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
> 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.

>>bertil+gZ
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.

>>duckdr+eB2
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.

>>bertil+2T2
You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here.

>>duckdr+HI3
What have I ever written that would imply I’m pro gun violence?

This comment is completely unacceptable and I demand that you delete it.

>>bertil+zW3
Fair enough, I retract the second part. It was out of line.

I'll modify it to: No surprise you object to someone of opposing views going onto campuses for exchanges of ideas.

>>duckdr+174
it never was about "exchanges of ideas" it always was about getting short "owning the libs" clips to post on social media for views and money