Charlie Kirk.

Three women? I wonder what was it about those three women that aroused his furious indignation. They must surely have something in common. What on earth could it be? I confess that I'm stumped.

It's also remarkable that Kirk was a great admirer of a certain late evangelical preacher called John McArthur.

'One of the most influential Protestant minds since the Reformation,' 'a legend' who 'never bowed to the gods of this age', '(he) never apologized for Scripture.' said Kirk of him.

"MacArthur proclaimed Black people were cursed by God to be "servile," and that while some slaveowners committed abuses, “working for a gentle, caring, loving master was the best of all possible worlds.” A Black man being obedient to his master was no different from a white man being obedient to Jesus, he claimed".

I have only gone back 3 pages on this but c'mere to me, can someone tell me are we talking about Ireland or the US with these comments. I know Charile Kirk was American but I see DEI and college places mixed in with the Dail then people throwing around libs in the context of what seems to be Irish affairs. WTF is going on!?

Sounds like more left wing nonsense to blame the right. Make up new words for pure nonsense. Soon my dog will be a chicken.

Why do you think someone who says executions should be broadcast for children to watch should be platformed?

I though universities were supposed to educate students not make them dumber. Maybe it is different in America and the goal is to radicalise them into Republican or Democrat. Explains the discrepancy in Kirks intellectual approach when he left the states.

I watch enough right wing content for the algorithm to seemingly have decided I am indeed on the Right (I'm not) — but I get a lot of the Charlie Kirk / Ben Shapiro / Matt Walsh / Michael Knowles on my feed. When I watch these "debates", it strikes me that a lot of the time it doesn't really seem that debating is the actual point — it's more about just generating content. It seems all geared towards getting clips that can then be posted as "Ben Shapiro politely DESTROYS snowflake" or "Charlie Kirk hands out L's to libs". They aren't using these discussions as a way to encourage students to think or promote healthy debate — they are using this speed-debating format to make videos where the same slogans are rolled out in quickfire skin-deep "discussion" so that videos can be produced to mock students.

While I certainly agree that college should be a place where you learn to think and to encounter a plurality of views, the particular debating style employed by Kirk was not about that — it was about finding content. To his credit, he did do the Oxford Union debate where his arguments were able to be dismantled in a more formal, thorough discussion.

But hasn't the national guard being deployed in DC been quite popular with black people there,they seem to like the extra sense of security it gives seeing as they are the ones who suffer most from crime.

I'll take your word on that.Mind you, I haven't heard too many of these paragons lately but time as always will tell.

If you want one big thread to pull that unravels and undermines everything else that MAGA has to say it's that the lies about the 2020 election are not only not questioned, but really treated as an article of faith. January 6th is either supported or equivocated away. Goes for Kirk and every other MAGA voice who presented themselves as pure rationalists.

7 months after his inauguration and the midterms somehow feel further away. You'd wonder where the US will be by the time they come about and what effect they'd even have.

Geraldo Rivera another talking head close to the administration (remember when he had a daytime talk show?) and until recently very MAGA

Has made a post pointedly splitting the possibility of political motivation out of the picture.
Blaming videogames is back on the menu!
RFK jr will be on that case ASAP 😉

The logic you are applying appears to be that they are too naive or ignorant to debate someone

Some are and some aren't. Just because they can legally vote or join the army doesn't mean a thing.

yet they are sufficiently non-naive and knowledgeable that their vote in elections (which has practical effect) is well-founded.

That's a matter of legality. If you have an issue with that, take it up with your local rep. BTW, there are plenty of naive adults floating around too.

In any case, just because they can legally do some things doesn't mean that they cannot be naive or haven't the sufficient capacity to counter someone who makes their living out of political grifting.

In the US you can join the army at 17, but can't drink til your 21. Legal ages by which a nation judges who can do what is no barometer of knowledge or an indicator of the capabilities of someone's debating skills.

It's been a penchant of right wing politicos to land down on campuses and "win" arguments against kids, which the carefully edit videos of to show that they've "owned the libs" to their audiences on YouTube.

University students are just as ill-equipped to rationally analyse left-wing talking points as right.

Nobody has said that they weren't. However, there is a particular proclivity amongst right wing mouthpieces to arrive onto campuses and record vids of themselves "destroying the libs" and whatnot for the purview of their already agreeable audiences. They do this because it makes them look good as the kids they are talking down to simply aren't prepared.

However, when they come up against adults such as themselves, they not able to make such claims because they have to deal with people that have spent a number of years forming their opinions and exercising their own debating skills.

I watched some of Kirk's "debates" over the years and, more often than not, they're pretty farcical. He'll take a standpoint that can often be undebatable, such as his beliefs about abortion, where he believes that a person's "soul" begins at conception. You cannot reason with someone that holds such thoughts in their head, because those thoughts are based on nothing. There is, literally, no debate to be had there, because it's purely down to someone's fantasies.

I would like to have seen Kirk try to go up against someone like Christopher Hitchens or Stephen Fry. People who are/were very skilled in arguing a point and breaking down ones they disagreed with. There'd be no claims made on his behalf about "owning" or "destroying" anyone there, I can assure you.

What is the actual negative outcome of Kirk’s position on debating students in universities?

Where have I said anything about a "negative outcome"?

My point is about why these politicos do these so called "debates" against college kids and it's to make themselves look good for their audience by choosing an easy target.