EDITORS' CORNER
Key Takeaways
- The article critiques the left's response to Charlie Kirk's debate style, suggesting that his goal of 'verbally defeating' opponents is the essence of debating itself.
- Critics argue that Kirk's approach lacks genuine discourse, aiming more for confrontation than consensus, as highlighted by academic commentators who emphasize civility and truth-seeking in debates.
OPINION: ‘His goal was to verbally defeat us.’ Is that not the point of a debate?
So a young conservative who travels the country to debate anyone willing is shot by a politically progressive assassin, and radicals’ first reaction was to celebrate it.
Then, like Jimmy Kimmel, they attempted to obfuscate the politics associated with the assassin.
Both of these incidents led to huge blowbacks; many, including Kimmel, were either suspended or fired from their positions.
So now liberals are trying a different tactic: Claim that Kirk didn’t debate correctly.
The very title of last Saturday’s Guardian article oozes unintentional comedy: “The students who debated with Charlie Kirk: ‘His goal was to verbally defeat us.'”
Hold on, let me think for a second … isn’t that what debate is all about??
According to the left-wing paper, while Kirk “applied basic rules of civility to his debate style” such as “asking opponents their name and saying it was nice to meet them,” critics say people should more closely “examine” that style, and should be skeptical of “any version of his legacy that does not account for the bigoted nature of his arguments.”
“Mason,” a grad student who had debated Kirk (no last name due to “privacy” reasons) who seems to be the inspiration for the title of the article, said “I don’t think Charlie entered debates to come to a common consensus or to discover the truth […] I think Charlie came to debates to verbally beat his opponents.”
Mason added “[Kirk] knew the arguments for nearly every conservative principle and even theological concept, and he spent years to develop that ability, so he was very great at pivoting and changing the conversation when it was not going his way.”
As examples, The Guardian (laughably) notes Kirk “insisted on the truthfulness of a racist hoax about Haitian immigrants eating their neighbors’ pets” and “falsely called the term foetus ‘just a word for a human being.'”
It then went to “experts” from the academy.
Hofstra University’s Trent Webb, who according to his faculty page “seeks to create inclusive spaces in the classroom where diversity and equity are at the forefront,” said “At its core, debate is supposed to be an academic exercise, with the goal being to be forthright and genuine in the information you present […] in a good faith debate, the final goal is to reach consensus. If that doesn’t happen, then a lot of academics would consider it to be an exercise in futility.”
Webb (pictured) added “When we teach argumentation and debate in our classrooms, it’s not necessarily agenda-driven […] Social media has taught us to believe that all opinions said online are valid and require response, and because of that, people are nowadays easily baited into these ‘debates.’”
Charles Woods of East Texas A&M, host of the “the Big Rhetorical Podcast,” was more critical of Kirk’s style: “Charlie turned myriad opportunities for meaningful dialogic transactions rooted in civility and turned them into confrontational interactions by amplifying binaries in his argumentative structure.
“What we know is that there is a spectrum of ideologies and worldviews, not just two: Charlie’s and whoever is on the other side of the microphone.”
Woods’ podcast has covered several left-wing causes and topics, such as the Democratic Futures Project (“the rhetorics and practices crafted to produce inclusive democratic rights within the United States and abroad have seemingly lost traction in the face of authoritarian leaders, economic disparities, and justice too-often denied”) and University of Arkansas Gender Studies Professor Lisa Corrigan, who hosts her own podcast titled “Lean Back: Critical Feminist Conversations.”
The Guardian further highlights Naima Troutt, who became a “social media folk hero” among the Left after a debate with Kirk. The latter allegedly had attempted a “gotcha” question about (as noted above) “fetus” meaning “little human being” in Latin (it actually means “a bringing forth; producing; fertile”), whereupon Troutt responded by telling Kirk his smile was “creepy.”
And here I believed ad hominems were indicative of losing a debate. But muh “social media hero.”
Nevetheless, to her credit, Troutt was a rare leftist who responded humbly to news of Kirk’s murder, noting on her TikTok page “All acts of gun violence are horrible and must be condemned” and “Mind your karma, watch what you put online.”
MORE: The Left is either really stupid or purposely devious when it comes to free speech
MORE: NYU adjunct: Kirk not a ‘victim,’ MAGA are ‘liars’ who should be ‘excluded from public discourse’
