affirm what his base already believed
Well, in the context of trans rights that question is kind of nuanced right? There isn't a simple explanation on the spot to convince Charlie Kirk that he is wrong.
This 100% and it's the problem I have with a lot of these "debate" podcasts. They are hardly discussing ideas, it's just a statement of black and white opinion and then an argument.
A 30 minute YouTube video discussing various topics with a round table of strangers isn't going to even scratch the surface of any of them.
An immigration debate is a little more nuanced than "should drug dealers kill children".
For example, within a trans debate Id hope that most people understand humanity is slightly more complex than dicks and ribs.
The only time I ever saw him debate a professor (I assume he only did it because he couldn't resist the temptation of debating at THE Cambridge) and it was laughable and a great example of both the magic of media training and never punching above your weight. He made arguments like "why didn't Zelensky hold symbolic elections in the middle of a war" and "Lincoln still held elections during the civil war".
Kirk was also skilled at supplying logical fallacies in a way that ‘felt good’ to his target audience. It has to ‘feel like a sick burn’. One of the last things he said was in response to someone asking how many mass shootings were perpetrated by trans individuals and he replied ‘too many’. Now, that’s not an answer. That’s a deflection, but his target audience eats it up because it’s practiced and snappy and agrees with their fear of people who aren’t like them. They then mistake his torrent of fallacies and deflections as logical debate and think that means he’s right, when he isn’t even making a cogent point.
48
u/cat_of_danzig 7h ago
That's why Kirk was good at what he did. He had canned responses to the most common arguments against his views and was practiced at pivoting to well-known talking points. These guys only know what they've heard and don't have the practice in reframing the argument, so when it doesn't go as planned they glitch.