[duckdriver]

> Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate.

This is untrue. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. But to say he never participated in real debate shows you haven't adequately found information outside your filter bubble. There are many examples like the one below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw

[jrflowers]

Good faith debate involves being careful with facts and —very importantly — not lying.

The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc.

It’s a bit strange to say that I’m somehow uninformed because of my “filter bubble” seeing as in order to call Charlie Kirk’s performances legitimate debate you would either have to have never heard of his many, many outright lies or believe that it’s acceptable to make stuff up in a debate. (If the latter is the case we simply disagree on what constitutes a real debate)

I’m familiar with his routine, which is why I described his performances as sometimes resembling legitimate debate. He was able to at times take (from your example) twelve minutes out of several hours of owning the libs to engage in a more mild performance, but that’s not the same thing as someone that has a genuinely good-faith interest in debate. That’s just taking a few minutes to make a marketing video for his podcast/speaking tours.

[duckdriver]

Very nice "no true scotsman" fallacy.

The summarized exchange between you and me:

Y: "He was never involved in real debate" M: "Here's a real debate" Y: "ah, well, nevertheless"

[jrflowers]

Charlie Kirk’s performances were hours long and you’ve now posted three times about how a single clip that you saw vindicates his entire career and reputation - while also declining to discuss anything other than that one clip.

I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes?

Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?

[duckdriver]

"Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate."

So are we in agreement that you were wrong?

If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example of the song is pretty relevant, wouldn't you say?

[jrflowers]

The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”.

Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.