[duckdriver]

He's not, actually.

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. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion.

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

[bertil]

The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed.

He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in.

This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale.

Actually, not “may or may not.”

[duckdriver]

Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation.

The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in constructive conversations. This video is ABSOLUTELY an example of a constructive conversation.

[bertil]

Constructive conversation would be you asking why we didn’t think this was, learning from our perspective. It’s when you use questions marks for something else than snark.

You don’t seem to know what that looks like, so you telling me WITH BIG SHOUTY LETTERS that ABSOLUTELY it is… That feels a bit self-defeating to stay polite.

[duckdriver]

So now you want to pretend that "constructive conversation" doesn't refer to Kirk's debates, but rather our exchange?

When you have to change the terms of the discussion, it's because your argument is weak.

[bertil]

You are the one using him as a reference. Neither of you care to understand what the other person is saying and grow from others’ experience; you only care to pretend to debate with people who already agree with you, and find witty quips if not.

Otherwise, you would have stopped your reply at the first line. That could have been a great question if you cared enough to read to the answer before dismissing it.

[defrost]

He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge.").

Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash.

The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.

[duckdriver]

This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion.

I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that.

Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point

[defrost]

There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before.

Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props.

Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back.

It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.

[bertil]

> Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point

"I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.

[duckdriver]

The fact that you stuff words in my mouth is actually more revealing than anything at all.

I cited a video that supported my argument. You then make a complete straw man.

[bertil]

I reacted to the context of that video. You ignoring that and telling me that I didn’t do it is a nice illustrations of the problem I have with pretend debate.

[duckdriver]

You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here.

[mhh__]

The oxford and cambridge unions both solely function to facilitate the careers of people debating now (e.g. someone got a career out of the kirk one)

[defrost]

Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.

[mhh__]

I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.