zlacker

I saw his videos occasionally on youtube/facebook. I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration most of the time, though I thought some of his other arguments on other topics were thought provoking at least, and I also thought it was cool that he always had an open mic for anyone that wanted to debate him. Seemed like he had an encyclopedic memory when it came to things like SCOTUS cases or historical events.

>>umvi+(OP)
Charlie didn't debate so much as followed a script and steered you towards his gotcha questions to create content for his show.

He recently went to Cambridge Univ and debated a student who actual knew his routine. It didn't go well for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A

>>ourman+7k
Instead of linking to a one-sided reframing of the debate, here's the actual debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvIktYig9Y

It seems to be a healthy debate for both sides.

>>toomim+Aw
That's a link to Charlie's own post of the debate.

It seems to be a healthy debate to someone who doesn't know Charlie's logical fallacies and scripted style.

>>ourman+7k
That might be one account of that debate, but certainly many disagree with you and the video. I watched the original and I think he did well in the debate. You posting a video that is clearly against him is only evidence of your stance.

>>ourman+ux
I watched the start of the debate, having never heard of Charlie before the shooting. His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on your career one.

>>tim333+ma1
> His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on you career one.

Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations. Some want to be doctors, nurses, chefs, electricians, plumbers, or artists. Saying that women should get married and raise lots of children denies those aspirations, and says to me that those who ascribe to that model have no consideration for women as human beings. Let women pursue their own definition of happiness rather than prescribing one for them.

>>dcuthb+vr1
I'm not saying it's correct but it didn't seem unreasonable to debate it. I guess you might be comparing 1950s America to modern America.

>>tim333+ma1
Whether or not that may be statistically true, it's offensive for a man to tell a woman what they'll be happier doing with their life. Not your choice.

>>tim333+Yr1
I'm not comparing anything to 1950s America. I am disagreeing with your assertion "His position seemed fairly reasonable ...". Kirk insinuated in the video that women in America would be happier if they had a belief in the divine and a lot of kids (which may correlate with beliefs from the 1950s, but that's besides the point) when he compared what women in America have to what women in sub-Saharan Africa have. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. (edited to fix a typo)

>>umvi+(OP)
> I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration

I haven't heard him say anything about immigration in general, merely illegal immigration which (should be) the exception, and should be a matter of crime not a matter of 'pro or con'.

>>dcuthb+vr1
> Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations.

No. They are right. When you survey people, most women are happier working for their children rather than their boss. Most women feeling that way doesn't preclude other women feeling differently. Not does it prescribing a definition of happiness for women that want to work for their boss.

>>tim333+ma1
Aren't man also happier when they are married and have kids? So according to that logic also man should stop focusing on their career and instead get married and have kids.

>>nailer+ZK1
Happiness is not a single metric you can use to determine what is best. The most rewarding lives are ones where you can sacrifice for something meaningful to you. Sacrificing to have a rewarding, independent life without children may not be the easiest life, but it’s definitely not an any way inferior to a “happier” one raising kids. Because of this, that statistic, even if accurate, doesn’t matter. And doesn’t suggest that anyone should go raise a family.

>>whamla+Hy2
> Happiness is not a single metric you can use to determine what is best.

If you mean happiness is not the only metric, we're agreed.

> Sacrificing to have a rewarding, independent life without children ... is definitely not an any way inferior to a “happier” one raising kids.

In the way that it makes makes most people less happy, it is.

>>tim333+ma1
His position was idiotic in his broader philosophical framework because his economic stance is that the poor should struggle and the rich should reap the benefits of their investments. It literally isn't possible to have a 1950s style familial relationship given his economic stances.

>>stickf+RD1
You can tell a man that he should work less and focus more on his family to become happier. And it would be a very inoffensive statement.

>>nailer+DK1
He had a few ideas:

See the “On Immigration” section.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...