Charlie Kirk.

can anybody answer why the most important subject these days is trans, lgbt and whatever and other minorities?

Some people need to be able to blame them for everything so will twist any topic into "THE LGBT DID IT"

They need to distract people from economic inequality.

The students know they are going to be involved in the debate but are not experienced in such events. Generally kirk and similar online personalities like crowder and Shapiro give the students five minutes to debate them and they debate many students over the day. Kirk and co. are doing theses public events all the time on the same subjects so of course have the advantage. They sometimes get shown up like Kirk did in his uk event or Shapiro did when he had an interview with Andrew Neil and stomred out as Neil had some knowledge of what Shapiro had written/said in the past.

I don't know where we get the idea that Kirk was a fraud debater or masquerading as a fake intellectual because he only debated with students and young people.

He debated students and young people because his whole career and organization was centered on building up a stronger conservative/republican movement within the younger generation.

That was the stated goal and he was very successful in that regard, hence why he was a very important asset to the Republican party.

So it doesn't particularly make sense to me to be critical of that aspect of his popularity, and that's not even mentioning the fact that there are any amounts of hyper-intelligent students capable of high-level debate.

Charlie Kirk didn't always win but to a point in most cases it can be boiled down to a deadlock of fundamental difference of political opinion rather than there being any objective truth anyway.

I didnt say he was a fraud I just said the debates are heavily stacked in his favour. I had a lot more respect for Christopher Hitchens who would debate atheism with fellow intellectuals, Christian apologists, and religious leaders.

Because the right wing have to manufacture mickey mouse issues into grossly exaggerated crises, because they'd never get elected on their true polices which is largely about consolidating a nation's wealth amongst the already wealthy.

Is there? Why wasn't there riots after white people drying to cops of a different colour? Or Asians?

This guy may have acted alone but it seems he's a supporter of far left ideologies.

But some are lauding Kirk as being a supreme intellectual with a magnificent debating skill, he was looking for easy soundbites to boost his image.

Theres a reason he died on his arse when he left America for debates when his buzzwords and cheer cues didn't work.

Ah come on now. The murder of a citizen by an officer or representative of the state is a very different proposition in terms of the power dynamics at play, than the murder of a public figure or politician (Particularly of the governing power) by a citizen.

In terms of the 1st example the driver of protest and riot is a belief that the State will close ranks to protect its own.
In a functional democracy, that fear should not arise and where it does, protest, media and external investigation should allay any perceived need for riot.
Yet in the US?
It all too often becomes confrontation, and theres a history as to why.
The community of the murdered citizen often believes that without radical action, the victim wont get justice.
The community feels unheard and that results in violent outburst.

With the murder of a member of the in-group, a person intimately linked with the controlling power?
The need for protest to gain justice is immediately lessened as those in Power will confirm that everything possible to ensure the perpetrator is brought to justice will be done.
In the case of Kirk's murder the FBI Director himself travelled to Utah and confirmed that any and all support needed to track down the killer would be made available.
The media, the local law enforcement and the full power of the federal state were immediately brought to bear to track the killer down.

In the 1st example, the community resorts to riot when they believe that the victim has been murdered and that the state is not only tardy in investigating but may be actively trying to cover up a murder to protect officers of the state.
As such any target for their ire becomes the state, hence protests starting at police station, courts and civic buildings, locations of government.

In the 2nd example, the victim's community knows that as they are the group in power that every apparatus of the state will be brought to bear.
In the example of Kirk, whilst many people were calling for violent retribution against the left?
The question must be asked, other than revenge, for what purpose and against whom?
1st group rails against the state for right or wrong.
Who does the 2nd group target to vent their spleen and indeed other than revenge?
Whats the aim of any violent action undertaken by the 2nd group?

Its an overused trope but, "Riot is the language of the unheard" and nobody is managing to not hear MAGA.

I'm sure the police have spoken to the family though, I'm sure the family have told police about his perspective on life and whether that has changed radically or not. Maybe it hasn't maybe isn't right or left just a very ill man. It makes more sense given what the Governor has said and given his target and his relationship to deduce he was left more than right leaning in his views, which or whether is immaterial to the point I was making here. The tolerant left wing posters here are dismissing anyone who suggests he is left wing as conspiracy theorists and at the same time going off on mad tangents about the far right. You can't have it both ways. Objectively the assassination of someone for their opinions is wrong by any metric but its being justified as Karma and God's will here by posters who proclaim their tolerance and virtue and denounce the demonic ideals of the conservative right.

Just because the legalities of a nation declares that a person can vote or waste their lives in a war doesn't mean that have the wherewithal to counter another's argument or point.

People of college going age are still learning (I'd argue that we should be endevouring to study and learn all of our lives) and more often than not haven't had the time to fully explore a given topic to the fullest extent, which is perfect natural.

So there's no reason to assume that college kids would be prepared to counter Charlie Kirks points which, as far as I have discerned, were largely mantras designed to appeal to people who already adhered to those mantras.