3w ago

Has Charlie Kirk ever changed his views on a subject during a debate?

I never paid much attention to his debates, but from what little snippets I've seen, along with the "Prove Me Wrong" schtick seems to indicate he already decided he was right and others were wrong.

There's plenty of rhetoric and memes already, I'd like to avoid more rhetoric and memes, and I ask this question with genuine curiosity and earnest desire for learning and understanding.

100 comments

No. He operates as an Evangelical Apologist does. He makes disingenuous arguments that sound logical and convincing enough, as long as you don't think about or look into them that much.
I think at ~~Stamford~~ Cambridge recently his whole argument against gay marriage was completely torn down, and he finally just said, he simply didn't like it. I'll look for the video.
Edit: Found it. His own channel has a video of the Cambridge debate. Odly, that student was edited out. But Cambridge has the full event. Including the one omitted
- He changed his mind to agree with Catholics about the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's rare for an Evangelical.
  
  So he supported the false intercessor in Mary? That sounds like worshiping the Image of the Beast (the idols the Pope set up) if you ask me.
- Thanks for answering the question properly.
  
  By “properly” you seem to mean “giving me the answer I wanted even if it’s wrong, without any evidence to support it”.
- Leviticus 18:26 is the argument used against homosexuality, for it says (using YLT) "And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]."
  
  "My favorite book said so", isn't an argument. It's a delusion.
The best thing that could possibly come of his death is if nobody ever spoke of him or thought of him again. These people's power is entirely derived from people talking about them. If it continues long past their death, they may as well be immortal.
- Give us a week or two to enjoy the schadenfreude first
  
  Fair, fair
  
  I might need a year. I don't get this level of happiness often.
- The funny thing is, he will be completely forgotten in a month, even by his putative supporters.
  Who's going around sad that Rush Limbaugh is dead?
  He's just useful to their sadistic cause. That's it. No one is even sad that Charlie's dead — but they are absolutely gleeful at the idea of attacking anyone left of Reagan in "revenge."
- He didn’t actually DO anything, just gabbed in the internet. That kind of influence does not last. But there will always be some hateful asshole to take his place.
- Sounds like the reverse is happening instead, no?
Yeah - at the end, he ended up leaning pretty far to the left
- You're not the first person to make that joke here.
  
  First time I heard it and I lolled
  
  And won't be the last
  
  You made this?
  I made this.
No, but he was rather conclusively proven wrong a couple days ago
- Savage.
  I hate that my macabre subconscious is trying to cook up a sick burn about bullet points.
  
  Bullets don't have points, typically. But they travel quickly enough that it doesn't matter.
- What was he proven wrong about?
  
  He lost the debate on gun violence pretty hard
Once and the message stuck with him for the rest of his life.
- Can you provide a reference, please?
  
  .30-06
Who cares? He's dead now.
I was listening to.. CBC front burner podcast I think? And they mentioned that he has shifted his position on immigrants. He was quoted in the past saying any immigrant who graduated post secondary in the US should have a green card attached to the diploma.
Then some right wing nutjobs were mad about that and we're targetting his events and harrassing him until he fell in line.
So yeah. He will change his mind, if he is bullies enough.
Also I think the group that were harassing his events was Nick Fuentas (spelling?) and now some of the coverage is indicating the shooter might have been a follower of Nick? I'm not sure how confirmed that is so do your own research.
But if it's just right wing nutjobs killing slightly less to the right right wing nutjobs.... Idk man.
- The guy who killed Charlie was 100% a groyper (Nick Fuentes lackey). The news has been slow to pick up on it, but his socials were full of Pepe memes and he is fully a member of the alt-right. Kirk was killed for not being racist enough. Which is insane
- Thanks for chipping in your answer, I appreciate it.
I heard he started leaning left shortly before his death.
He was never in it for personal growth he was in it for financial gains. He was a mere grifter, his opinions were for sale. There is a lot of money in right wing grifting when you reach his level of notoriety. His personal beliefs conveniently always pointed in the direction of money. Worth about $12m when he was executed. He believed in his bank accounts.
I think there was one event in Utah were somebody shot an argument about guns being bad, and he thought about it for the rest of his life. Not sure if it changed his mind
- slowclap
I am also interested in this.
I guess that most people wouldn't really know, because who with a sound mind would like to spend time listening to garbage being produced by right wing grifters. Most of us just assume they are trolls and cannot have their minds changed, and we are right in this assumption most of the time, I would say.
The only right wing person I have ever heard to actually question his own beliefs is Jordan Peterson during the Žižek debate. That's it. And it is probably because Peterson isn't really a troll or a grifter, he is just endlessly confused and ignorant and angry. I can't think of a single other case. And I would assume the same goes for Kirk. Everything I have ever heard about this guy is absolutely abominable.
he changes it whatever suits him at the moment, much like what the other right grifters do.
indicate he already decided he was right and others were wrong.
That’s kind of a big part of debates, didn’t you do them in school?
You can change opinions over time but you’d lose a debate if you said the other side was right in the middle of it.
- This is the root of the problem, isn't it? When someone proves you wrong, and you persist despite evidence to the contrary, that's pretty stupid, right? This high school debate sophistry that Kirk and his contemporaries engage in isn't a good faith discussion and most of his audience isn't equipped with the critical thinking skills to understand that.
  
  isn’t a good faith discussion and most of his audience isn’t equipped with the critical thinking skills to understand that.
  This is the biggest crux. I found people also don’t realize that clips are either staged or handpicked.
- I think that's a problem with debating classes in the US where people lost sight on why debates are useful in the first place.
  It should be an exchange of ideas and views, an opportunity to learn, not a training in ways to just yell over your opponent so that then you can just claim you won something. Then again, writing this "out loud" makes me realize that that is the American way, no?
  May e that's where a lot of gains can be made for the next generation. Teach them how to debate with reason AND LISTEN TO YOUR OPPONENT.For fucking once, actually listen, and try to understand, and not stick with your guns even though you're obviously in the wrong
  
  I thought that's what these "change my mind booths" were for. Highlighting the poor standard of debating shown extensively by the late internet celebrity. He was also a honey pot for online trolling at the expense of a poorly thought out statement or just too much raw emotion. From what I seen the whole set up was triggering but a choice and seemed to cover all health and safety issues at each campus.
  Listening is key . Context is everything.
  
  Debate isn’t to convince the debaters, it’s to convince the audience.
  Being able to select what the audience sees is what makes it anti-education.
- Yes, I suppose that was poorly-worded.
This isn’t the place to get an unbiased actual real answer. No one here has watched anything beyond a clip out of context by a POS influencer.
- Yeah, you're probably right.
Has any social media debate changed anyone's mind?
- Yes. I used to be extremely pacifist.
- I used to believe people were rational, now I know they are all trash.
- I doubt it. I'm in a group with 3 MAGAts, a British incel and 26 liberals and despite having access to sources through this group for the past 15 years, they still vote Trump (and love Kirk).
- Yes. Mine. Specifically with interacting with transgender people on here.
- ive changed my mind from social media debate, but I'm not going to give someone the satisfaction of knowing they convinced me.
  
  Yeah, engaging with people in the comments has certainly influenced my opinion, many times. Daily probably.
- It's not impossible.
- Not if it's rubbing someone's face in it
- Why are you even on here if it hasn't?
A political debate is intended to convince voters that your policies are the right decision. Not that they are correct in a factual sense.
He started noticing what the Israeli government was doing, and talked about it on the likes of Megyn Kelly's show, Tucker Carlson's show, and some others. This happened despite him being a staunch advocate for what was happening in Palestine (and the people thereof dying at the hands of the fake Khazar Jews, of which I'm a partial Khazar who doesn't practice an Abrahamic religion). Let's also mention the fact he was Calvary Chappel, and that he took the Mark of the Beast on the right hand (he obeyed the Pope, despite not being Catholic, though following what Rome's bishop wanted). Not to mention too, while it's absolutely abhorrent what happened to him, he had some views that would've gotten him sent to the lake of fire anyway (due to taking the Mark as I described).
This is all despite the fact he engaged in Socratic debate.
- What do you mean obeyed the Pope? You realize I've of his last actions was to donate the popemobile as an aid vehicle for Gaza
  
  If he was really going to do it, it wouldn't be a Popemobile, as Unum Sanctum would be enforced on the Palestinians. They happened to be of the line of Jacob... not the Khazars as claimed by the mainstream.
- Fascinating answer, thank you.
  
  My producer (Neigsendoig, a.k.a. Sendo) and I had done some cursory numerology on it as well (we're both numerologists by hobby), and our souls felt like they sank to the bottom of the ocean once we realized who planned it out.
  I'd be happy to DM that if you're interested.
- All of these right-wing grifters are susceptible to Zeitgeist shifts as they are paid for the reach of their propaganda so when it became untenable to defend Israel even to a right-wing audience Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Charlie Kirk pivoted. Ben Shapiro didn't and lost his audience.
  
  Defending Israel was always the Catholic and Jesuit thing to do. They stopped doing that, and started gaining followers as a result, likely so people don't notice the Jesuit Superior General, currently Arturo Sosa from Venezuela, pulling the strings on them too.

100 comments