Ironically enough, this shows how Kirk was actually at least somewhat better than most of the right wing pundits.
He would actually allow others to have the mic. He actually lets the dude speak. If not for that, you couldn’t have a video of him being made to look the fool.
Most of them will refuse to interact, shouting down questions, trying to cut off counterpoints, only interacting via one-way streams and speeches. Generally cowardly refusing to vaguely risk a difficult talking point arise.
He said vile things, but he at least let others speak. And now the right wing is on a crusade to try to suppress any voice that would have stood against, rather than letting them speak.
Charlie Kirk would have called Jesus a communist.
Then crucified him and blame the Muslims…
Though this is hilariously funny, this is the list basic argument against just about any religion, the cherry picking, and I’m still waiting for a fucking answer. Why doesn’t Charlie burn himself to death? I mean, I can imagine that that hole in his neck makes that hard to do for him right now, but why doesn’t he? Why doesn’t every Christian out there burn and stone themselves to death for their continuous sinning?
Or if not, you know, admit that they’re plain wrong about their entire view on life?
Cremated, even
I didn’t know I could watch the same piece of shit get murdered twice, but here we are.
“I love uneducated people”
Still missing the point that he is free to read and believe anything he likes, but a book of ancient mythology shouldn’t have any influence at all in developing 21st century social/political policy.
Ultimately, that is going to be the final outcome of his argument - either follow ALL the Bible’s demands, or follow none of them - but that’s too many steps for MAGAs. The answer is simple: It’s in the 1st Amendment. If they want to know more, they can go get a real education. It’s time to stop coddling these ignorant traitors.
Pretty obvious Kirk has no education since high school. He flunked out of Harper after one semester.
Had no education…*
It clearly says it’s fine to sleep with a dude if you are both high.
Is there a specific drug or is it fucker’s choice?
Not asking for myself, just trying to understand.
No specific drug. Caffeine, alcohol, even deep erotic breaths of oxygen will do.
I’d argue it means dopamine, suggesting it’s only permissable with the desire (and consent) of both parties.
That “if a man sleeps with another man and they shall be stoned” (not a native English) verse is wrongly translated iirc. In old Hebrew there is a word that specifically means “man who is not yet an adult” - and back then you were an adult with 14 I think.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
molesting children is a sin
Nowadays that’s a prerequisite if you want to be a republican politician.
Removed by mod
Similarly a lot of the stuff about sodomy was about rape. Regardless I don’t think we should use religious texts as the basis for morals.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Yeah, but no republican wants to hear that their favorite activity is a sin.
Reminds me of a scene from one of my favourite west wing episodes:
Well hell, they don’t like that rule at all
Right? No wonder they all make it about The Gays.
So what is the response? I feel like these clips are great. But if he makes a great point after, isn’t it setting a trap where you share this and the response is his rebuttal which could be good or bad
As the other person said he ends up saying he still doesn’t like it but there is still a challenge. The reason Charlie says it’s reaffirmed in Mathew about the gays is because everything the student brings up is the old testament and Jesus already died to erase those sins. Bringing up Leviticus trying to make a point doesn’t work if you believe in the new testament.
They rationalize their way out of everything. The bible is infallible except when they don’t like what it says.
Good thing Charles set the trap himself by saying morality is objective and unchanging. That must either mean God commanded things that were not moral (which is against their worldview), or that burning women, killing disobedient children, taking people as slaves for life, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath are morally permissible.
It’s usually impossible for them to concede God did anything wrong, so they have to justify numerous atrocities.
Not a Christian, but a Muslim once share the argument that God doesn’t make mistakes and corrects, nor he changes his mind. He sets the correct rules for that moment, and any change is because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the right moment to do so. We mere humans can’t understand enough, so that’s the godly way to guide us.
He sets the correct rules for that moment
So morals are not objective and unchanging, rather they change depending on how God feels at any particular moment. You can’t actually ground any sort of moral worldview with that belief because you can justify literally anything as long as you say God said so.
This is literally the first instruction God gives Adam and Eve. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do not develop an independent sense of morality. What God says is the right thing at that time, and don’t you dare contradict him.
It was more “moral are beyond human comprehension, so follow sky daddy” kind of argument.
Not saying it’s a good argument, but a possible one from a religious standpoint
So basically, morality is very tricky, so it kind of depends on the situation, so in general try to behave in accordance with X and avoid Y, but there will always be grey areas which must be judged on a case by case basis.
Kind of like how our laws work.
“Everyone! I just heard from sky daddy. He said you should all give me all your money. New moral imperative.”
His response, and I’m not joking, when all of his arguments against gay marriage were defeated in that debate, was, “well, I still don’t like it.”
Yea I just watched the whole thing. One of my favorite things I’ve heard recently is people arguing if Charlie was a good debater or not. One person just said “did he ever once change his mind?” There’s one a decade. Charlie was not debating. What pisses me off though is how little material there is for times like this to repost. Sure there’s content but everybody on the left checks out and doesn’t bother to archive anything worthwhile.
Charlie was not doing debates. He was a propagandist. What he did was performing in the shape of a debate, in front of an audience to spread his agenda, and he was very good at that. If you scrutinize his “debates” in terms of logic soundness or other things good arguments would have, they don’t stand a chance. But that was not the point, nor would it matter.
I think his debates were actually very well done. It’s just that debates are not a good format to find truth. Charlie was one of the best at debates. Saying all that, we all should be better at being on other platforms and sniping these clips to highlight the hypocrisy and bullshit. I’m absolutely convinced that right wing groups convinced all of us to abandon all other social media so they can spread their ideas easier
Depends on what you think debate is, I guess. After posting my comment I did realize people probably conceptualise “debate” differently. If you think debate is just a form of performance to influence people’s ideas, then sure. But if you think debate should be a form of intellectual conversation, a collaboration between two disagreeing parties in order to find truth, then what Charlie is doing couldn’t be further from that.
It’s both. But the techniques Charlie used were excellent. Debate should be done in good faith. He wasn’t debating in good faith. But the skills he had to still do what he did was phenomenal. I have no issue with his ability to use debate strategies. We could all learn something from watching him.
This whole thing was already played out on the TV series “The West Wing”, and I’m fairly sure that Aaron Sorkin got it from somewhere else.
https://www.tv-quotes.com/shows/the-west-wing/quote_13962.html
“Dr Laura” (receiver of that original letter) is a fucking shit stain of a human being. One of those right wing women that absolutely hates other women.
She’d tell women and girls calling in that they needed to quit their jobs and dedicate themselves full time to their children, when she herself was happy to ignore raising her children to play pundit. A Phyllis Schafly style gender traitor, someone happy to have a full time job and make lots of money telling women that they weren’t capable or deserving of full human dignity.
Great scene:
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
editing videos like that is the equivalent to winning arguments in the shower
Except all the mouth breathers on the right just lap that shit up.
But that’s so much fun! Are we talking about videos with hot pink hearts coming out the neck hole or shower arguing I want paying attention
Ooo I should do one with a care bear stare
If only. In the year 2025, it apparently captures hearts and minds. I know because Boomers send this heavily edited shit constantly.
It teaches them the thought stopping cliches and mantras that they can use to “own” libs in drive by Facebook comments.
I think about the classic creationist “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” It’s not intended to be an actual question - you can try to explain that no, we didn’t “come from monkeys,” that we shared a common ancestor, etc… but they don’t care. It’s just supposed to be a quick catch phrase that lets you not think about the question anymore.
That’s the whole point of all of these right wing “debaters.”
“I am convinced by this argument, so if I present the argument to you, I have made a convincing argument. QED.”
The extensive attention to curation, editing, and deleting was the whole point of the manufactured reality being pushed.
Glad that fascist is dead haha.
“I disagree with what you say, but will contend to the death your right to say it.” / Voltaire
“The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination.”
- Voltaire
no one questioned his RIGHT to say anything.
you can’t question someone’s feelings over what he said. so your quote is less then meaningless here
