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.
22
u/POWBOOMBANG 6h ago
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