Charlie Kirk Shot in the Neck in Utah (Update: Shooter Alt-right links)
- Thread starter lir2016
- Start date
A chubby one-day-old is my guess. LMAO
You forgot no. 6.No one was afraid of debating Kirk, it was just largely a waste of time. A few people were able to shut him up long enough to get their points in and those are fun to watch. But Kirk really wasn’t a debater; he was a gaslighter. Let’s walk through a typical Charlie Kirk debate.
1. Charlie would often share the Gospel. Now I’m not going to criticize that because Paul said we should celebrate when the Gospel is preached regardless of motive. And I won’t say Charlie didn’t have good intentions in sharing the Gospel. But it seems Charlie would leverage that for his own purposes. But we’ll get to that later.
2. Charlie invites someone to debate him. This typically begins with someone stating some objective fact about how Charlie’s political ideas were wrong or hypocritical.
3. Charlie interrupts the question to try to remove the important facts so he can rephrase the question under his own terms. This is a form of the strawman fallacy. Instead of addressing the valid question, Charlie changes the question to one he can give an answer to that no one can argue with, then claims victory over the original argument that he never addressed.
4. Charlie inserts his far right talking points which are typically laced with racism and misogyny. “We only have this problem because of gangs (read “blacks and Hispanics”), etc.
5. When Charlie is called out for his hate filled rhetoric he goes back and says he can’t hate the people he has been tearing down with racism, sexism, and a host of other -isms because he just shared the Gospel with them. This is more gaslighting.
That’s a simplification but it’s a valid paradigm of Charlie’s “debates” from what I have seen.
Now back to the question. Why go and debate someone when he is going to try to gaslight you into thinking he’s answering your question when he isn’t, subject yourself to hateful rhetoric, then you get to hear a crowd of sheep applaud because he says that despite gaslighting you, minimizing you, and marginalizing you that he actually loves you?
Charlie Kirk wanted people to "prove Me Wrong". Why is it liberals are afraid to ask that question?
Answer (1 of 180): Because Charlie Kirk wasn’t interested in an exchange of ideas or learning other perspectives. His paycheck depended on him declaring himself “proven right” no matter what by using deflection, straw man arguments, gish-galloping, talking points and other techniques used to try...www.quora.com
6. Charlie mostly debated college kids who have not been required to develop critical thinking skills. Most of the time they are merely parroting ideas that they have been taught and expected to believe.
Last edited:
Ory, this is a good one. Mocky is better than Luke, trust me....
Demented Trump RUSHES TO DELETE Insane Video
He wasn't debating them.
Are you saying that if they say something you don't agree with, they are "parroting" ideas and if they spew vile BS like Charlie did, then they are thinking "critically"?
I have not watched a lot of Kirk's "debate" videos, but I don't agree with this. He's basically an expert on right-wing talking points and parroted them. Whenever he faced someone who could push back on those things, he crumbled or deflected. The ole' agree to disagree stance. I've seen that when he faced push back from biblical scholars and experts on Ukraine. And, to save himself, he would pivot and change the conversation to something he was more comfortable harping on.
He, like Ben Shapiro, throw out a lot of "facts" that could be true....but frequently they have been cherry picked for effect. So, you throw that shit out at a 19 year old who might only have a couple of years of college under them, how are they supposed to respond? They didn't come to talk to Kirk after studying up on his theatrics. They don't have cue cards filled with counter stats to parry his attacks. So, you might just think they can only parrot things....but hold the mirror up to Charlie...
He's a young man with years of living on his hands, so he will be back, smarter, stronger, and better than ever.
I wish I were 19 again!!!! DAMMIT!!!!
You got nothing but projection...so based on this post, only right wingers are violent? it's like saying only Hamas are terrorists...
mandrill uses the word debating but criticizes the process. So I agree, technically it's not a debate.
Lastly, I am saying today's U.S. college kids generally don't have well formed opinions. We can call it impressionable. It doesn't make them wrong or right. They just can't articulate very well the reasons they hold certain opinions. I see this when I discuss things with young people in my family or with my friends' children.
I assure you know one every said this about me when I was 19. I was sitting with the grown-ups at holidays.
Am sure there are kids that don't have well formed opinions as there are adults that don't have well formed opinions.
There are college kids who have very well formed opinions as there are adults who do as well.
Don't think the blanket statement applies or even the claim that the majority of college kids don't have well formed opinions in today's climate is necessarily true.
But Charlie sure did cherry pick ones that were easy to browbeat when he went on those campuses.
I don't agree with Charlie on a lot of things. I don't necessarily think a two-three minute exchange is a fair debate or a debate at all.
However, most of the college kids that I have seen in clips are not prepared to challenge Kirk. Let's put it this way. They are not Valcazar or mandrill (when he's not angry).
I'm not sure of the exact timeline, but in many of the clips Kirk is not much older than the college kid he is interacting with. Now in the current, does a very smart, articulate 31 year old have an intellectual advantage on a 19 year old? I would say absolutely, but that is all my point is saying......no more, no less.
You're trying too hard to analyze a simple social media post that doesn't require that much analysis.
Last edited:
