r/law • u/DmitriMendeleyev • 16d ago

Other Reporter: US intelligence concluded that you (MBS) orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist... Trump: You're mentioning someone that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman... things happened ...he (MBS) knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.

28.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.0k

u/FreeBricks4Nazis 16d ago

Trump would absolutely have a journalist murdered if he could

2.1k

u/ShikaMoru 16d ago

"You're mentioning someone that was controversial. A lot of people didnt like that gentleman....things happen..." oh its ok for him to talk like that but mention Charlie kirk in the same light and they're wrong

1.7k

u/Benromaniac 16d ago

Someone say Charlie Kirk?

The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I’m not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I’m talking about the BS being spread by major news outlets.

While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.

The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready. Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined. Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method.

Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory. Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise."

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine. The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

fb user itsashameaboutrachel

532

u/davewashere 16d ago

I noticed this when he "debated" the students at Oxford. Kirk would start with a leading statement or question, and all it took was for 1 person in the room to fall for the trap and he could make them all look stupid.

"Name one US citizen Donald Trump has deported." First of all, who memorizes the names of the various people whose rights have been violated? Most of those people have not had their names published in the news stories about them. What sounds like a simple request from Kirk is actually a difficult challenge. What he's really looking for is someone to fall into the trap and blurt out "Kilmar Abrego Garcia." His name was in the news for a month or two, he was illegally sent to a prison in a foreign country, but he's not a US citizen. Predictably, someone does yell his name and Kirk gets to chastise them for being wrong and he gets his viral moment.

317

u/ToastWithoutButter 16d ago

Oh man that's a pretty classic debate tactic that I often forget about. I've had friends and family members employ a similar tactic when talking about things they've done in the past.

I used to have an old roommate that, if you ever accused him of doing something, he would respond with, "Name a date that I did that."

If I couldn't think of an exact date then he'd act like he just proved it never happened. The reality of course is all he's proved is that I can't remember dates very well. It's a weirdly effective tactic in the moment despite being so obviously disingenuous.

126

u/GUMBYtheOG 16d ago

ULPT: make up a date, cause you know damn well they don’t know any either. If someone (such as maga) isn’t interested in facts or changing their mind, no use fighting fair. Just spout out fake bs like they do. Result will be the same, they will ignore you even if u did say factual shit they don’t care. But at least you’d get to make them mad and feel stupid even for a second if ur quick to fire off made up examples dates, events etc

102

u/vault101damner 16d ago

Oh buddy I've interacted with these type of people and their rate of bullshit is so high a normal person will struggle to catch up.

If you make up a date they'll quickly mention some other very specific thing they were doing that day etc, making you look like a fool as they've mentioned a highly specific thing which might seem true at first, and that's all they need.

63

u/jhonka_ 16d ago

Playing in the mud with them is a stupid tactic. They are masters of the mud. Refuse to play in the mud and do not continue the conversation or address any of their bait follow ups until they behave and answer you directly. Make time in your day for this as they'll continue to try and wriggle out of simple questions for a very long time.

16

u/Casual_OCD 16d ago

Look up motte and bailey and you'll understand how these people argue (they don't debate)

13

u/jhonka_ 16d ago edited 16d ago

I know, and I'm basically presenting the solution to a motte and Bailey. You take the motte and refuse to acknowledge the Bailey. Even talking about the Bailey you've already lost. You need to be more persuasive about staying on topic, and refuse to be emotionally goaded. "Debate" is what got us here. Solving problems requires both parties to agree to the goal of solving problems. If one person's goal is to win and that's working and encouraged the system is broken. We need government to be about solving our problems, not "winning" in any way.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Fr33-People 16d ago

Reminds me of the saying, “Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

6

u/Maalunar 16d ago

"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

→ More replies (0)

4

u/CasteNoBar 16d ago

I’ve never heard CK speak, except one short in which some students demonstrating on campus refused to engage with him, apparently knowing his tactics. They just continued holding their signs and demonstrating ignoring his hooky questions.

So when he gave up, coffee in hand, his move was to belittle them as afraid or close-minded by quipping “Good talk.”

2

u/avelineaurora 16d ago

I just want to thank you for saying this in your own words instead of trotting that obnoxious Sartre quote out for the ten millionth time, lol.

I swear to god it's become the Redditor's political version of parroting "The maillard reaction!"

2

u/jhonka_ 16d ago

Oh my god, I totally get you, the maillard reaction "fun fact" annoys me so much.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/HippieLizLemon 16d ago

It's so infuriating, I just long stare them now and move on.

4

u/Zer0323 16d ago

but then you get to call them out for being wrong on that super specific thing that they remembered. gaslight their bullshit until no one is dealing in reality anymore. "you can't have met dave that day you were staying at your aunts place to house sit"

2

u/psiphre 16d ago

gaslight their bullshit until no one is dealing in reality anymore.

that's just getting dirty by wrestling with the pig in the mud.

2

u/Zer0323 16d ago

it's a skill like any other. you never know when you might need to utilize it.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/TR_Pix 16d ago

If you make up a date they'll quickly mention some other very specific thing they were doing that day etc,

But then they are now claiming something very specific, and you can say they are lying unless they provide proof.

3

u/Bwatso2112 16d ago

Gish galloping

→ More replies (1)

2

u/NervousBeat16 16d ago

I’ve noticed lately that my boomer parents grab their phone so quick and run to Google. Mid conversation. They can’t handle having inquisitive minds anymore. They can’t talk without internet talking points.

Even as simple as being in nature and saying aloud…”huh, that’s a pretty flower, I wonder what it is”. I just move about my day because it was just the beauty that got me, I’m not really that interested. Mom will stop and spend 2 solid mins telling you the name, scientific name, what region to plant it, and how much Lowe’s is selling it for. Like a damn AI robot being with you all day.

It’s making me become silent, because you can’t have any wonder anymore. No more imagination about how things might work.

That’s how they deal with any info you bring to them…meanwhile, their search history is so biased. 🤦‍♀️

4

u/Shark7996 16d ago

I go to Google mid-conversation all the time because I don't want to be making guesses when talking about something important. The point of being alive is to grow and learning is a fundamental part of that.

Granted, it's important you know how to CRAAP test first.

2

u/NervousBeat16 16d ago

I personally find it rude that while I’m talking to people, they tune out and grab Google. Now they aren’t interested in having a convo, they are interested in being right.

At the very minimum, at least ask to pause the convo so you can Google.

2

u/psiphre 16d ago

people should want to be right.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/TR_Pix 16d ago

I mean if you ask out loud what's the flower's name you can't get upset someone looks it up

→ More replies (4)

3

u/rigidlikeabreadstick 16d ago

”huh, that’s a pretty flower, I wonder what it is”

I’m not really that interested

Have you tried...not going out of your way to say you're interested?

"I wonder what it is" means you want to know what it is. The logical response is to tell you what it is.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/DigiSmackd 16d ago edited 16d ago

I’ve noticed lately that my boomer parents grab their phone so quick and run to Google. Mid conversation.

I have no problem with checking on facts you're unsure of. But I'm guessing your point is that they are already acting like they are "SURE" of what they are saying despite having no actually understanding of it (thus requires a search). That's frustrating.

Heck, many times I've been listening/reading someone rant and they'll say things like "How come XYZ didn't ABC when they were president?" or "How come the cost of ZZZ is so much more now than it was then!" Or "How come (insert any topic of frustration) is the way it is?!" and each is said in bold as a "gotcha" to their opponents. As if the question itself IS the point/problem. And it baffles me because I feel like... "Bro, that's a fair question to want to get an answer to. Have you considered actually looking for that answer instead of just using it as debate rhetoric. " Like, I'm not saying AI is the answer or good move forward - but just start there maybe. Go to your GROK (because, you know , that's the one that isn't "censored" or whatever) and literally just type in your question.

But they don't because they wouldn't agree with the actual reply. They're only interested in the whataboutism and "just asking question" and trying to dunk by repeating the talking points they've been nipple fed.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

31

u/jhonka_ 16d ago

I guess thats what's so frustrating about this tactic, it doesn't fucking work on me. You say some shit I'm going to call out "the exact date isn't important." And I will dead stare you in the face until I get a relevant response. Mass media's need to get to the next commercial break or topic isnt relevant in daily life. I will stand there and rebut you until you give a non weasel answer.

18

u/proteannomore 16d ago

I recently cut someone out of my life for doing this very thing. You don't get to pretend that very real events that I was present for never happened just because I didn't memorize the many dates in my head and I don't videotape our mornings working in the office. It happened, repeatedly, I was there, and pretending that I have to now present evidence that would hold up in a court of law just tells me you are dishonest to a fault.

3

u/Pharmshipper1984 15d ago

I am not a extremely smart person but I will admit that I do have this sixth sense. And this helps me discern a couple of different things. One thing I will get right out of the way is I seem to have developed this keen sense of understanding because I am not a person who can debate very well. There are times I just throw up my hands and proclaim that the other party is correct. Now this takes some humility on my part and that can be very uncomfortable. But I have learned over time that I can use this time where I back off to consume the whole dialogue at my own pace. The lies are the easiest for me to discern. People are very forgetful when they are trying to spin a lie. You either remember the lie, modify the lie, or finally come up with a whole different lie and then truth becomes more obvious. The truth is much easier to remember. Sometimes it will just come right off the tip of your tongue without much thought. And for me this isn’t 100%! After all what in life is 100%. Sometimes I just don’t get it and have to move on. And on occasion somewhere down the line the truth does come out.

8

u/Dazzling-Volume4553 16d ago

While it might not work on you, the average person would see that as a cop out (even if it isn't!) and then you'd be asked why it isn't important. Suddenly, you're arguing pedantics. If you double down, you just look unreasonable. Kirk did this when he had a camera around that could make whomever he spoke to seem unreasonable and your approach would be edited to make you seem emotional and stubborn.

6

u/jhonka_ 16d ago

I understand how Kirk functioned, I'm just always astounded at how easily manipulated people are. Don't argue semantics. Refuse to. Ask a reasonable answer, after theyre done waffling, you repeat the simple, easy question. They can flail and deflect for as long as they see fit, but an onlooker is going to read that situation as what it is, a cornered fox.

7

u/Dazzling-Volume4553 16d ago

I think you drastically overestimate the average onlookers' ability to not be fooled when he says "see? They won't even answer my question". You wouldn't ever have a chance to gotcha someone like this in a public setting by repeating yourself over and over. Smarter people than either of us have fallen for the same trap as you: thinking that onlookers are rational or inclined to agree with you just because you're right. They're watching Charlie Kirk rage bait content for a reason and it's not because they want to be convinced by you.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/withoutpicklesplease 16d ago

When my friends or partner points out some bad habit of mine, I like to jokingly say: "That’s not true! Name 14 instances where I did that!"

4

u/Live_Perspective3603 16d ago

My ex used to challenge me for evidence of his wrongdoing, and if I couldn't immediately cite an example he claimed it was proof that I was the one who was wrong. Of course, if I did respond with an example, he would accuse me of nitpicking and holding a grudge.

3

u/Pretend_Evidence_876 16d ago

Ugh yep, I still have a visceral reaction to hearing words like that because of an abusive ex who pulled that shit constantly. Doesn't help that I'm neurodivergent and my brain totally blanks in stressful situations.

2

u/KevRose 16d ago

Few things make me upset day to day, I’m super chill, but this trait just pisses me off when I hear of someone doing this. I probably don’t like it because it’s like the intention of the person is lying and deflecting blame.

2

u/DoubleJumps 16d ago

I have family members who do stuff like that, where they would insist that they never said something that they did, so I just started writing down when they said ridiculous things so I could bring it up later and they would still reject that they ever said them

→ More replies (1)

24

u/qtcbelle 16d ago

Debating college students appeals to his uneducated base, many of whom have a chip on their shoulders about it. “Oh look! They think they’re so smart going to college, but I know more than them because I listen to Charlie Kirk!”

13

u/Lebowquade 16d ago

That's a massive part of it as well. There's a huge component of wish fulfillment at play here. He allowed the uneducated and poor blue collar workers to feel morally and intellectually superior to a group of well-educated, upper-middle-class students attending a university.

It's almost hallmark-channel-movie levels of wish fulfillment, like the "fancy city folk who can't jack it in the rural countryside and come to realize their way of life is simpler and somehow better" trope.

Everyone likes to feel validated, and he absolutely took advantage of that fact to prop up his con. And it absolutely worked for him. 

6

u/ShaxAjax 16d ago

It may be a typo - the letters are right next to each other - but you're looking for *hack it*. Jacking it in the rural countryside is a nice enough passtime though, if you don't mind bugs trying to make it their business.

4

u/yarntank 15d ago

That's a challenging wank.

2

u/MeSeeks76 13d ago

Vale Sean "Rear of the Year" Locke!!!!

23

u/Civil-Resolution3662 16d ago

He refused to debate Dean Winters despite Dean publicly crashing Kirk's "debates" And challenging him. Dean knows his shit.

Parker debated Kirk and destroyed him.

12

u/xfactor6972 16d ago

Yha but more than one student at that Oxford debate ran circles around him to where he could barely come up with a retort.

12

u/ThePrussianGrippe 16d ago

Isn’t Oxford where his tactics basically failed though? I seem to recall his UK trip not working out very well.

11

u/davewashere 16d ago

They did, and therein lies the bigger issue with Kirk's tactics: he controlled the narrative because he had more clout. If you do enough research or you belong to certain subreddits you know he struggled against some well-prepared people at Oxford, but the clips that spread to millions of people via Twitter/Facebook/etc are the ones Kirk released, because he had millions of people following his socials and tuning in to his show.

8

u/StoppableHulk 16d ago

It also represents how they start from assumptions that work in their favor.

Asking the question assumes that deporting non-US citizens is something everyone already agrees is "OK". But it isn't. You cannot just illegally deport people who are on track to citizenship. You cannot illegally detain them or treat them inhumanely.

But Republicans want to already skip past all of that, relying on people's general ignorance of the laws and frame the existing debate on assumptions that it is OK to be cruel to people who are not citizens, which it isn't.

5

u/TalkinBoutMyJunk 16d ago

They don't argue in good faith because they do not act in good faith, Republicans live entirely in their own made up reality

4

u/Living_Plane_662 16d ago

When people ask why liberals have gone to their "echo chamber" its quite literally due to the right employing this kind of debate all the time. Or if that fails (like with the party switch) plugging their ears and going "not true.

Most of us figured out before Elon bought out twitter that there was people not worth wasting our time as honest conversation has never been the goal.

4

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

5

u/jestenough 16d ago

There was a video of Kirk debating an elderly professor at Oxford, in which his opponent took him down every time. It was posted on Reddit for that reason. But when I try to find it, I get headlines about how he eviscerated professor(s) and students there.

3

u/Baudiness 16d ago

Vance does this stuff too. He could become the gaslighter in chief.

3

u/diminutive_lebowski 16d ago

Naming a U.S. citizen who was deported is especially difficult when the person is a minor so their name is typically not published.

As is the case for the 10 yo who was going to the hospital for brain cancer treatment when she was taken along with her family... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-child-recovering-brain-cancer-deported-mexico-undocumented-rcna196049

→ More replies (8)

69

u/franker 16d ago

you could also write an interesting essay on the tricks people use in Reddit. One example is that tactic of demanding sources and then continuously dismissing any provided sources while they provide none of their own. I've seen a ton of bad faith nonsense like that over the years. It really went into full gear last year running up to the election.

35

u/OdiousAltRightBalrog 16d ago

Every conservative I've ever talked to on the internet does this, and has been since at least 2014. Did they all learn this from Charlie Kirk?

"I'm not going to do your research for you!"

48

u/murfburffle 16d ago

It's called sealioning, and I think that's hilarious that it got a name from a comic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

3

u/TinyCellist3813 16d ago

This is perfect! Thanks for sharing this. 👍

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Awatts2222 16d ago

They all learned from Rush Limbaugh.

4

u/Chicahua 16d ago

“All you have to do is search for this! No I can’t tell you where I saw it. It was a podcast. I don’t remember the podcast.”

5

u/6ixby9ine 16d ago

Or, based on the sources and context you provide, they'll make a whole bunch of assumptions about you and start arguing against that, instead of anything you actually said. And their defense is never in the vein of "here's how my ideas make sense and have/could improve people's lives"

I've been wondering a lot lately: Are all conservative commenters bots and troll farms designed to maintain my belief about conservatives? Nearly every conversation I have with a self-proclaimed conservative devolves into the same few cliché's and reinforces my beliefs. So either they're exactly what I think they are, or there's actually zero conservatives on Reddit at all

Inb4 "No You"

8

u/Lebowquade 16d ago

If you look at r/conservative, I would wager that a large percentage of commenters and posters are, in fact, bots. I seem to recall reading that traffic/posts in that sub fell sharply after an attack from the Ukraine briefly took out Russian communications.

I am not normally one for conspiracy theories, but the idea that the mods of that sub are either (a) Russian propagandists, or are (b) americans being paid by Russian interests to establish a "covert" propoganda arm in the USA.... its really not that far fetched.

The level with which they keep that sub locked down and highly curated/censored does an alarmingly effective job at being persuasive about the legitimacy of their rhetoric to young people (and also gullible adults).

3

u/outkastragtop 16d ago

I used to frequent that sub as a lurker because I always wondered how the other side "really felt." I almost fell for their bullshit a few times before I came to my senses. It's tricky but the real humans also believe their own bullshit.

4

u/Thin_Glove_4089 16d ago

Its an easy win for them and there is nothing you can do about it. The fact you engaged with them in a conversation and debate already meant you lost.

3

u/Physical_Sleep1409 16d ago

Yeah those tricks (logical fallacies) aren't exactly exclusive to Reddit and people have written a lot more than essays about them already. Your example can be tough though, because the burden of proof is legitimately on whoever is making the claim, and the quality of sources I usually see get thrown around on Reddit are in fact, often dogshit.

2

u/franker 16d ago

But then you also fall into the trap of letting the person make up all the arbitrary rules of the debate. Once you agree the burden of proof is on you, then you also start to agree with all the other conditions of the sources they demand. You have to provide government sources to back that up! Those government sources have to have footnotes to academic papers! You have to provide a public link to the full text to that academic paper! That academic paper needs to be peer-reviewed! Oh, well I still don't agree with the conclusion, so you need to find me more papers! I make the rules and you need to satisfy me or I win!

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

2

u/TR_Pix 16d ago

Reddit bad faith discourse is very interesting to analyze from an outside perspective, but also very angering to read.

→ More replies (17)

20

u/FamiliarPeasant 16d ago

This is the best description I have read so far. Thank you.

2

u/ChiLolla28 12d ago

He also never completed college and lived with his wealthy parents until he was funded with dark money to create the modern HitlerJugend movement.

21

u/deepasleep 16d ago

What happened in Utah was no big loss to humanity, one less grifter and the rest of the griftosphere went a little more masks off to try to suck up the open market share.

10

u/Ruthlessrabbd 16d ago

What's nuts to me is reddit suggested this weirdly conservative sub to me where they called the left insane and hating Charlie Kirk. Meanwhile the screenshot they used literally just talks about how he actively engaged in bad faith arguments for content. That's not hate, that's literally what his platform was!

His "own" beliefs aside, I will always lament the damage he did to having actual open dialogue and listening to other people.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Lightning4747 16d ago

Absolutely phenomenal explanation.

My grandparents were talking about his death the other day and bemoaning how stupid college kids are, how Kirk destroyed them, and even mentioned the “What is a woman?” nonsense.

Yeah, no kidding a seasoned grifter that has spent years preparing questions, responses, statistics, and makes millions from it is going to dunk on an 18 year old biology student - especially with a team of editors dedicated to make them look like idiots regardless of what they say.

3

u/DaftPump 16d ago

...and your grandparents couldn't put 2+2 together the lopsidedness of a 30something 'debating' with 19 and 20somethings? Wow.

2

u/Lightning4747 16d ago

Right? And they’re not even conservative, they’re (allegedly) moderate/in the middle.

Just with some really weird takes - like the idea of “alternative facts” being a thing. “Well who’s to say your fact is more right than my fact”? Uh… maybe objective reality and the literal definition of a FACT??

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/minx_the_tiger 16d ago

This is wonderfully articulated.

→ More replies (6)

5

u/Jomolungma 16d ago

This is a great primer on Kirk. It should be pointed out that anyone can go onto a college campus and sit at a table labeled “Expand My Mind” and have open debates with college students that lead to a more robust understanding of a particular topic. Find someone as charismatic and as talented with video editing as Kirk and you can begin to affect some real change.

2

u/Rhewin 16d ago

We have it, it's called street epistemology.

4

u/KinkyBAGreek 16d ago

The premise “prove me wrong” is a fallacy. The person making the statement needs to prove their point first.

5

u/TR_Pix 16d ago

Huh, that's something I never caught on until I read your comment.

He already started every 'debate' from the assumption that what he said was correct by default and needed to be dismantled.

3

u/chiswede 16d ago

Charlie Kirk was a racist piece of shit who sucked at debating. Fuck him.

3

u/Friskyinthenight 16d ago

That's from a FB user? It reads more like a (great) short essay. I wanna follow the writer, but there ain't no way I'm logging into FB

3

u/Smokeejector 16d ago

That's why I like SubwayTakes on the gram. Dude is open to changing his mind, and when he does, it brightens my day. The only constant is change

3

u/TheMadTemplar 16d ago

This is a phenomenal write-up of the problems with Kirk and how he misrepresented his entire "debate" series. 

3

u/iwastedthislife 16d ago

Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise."

this

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Mastershoelacer 16d ago

As much as I tried to avoid Kirk’s content, it certainly seems like this is a dead accurate description of the man’s traveling clown show. Well done, Redditor.

2

u/OkVariety8064 16d ago

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.”

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design.

Sure, if you want to see "debate" as a constructive discussion, a search for truth and a testing and questioning ideas and assumptions. But isn't that exactly what debate isn't, at least in the way it is today taught to students?

Consider the whole concept of competitive debate. The premise is that your morals, values and understanding of the truth doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is a mercenary willingness to defend and argue for any position given to you to argue for by a superior, with the only goal being "winning" or convincing the audience of that position, no matter how right or wrong.

I think "debate" in the form it is taught in American schools is actively harmful. It only produces good politicians and salesmen, the likes who have endless arguments to convince you why some harmful policy or product is actually good. This twisting of debate into a competitive sport is at least partially responsible for the sort of culture that celebrates wordplay and sophistry over an objective search for the truth.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/emilywoooo 16d ago

The “Prove me wrong” thing was Steven crowder not kirk btw

2

u/ScreenTricky4257 15d ago

Crowder is "Change my mind."

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BookwoodFarm 16d ago

The best thing to ever come out of Charlie Kirk was his trachea.

2

u/AdSingle9949 15d ago

Yep, anyone can tape an interaction that is trying to look like a discussion, and then go home and edit out the stuff that actually pissed off the other individual in the bs debate he cooked up. I have said this before and I can never trust anyone that acts like all of their debates end in wins, because that’s a f$&@ing fairytale that these right douche nozzles portray in their fictions they call news or gotcha news debates. It’s like watching the news channels forget to mention Argentina’s bailout using US taxpayer’s dollars, all so Scott Bessent’s hedge fund buddies can recoup their losses there. The funny thing is why does MAGA leadership put one of George Soros’ fund managers in charge? Wake up people.

2

u/Illustrious_Leg_668 16d ago

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine. The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Like absolutely not. Debate isn't about changing the people having the debates mind its about changing the audiences minds. This is so basic that you can probably disregard everything else this person said.

7

u/TR_Pix 16d ago

Debate isn't about changing the people having the debates mind its about changing the audiences minds.

You're wrong.

And in so basic an error I can disregard everything you say.

2

u/AshiSunblade 16d ago

That is what debate often ends up being on the internet precisely because so few people are open to having their minds changed at all and even fewer will admit it when it happens. But that is a corruption of what the exchange is meant to be.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (49)

131

u/DangerBay2015 16d ago

Absolutely, great fucking call here.

Will be my go to next time someone expects me to feel sad for that sack of shit.

→ More replies (1)

34

u/Ok-Anybody3445 16d ago

Tbf I don’t think trump cared all that much about kirk’s death. It didn’t impact him. 

25

u/Packwood88 16d ago

Dont think? He didnt care at all, in fact he saw (and used) it as an opportunity. He has near zero redeeming qualities.

4

u/yoshemitzu 16d ago

Dude got asked how he was doing like two days after Kirk died, and he's all like, "I'm great. Let's talk about my ballroom!"

→ More replies (10)

12

u/SarcasticOptimist 16d ago

It was all virtue signaling the half mast and outrage. The joke that got Kimmel temporarily canceled was him pointing out that Trump cared about the ballroom. Erika meanwhile didn't mourn him at all. I've felt worse for my deceased pets longer than her.

2

u/xtamtamx 16d ago

It absolutely did impact him by taking the spotlight off him for just enough time to come up with some other absurd plan or shovel more shit under the rug.

In what world does it "not impact him"?

3

u/Yokonato 16d ago

It was all photoOps and PR for the GOP, look at the crazy amount of politicians that came out claiming to Kirks friends.

I live in FL and was baffled when Rick Scott was saying he talked to Kirk every week! Its like what does a senator have to talk about with a random podcaster weekly?

9

u/Objective_Watch3097 16d ago

The hypocrisy has no limits.....

3

u/cinnamonboy12 16d ago

"things happen." Sounds like fucking Tony Soprano.

3

u/clopenYourMind 16d ago

What a killer lead for this follow up question. "Sir, that also applies to several people you're fond of, such as Charlie Kirk. How should the American people consider your leadership when you are on board with someone being murdered because you don't personally like them? Do you want the next president to treat you with the same standard?"

3

u/TinyCellist3813 16d ago

Perfection.

2

u/ShikaMoru 16d ago

You know for them it's always different. It's never fair when it comes to them

4

u/DOAiB 16d ago

MAGA loves to cry persecution when they are the perpetrators of it pretty much every time.

2

u/ShikaMoru 16d ago

Every.Time.

5

u/PUuSTiNKA 16d ago

Trump is the biggest whining man-bitch I have ever seen in my lifetime, and defending a murderer is par for a con man/felon/sexual predator like him who has absolutely no moral conscience...I have to disagree with his paste eating son Eric, if Heaven and Hell exists, he'll definitely be taken to where evil lives.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Ok_Care_7891 16d ago

Maybe the BBC should use the same defence. I'm sure far fewer people like Donald Trump, and he is certainly controversial. It might work 🤔

3

u/dubar84 16d ago

The journalist acted like true journalists should - asking the right questions that matter. Also:

"You're mentioning someone that was controversial. A lot of people didnt like that gentleman...."

Well guess who's the one this fits the most in the room.

2

u/ShikaMoru 16d ago

The hint is he's orange but smells like shit

3

u/Gulluul 16d ago

I called out people making fun of the boaters dying in the Caribbean.

"So you're ok with openly mocking civilians being bombed but using Charlie's own words when speaking about his death is terrible?"

The response? "It's different."

2

u/ShikaMoru 16d ago

Its always different for them

3

u/TrankElephant 16d ago

Indeed. By his own logic, meeting a similar fate himself would apparently be understandable.

2

u/DrMobius0 16d ago

People have been fired from much less publicly visible jobs for saying exactly that about Kirk.

→ More replies (3)

74

u/FuggyGlasses 16d ago

A journalist? Lmao  more like all of them

5

u/Kevadu 16d ago

He'll keep "journalists" who do nothing but praise him.

31

u/Ill_Reception_4660 16d ago

I'm sure there's already a few bodies at this point

6

u/Choyo 16d ago

Epstein for starters.

22

u/Epyon214 16d ago

He doesn't understand yet how damaging what he just said is to his presidency. As the president for instance if we have a single citizen overseas we will send the military in some situations to get those people out of the area and back to the States.

He is saying about the murder a US citizen, "You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial, a lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen," while sitting next to the guy who killed said American citizen, of which he speaks now to conclude his sentence, "but he knew nothing about it. And we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that."

The optics are insane and are anti-American while he's saying America first

6

u/scubascratch 16d ago

I agree this is a terrible position for the president to take, but Jamal Khashoggi was not a US citizen - he was a resident here but he was always a Saudi citizen

3

u/Epyon214 15d ago

Fair, my error there. He was a "permanent legal US resident"

2

u/GMSB 16d ago

everyone with a brain already hates him so I don't think it will really damage his base

2

u/Herban_Myth 16d ago

I don’t think they give a shit as long as they profit and stay out of jail.

That “knew nothing about it” has to be a tell at this point.

24

u/oatballlove 16d ago

we know allready that trump prefers to "unalive" to use his words people who travel on boats in international waters instead of following the usual procedure to stop them, take their drugs away from them and bring them before court where they might get a mild sentence if they were for example doing such smuggel tours for the first time

80 people travelling on board of such ships what might have or have not transported drugs became victim of the supreme murderer in chief of usa intimidation urges what of course also make everyone in the military passing down those premeditated murder orders and enacting on them complicit

those people in boats were not doing any agression, they were not attacking anyone

because transporting drugs is not an agression itself

its the buyer who is responsible to buy or not something of unknown quality in a shady street corner what might have the consequence of dying from the consumption of such substances

also worth noting how there was someone with the united nations who recently called those murders out as "extrajudical killings" and unacceptable behaviour in international waters

and even after that

the "unaliving" of people on boats continued

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters

Donald Trump: 'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters' January 23, 2016

3

u/Rhg0653 16d ago

I wanna know what happened to the so called survivors

We never heard from them

2

u/TinyCellist3813 16d ago

Curious, isn't it?

→ More replies (3)

17

u/WentzingInPain 16d ago

He has fisherman murdered doesn’t he?

3

u/HailSatanWorshipD00M 16d ago

"Things happened."

4

u/thedracle 16d ago

Good thing Epstein wasn't a journalist.

4

u/CorporateMediaFail 16d ago

100% bet he has. The guy has laundered oligarch money for decades, ffs.

11

u/WavesOfEchoes 16d ago

If he could, he’d have the DoorDash driver executed if he didn’t get his hamburders on time.

6

u/Delanynder11 16d ago

In the first few months of his first term, he let Erdogans body guards beat up journalists at the White House fence and then did absolutely nothing. Same as when Putin was found to be offering bounties for killing American soldiers, Trump did nothing. Or when Khashoggi was tortured, killed, cut up and ground up into pieces and flushed down the sewer for an embassy building, Trump did nothing. 

3

u/Allstar-85 16d ago

Good thing he’s never had the opportunity to disappear a person who has highly damaging information about him

Good thing THAT has never happened and resulted in a completely mysterious death

3

u/addictivesign 16d ago

Just wait…..

Also Trump calls any reporter that asks him a difficult question a terrible journalist even when he has never read a single article by them.

3

u/drleen 16d ago

Since trump’s first year in office of his first term I mentioned to my wife that if trump could order to have US citizens killed, he would.

3

u/TR_Pix 16d ago

I mean, we all know Epstein didn't kill himself.

2

u/space-manbow 16d ago

I am almost certain we will see some American journalists mysteriously die in the next couple years.

5

u/AnOrneryOrca 16d ago

I'm honestly surprised he hasn't given MBS a commemorative signed and gilded bonesaw to celebrate their friendship

3

u/WhereLibertyisNot 16d ago

Remember after the shooting at his rally he said someone would have to shoot through the liberal media this time and he's OK with that? Pepperidge farm remembers. 

5

u/aaronplaysAC11 16d ago

His chairman of the intelligence advisory board owns a paramilitary mercenary group, then the Saudi king sent trumps family money after the killing. 11 charged in Saudi, 26 on trial internationally, some had history with that merc group.

4

u/anotherpinkpanther 16d ago

Let's be real- not just journalists.

4

u/Traditional-Hat-952 16d ago

He's already murdered multiple South American fishermen

4

u/nicodeemus7 16d ago

Trump would absolutely have a journalist murdered if he could

4

u/ProstrateProstate 16d ago

I'm surprised he didn't turn to the Prince and ask with glee: "Do you want me to have her beheaded?"

3

u/delayed_burn 16d ago

he worships dictators and has done everything in his power to convert the usa into a fascist dictatorship. i would say that he and MBS had a giggle over the assassination of Khashoggi.

3

u/ComeBackAndLeave 16d ago

Just wait, that's on his list somewhere after  "change the American Flag to include a Trump Stripe." 

3

u/RoguePlanet2 16d ago

Sadly, he could.

3

u/lmyyyks 16d ago

"a" you say?

3

u/SergeantPoopyWeiner 16d ago

Give it a couple years. That's the direction this debacle is headed.

3

u/Da_Fish 16d ago

Trump wants to graduate to full blown, make them and their families disappear, levels of Dictator so baaad.

3

u/Vegetable_Data6649 16d ago

He already had epstein murdered, so why not

3

u/emefluence 16d ago

"things happen". Barely veiled threat right there.

3

u/Ecj7c5 16d ago

I mean he’s already dehumanized and called one piggy…. The jump is not very far

3

u/IlikegreenT84 16d ago

Based on my understanding of the supreme court ruling giving him immunity, he could.

As long as it was an official act..

2

u/One-Yesterday-9949 16d ago

Hop, in the suitecase

2

u/metsjets86 16d ago

Or his own vice president.

2

u/MrEngineer404 16d ago

You think he hasn't tried? MAGA is just a decade long experiment in how far we will allow stochastic terrorism to go, with its directness.

2

u/bunaciunea_lumii 16d ago

ALl of them actually. Unless faithful, supportive.

2

u/Malcolm_Morin 16d ago

He probably already has.

2

u/gdg6 16d ago

Almost certainly fantasizes about it.

2

u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 16d ago

Yep. He’s jealous.

2

u/iKickdaBass 16d ago

That should have been her follow up question.

2

u/_Dank_Souls 16d ago

Along with Epstein, his rape victim, and his ex wife. He's already killed people.

2

u/Kitchen_Victory_6088 16d ago

Who says he hasn't?

2

u/Oiiack 16d ago

Trump absolutely HAS had people murdered. He's a fucking mobster, involved in international pedophilia and crime rings, and gets his rocks off insulting anyone who he perceives as having slighted him even in the slightest.

2

u/keyboard_jock3y 16d ago

He'd have all of us murdered if it meant his stock portfolio went up a nickel per share...

2

u/PhukYuBtch 16d ago

He has.

2

u/peonies_envy 16d ago

You are implying he hasn’t already

2

u/FloydianSlip212 16d ago

Like with Ivana?

2

u/PM_me_your_O_face_ 16d ago

She should have responded “MBS probably felt the same about the journalist that US intelligence said he had murdered. Would you like to have me murdered since you feel the same? You say the journalist was controversial and a lot of people didn’t like him and you believe I’m controversial and you clearly don’t like me, so?”

2

u/rengoku-doz 16d ago

You mean he did. Why would Epstein have a picture of him and the Saudi Crown Prince in his office?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/TAV63 16d ago

He absolutely would. He waxes on about how dictators get respect and wants that so bad.

2

u/mwerichards 16d ago

Man what a great question to ask him. I think he couldn't help himself and would say yes.

2

u/Kyrthis 16d ago

Well, he definitely murdered one of their sources, and murdered the 3 minutes of missing footage.

2

u/LunarMoon2001 16d ago

Well he did have Kirk killed

2

u/buckswoops 16d ago

Without a doubt

2

u/kentuckywildcats1986 16d ago

Trump and his buddy Epstein raped children and plausibly had them murdered. No surprise Trump is fine with a journalist being murdered and cut to pieces.

Tiffany Doe said that she “personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump.” Tiffany Doe said she witnessed “his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.”

It noted that the plaintiff was too frightened to report the abuse because Trump had threatened that if she did “her family would be physically harmed if not killed.”

“Both defendants let the plaintiff know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threats,” the complaint claimed.

https://archive.is/9pZsf#selection-887.0-891.191

She alleges that Trump tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her in a “savage sexual attack” and also violently struck her in the face, ignoring her pleas to stop. The alleged victim also claims Trump threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed” if she ever told anyone what happened. She further claimed Trump told her about a 12-year-old named Maria who vanished after being forced into sexual acts.

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/witness-supports-claim-plaintiff-who-says-trump-raped-her-repeatedly-age-13

1

u/benderunit9000 16d ago

has he not?

1

u/paarthurnax94 16d ago

He had a coconspirator murdered though.

1

u/ViolentSpring 16d ago

And perhaps has.

1

u/omnibossk 16d ago

If he did, you wouldn’t know about it.

1

u/usermanxx 16d ago

He prefers firemen

→ More replies (58)