He was not a debater, he was a propagandist.
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
571 points (98.0% liked)
politics
25795 readers
2681 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
CK was a pussy who got his ass whipped every time he left his faschist echo chamber and debated someone with more than two brain cells
As someone not from the US, do you have examples?
OP's video is a sterling example.
He was a content farmer. And he worked hard for that content because most average, random college kids absolutely destroyed him.
It was bad arguing. There's a reason why he only argued with children and never with any actually serious debate clubs.
This. He was terrible at arguing. You are describing a terrible orator with no skill to analyze it present ideas.
But we took humanities out of school curriculum long ago, so most can't tell.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.
We can probably thank decades of shout shows on television, especially cable, in which "debates" took place that were not really actual debates.
Same with the way our "debates" are run when it comes to politicians running for office.
never with any actually serious debate clubs
In my experience, many debate clubs have at least a few members who are wankers like Kirk.
For example, Ted Cruz was a debate whiz kid in college. But outside that artificial, controlled environment, he still resorts to bullying and flooding the zone with bullshit. That's because propaganda is a different game than debate, and debate skills have limited relevance to political discussions.
I didn't know that. I always assumed people who argued like he did would quickly be shut down by the basic rules of the format and give up if they couldn't learn to adapt
Know how everyone hates lawyers because they basically manipulate the meaning of the rules to serve themselves? It's like that.
If you're an absolute killer at the kind of rules and admin of debate, you can rack up points with nonsense and keep your opponent from doing the same.
It's an insanely stupid use of people's time
Cant wait for his next debate
I hate that most people seem to be unaware of the Gish Gallop.
Ben Shapiro does the same thing, as did "Dr" Dino (an evolution denier).
I was in middle school when Adam Sandler's Billy madison came out. The year following, we had debate class.
Anything remotely approximating a gish-gallop was immediately responded to with the ben stein quote
"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Im disappointed this did not just become the standard shut down.
the ben stein quote
It was Jim Downey, but Ben Stein probably would've worked just fine in that role as well. Too bad Stein's an anti-abortion creationist weirdo though.
Jim Downey is a comedy legend. If you know, you know.
That's awesome. I've heard that clip played for so many things over the years, and honestly, I wish public political "debates" would push a buzzer, cut the mic of the offender and play that clip. Being able to spot and name a Gish Gallop should be in every American's toolbox and maybe a humorous way to teach it would be that clip. :)
I've never been in debate class or on a debate team, but I'm well aware that what is often called a "debate" isn't anything like what a debate should be. Most of it seems to be about who is able to craft and get in a well-scripted zinger, but one that doesn't come off like it's well-scripted.
Like Ronnie Raygun's "there you go again". I mean, that's the classic case of this kind of thing, and even today, conservatives that remember that think it's a real counterpoint. When it just sounds like something barely evolved past the playground's "I know what you are, but what am I?"
And people, even with the rise of the Internet, are still able to get away with the Gish Gallop and have people think the abuser is really smart and a master debater.
Fucking Aquaman?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLqXkYrdmjY&t=191s
It's sad how stupid your message can be and still amass an army of idiots to line up behind you.
LOL, I forgot about that stupid argument by climate denialists about just being able to sell your house and move when the tides rise and claim your property....
But Aquaman is the perfect response!
Call him by his name so folks can better shame him. Kent Hovind is a bitch less whoreson who has willingly and knowingly exposed children to pedophilic sexual predators.
load more comments
(2 replies)
TIL
Like I’ve seen it in action and have had to counter it but never knew there was a formal name for it.
Him and a bunch of other dipshits that hold these "debates" would have failed high school debate classes or an actual judged competition.
Yeah since his death I watched a couple of videos and he ~~is~~ was so robotic and insincere. Like he would just cut off his opponent if he detected a keyword that relates to some lukewarm rebuttal (that anyone with a passing familiarity with the topic would see through) and use it as a rhetorical trap, to stop having a thinking debate and pivot to simply spewing talking points.
Smelling the feculent turn, the crowd would then cheer and whoop him on as he would pile on more and more bullshit over the original dishonest dump.
Then his Move: he would ask a question based on this insincere tower of turds. He would repeat it, it's a simple question, right? Just answer the question.
Obviously the original point is buried under several layers of shit by this point, so it's hard to tell what the debate was even about...
I think that's what honest people failed to realise when debating Kirk. It wasn't about anything other than winning the debate.
load more comments
(3 replies)
If y’all aren’t familiar yet, the ‘Alt-right Playbook’ videos on Youtube explain all this really well and explain what we have to continue to deal with
I typically avoid videos because I vastly prefer reading, but I make an exception for those. I just watch them at double speed.
The way to deal with it is to not play by their rules. Fascists don't care about winning rational arguments, they just want to get you to waste your time and energy trying.
Drive them out of power, that's the only language they understand.
And this is why one of the correct answers is I do not care.
Try this on tankies. Or Hassan habibis. They will just continue with bullshit and insults.
Never a dialogue. It is a flood of hate.
There are more „episodes“ from this event on YouTube. They are all pretty great. Kirk seems to have problems debating with people who actually know their stuff and don’t let themselves be tricked.
Proof of how bad of a "debater" he was.
As someone who categorically avoids watching far right bad faith grifters, I missed the original debate. This young woman is super smart and articulate. Still some room to grow, but I've watched a few things with her now.
That said, I wish we lived in a world where it was considered more worthwhile to do something more impactful with her mind than engage with these grifters for clicks while putting herself at risk given their audiences and her physical appearance and views.
Spreading false, bigoted and genocidal propagonda is not debating. That's called selling out your humanity and sucking satan's dick for money
Btw people need to stop talking about charlie kirk, or else we will keep reminding everyone of how evil and hateful he was every time they mention him.
Let him rest in piss or we will keep shitting on him
Guy never won a single argument as a result of not answering questions in kind.
With all of the game/competition shows out there they should have a "Debate Club" or "Celebrity Debate Club" which could possibly pass down critical thinking to the viewer.
Consider it rejected.
I didn't know who kirk was and this disheveled looking British kid was my introduction to him. What a lad!! Multiple mic drop moments
Classic fascist playbook archetype. The man of action that appeals to tradiction, rejects modernity and fosters fear from those that are different.
Grading on a curve, sadly he was much better than a lot of the other right wing personalities.
He at least let them have a mic even in his own forum, which is more than you can say for most right wingers.
An asshole who picked fights all the time finally gets one.
Jubilee: 1 Charlie Kirk vs 1 Discord Lunatic: Who would win?
Steamrolling an argument is honestly a legit tactic used in arguing sometimes. A shity and arrogant one though maybe.
If you are in debate club and the goal is "win debate", fine tactic.
If you are doing basically anything else?
Imthe fact that any kind of offical debate can be “won” by shouting over people is in itself a sign that the whole affair is worthless.
view more: next ›