zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table).

>>gred+sw
[flagged]

>>bertil+dN
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

>>duckdr+QW
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.

>>defros+XX
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

>>duckdr+CY
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.