Does anyone know of any instances where Charlie Kirk actually changed his stance after debating someone?

[KostasKouvalis]

I did read he changed his position on a few things throughout his life, but I don't know if that was a direct result of debating someone.

Yes, he invited and enjoyed discussion, but his agenda seemed to be to convince people that HIS view point was the right view point.

I'm pretty conservative, but I've had debates and discussions that made me think differently and change my views.

I watched quite a few of his videos in the past. Some things these leftist students were saying were far more rational and logical then HIS views. Maybe not the vast majority of them, but as a moderate conservative, I found myself agreeing with Liberals over him on multiple ocassions.

I don't think he was open minded at all. His whole goal wasn't to have mutual understanding and change, but to convince his opponents that HIS stance was the RIGHT one, even if it was completely moronic and illogical. He was no different then professors and liberal media. He even said his goal was to "undo the damage that had been done".

I don't think he was about promoting critical thinking at all. Now Joe Rogan, THERE'S a man who promotes critical thinking. He has a discission without imposing his own personal opinion and let's his viewers decide who's right.

But Charlie Kirk, he was all about telling people why THEY'RE wrong and HE'S right. I found him quite arrogant honestly. I recently saw a video where he was giving a guy advice on how to convert his girlfriend to Christianity. A rational, open minded person would've told him to either accept her as she is, or find someone else.

He wasn't about discussion and understanding, about converting people to HIS ideology, because he was right and they were wrong. He literally gave out MAGA hats and tried multiple times to get students to vote for Trump and had a goal of bringing back the "traditional American family." That's not engaging in open dialogue, that's imposing your ideology on others.

Updates

8 mo

Aside from just saying they were "brainwashed by leftists", he rarely tried to understand WHY they had those views.

But if you know of any instances where he actually changed his mind after debating someone, I might change my stance on him.

Updates

8 mo

Minus the violence, he was no better then Muslims, trying to get young people to adopt Christian and Conservative values.

[Anonymous]

what is he supposed to change his mind on?

affirmative action? abortion? reparations? illegal immigration? transgenderism?

he's no different to 99% of people in the world except he's correct most of the time

do you think any of the leftists who debate Charlie are there to change their minds on anything?

what could a leftist who believes in 53 different genders possible say to explain to Charlie why they had those views?

Charlie Kirk changed his mind on Trump (but then again you might think that's a bad thing)

now will that change your stance on him?

[KostasKouvalis]

Ah his stances on guns? And the 2nd ammendment being a right not a privlige?
And he didn't believe in evolution.
I've seen a few moderates change their minds

Good for Trump.
No, not at all

[Opinion Owner]

the 2nd amendment is about using guns for self-defense against a potential tyrannical government, not have guns for the sake of having them

so yes it definitely is a right

he never said he didn't believe in evolution per se, he disagreed with evolution being the sole reason for our existence

and yes creation and evolution can exist simultaneously

[KostasKouvalis]

No it's not. Look up the definiton of a right and a privlige.
In theory, the government could make it illegal for anyone to own a gun. So how is it a "right"?

The cop that at the OJ Simpson trial said, "I'd like to envoke my 5th ammendment PRIVLIGE". Just because they call them "rights" to make it sound gramatically better, doesn't make it a "right"

[KostasKouvalis]

If something can be revoked it's not a "right"

[Opinion Owner]

if we go by your logic then we have absolutely no rights at all, not even free speech

that being said, rights are granted by law. privilege is granted by society. that's the difference

[KostasKouvalis]

We DON'T. We only have privliges, except our God given rights.

The law can be changed though, so how's it a right? Also, shouldn't rights be universal?

Let me ask you THIS, do you think it's a right or a privlige to live in America?

[Opinion Owner]

yes the law can also change for free speech and life which would not make it a God given right

then again that depends on whom you derive your moral compass from

Christians believe their rights come from God, secularists believe their rights come from their own personal preferences which means it only be derived from force doctrine

It's a privilege to live in America whether you're a citizen or not

tomorrow the government could pass a law that kicks out all American born citizens

"rights" and "privileges" are nothing more than a social construct unless you believe in God

[KostasKouvalis]

Yeah.
Someone said hardcore Conservatives like him believe that gun ownership is a God given right

[Opinion Owner]

if you believe your rights come from God then there's nothing wrong with believing gun ownership is a God given right. murder is NOT a God given right though

if you believe your rights come from the government, then no one has any actual rights at all

[KostasKouvalis]

Why does it have to be ALL rights though? Can you not believe some come from God, some from the gov?

But your second one is exactly what I'm saying.

It's not? Humans have the capacity to do it. And God murdered. Why would God make us capable of murder if he didn't want us to do it?

[Opinion Owner]

yes you can but the fundamental point of the 2nd amendment is self-defense, not murder which is given by God and the government

capacity and doing the actual thing are completely different. plenty of gun owners, soldiers and martial artists have never murdered anyone before despite having the capacity

plenty of superheroes have the capacity to inflict harm with their powers but they don't which is what separates them from supervillains

for most of my childhood my father was bigger and stronger than me and he could easily beat the shit out of me but he didn't

capacity isn't the problem. it's the willingness to do it that is the problem

[KostasKouvalis]

Because they don't wanna go to jail.

Not murder and not recreational shooting either

[Opinion Owner]

c'mon man. is jail the reason you don't beat the shit out of those weaker than you?

anything can be a weapon these days from kitchen knives to cars and even Mike Tyson's own fists can be weapons. whether we choose to use them for harm is up to us

and self-defense should be allowed

[Chazmatazz269]

I never witnessed him change his position in debate, but he concedes good points quite frequently. If you watch lengthier interviews with him, you’ll see that he was on a self destructive path at one time. He obviously changed his position in order to end up where he did.
If you’re actually interested, his conversation with Bill Maher on “Club Random” is extremely insightful.

[Julie07]

I like your text haha.

Peace to this man, he didn't deserve to die and there should be unanimous condemnation on this subject.


But honestly, he wasn't the hero that MAGA fanatics are trying to sell us. And I agree with your text.


Even though personally, it doesn't bother me that he tried to convince others of the validity of his opinions.

[KostasKouvalis]

Thanks, I guess😂
And yes, of course. Nothing he said or did deserved death, but as someone said, he was kind of a scam. Maybe it wouldn't bother me if he was honest about his intentions.
I find it interesting that you agree, but thanks😂

[Julie07]

I'm also surprised to find myself agreeing with most of what you wrote 😂

I also like to convince people that I'm right, so I can't blame Kirk for doing the same. 😂

And honestly, he was saying some pretty absurd things, but maybe that was part of his overall strategy. Like that idiot Candace Owens.

[KostasKouvalis]

Some of his opinions were reasonable and were exactly that, but it annoyed me when tried to pass off opinions as fact
He used scholarly definitions to argue why men can't be women, but didn't do the same with gun ownership, which he claimed is a right and not a privlige, when it's actually a privlige. Strange considering he was Christian, so he should've believed the only "rights" we have are our God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Someone said Conservatives believe gun ownership is a God given right😂 He was even making arguments for how its a right and what he was describing was privlige.

My favorite one was when he was arguing against having black only dorms, but then said diversity is bad🤣

[KostasKouvalis]

Yeah, some I did agree with, but others were just moronic. He complained about liberal biased in classrooms and how we need discussion, but then said biased is necessary and we can't have students debating that the earth is flat or is at the center of the universe. That is something completely different. He's equating teachings facts to imposing opinons. But it sounds like he only wants HIS facts taught, which are probably creationism and that the earth is only 6000 years old😂

[OneViewpoint]

Charlie Kirk was a scam artist who "debated" 19 year old college kids to make himself look smart. That's how insecure the asshole was.

[KostasKouvalis]

Like Ben Shapiro. Shapiro once stormed out of an interview with a professional reporter, 'cuz he lost the debate😂

I saw a video of Charlie going off on Çenk Unger. Even if he's an idiot, it shows that the second these people try to debate anyone who isn't a naiive college kid, their bullshit gets called out.

Even reading some of the comments on his videos, I was like, how can these people actually believed this garbage.

He would question people's believes when they got them from CNN or their professors, but if they formed them through their own critical thinking, he didn't dare press them because he knew his bullshit would be called out.

Like those people who believed gun ownership is a privlige and not a right. He told them he disagrees, but didn't dare go deeper about why they think it's a privlige.

[Twalli]

He was pretty good at considering other viewpoints when he was in high school. He and I talked a lot on Facebook then. TPUSA was very inclusive then. I was a member. He knew that I was probably further left than most people in the U. S. and never got angry at each other. Heck, we were the leaders of the election tracking on a Facebook group. This was all before Trump was a political figure, so I don't know if he changed before that after we stopped talking as much or if Trump made him change.

[Miristheiss]

Yeah, so. e deaf man who was talking through an interpreter brought up a criticism he had made over some closed caption thing during the LA fires.

Kirk apologized and took it back.

[lightbulb27]

exactly, that's my issue with debate...

conversation and human conection much better... sometimes.

[Anonymous]

When someone is right, there is no reason to change their mind. I've watched more than a hundred videos where Charlie exchanged ideas with people on college campuses and I never saw one where the other person was right.

[KostasKouvalis]

I have
Facts are facts

[Opinion Owner]

It's common for someone on the wrong side of a debate to think they are right even though the other person trounced them.

[KostasKouvalis]

But he was wrong when he said political power lies with the majority. How is it the majority when a candidate can get more popular votes then electoral votes and lose. In CA people voted 3 times against gay rights and the gov still did what they wanted.
He said we have a direct voice. No we don't. We don't get to vote directly on bills or budgets, but instead elect others to do it, and they don't always do what we want.

He also argued gun ownership isn't a privlige when it IS, as a privlige is something only certain people have and most importantly, something that can be taken away. So how's it a right and not a privlige?

Lastly, he was arguing against black only dorms, but then said diversity is bad😂 Those two viewpoints completely contradict each other.

[KostasKouvalis]

Also, if he's so Christian he should know the only RIGHTS we have are our God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

[KostasKouvalis]

Ever wonder why he only debates college kids? If he actually debated an expert, his bullshit would be called out.
Also, he was Christian and he literally didn't believe in evolution but creationism which is not a fact.
He was actually in favor of biased in the classroom, because he said we can't have kids debating facts like the earth isn't round and the sun isn't at the center of the universe. So under THAT argument, creationism should be taught becauase HE believes it's fact and evolution shouldn't be argued.
He didn't want common ground or understanding. He wanted people to conform to HIS ideology.

[seeyounexttuesday]

I'd love to hear what position you think he was "beat" by liberals on.

[KostasKouvalis]

Read my response to Julie. And also, that political power doesn't lie with the majority but with the minority, and that we don't vote directly on issues, but elect others to make deciscions for us. And that the electoral college should be abolished.
And that he's wrong that there's no starving kids and that everyone deserves to eat.

[Anonymous]

Hard to say. He was a master debator.