Americans have long been trained to avoid confrontation in debate. They must have inherited it from the religious radical hypocrites that founded this country. For Americans, form is more important than substance. Politics, for example, is generally shunned as a bad topic to have a serious in-depth discussion about. In contrast, in many other cultures, discussions about politics can get heated and this is appreciated because only when a little adrenaline is injected does some sense of utility emerges from the debate. Watch British or French or Italian or Indian ... political discussions and you'll understand what I mean.
Now, confrontation doesn't mean lack of civility; there is a difference. You can be highly confrontational with your ideas without necessarily falling into insults and personal attacks against your interlocutors.
Charlie Kirk's approach to debating is quintessentially American: Put a nice form (i.e. civility) over your disgusting ideas (Radical Right racism), as a way to convince your interlocutors that because you are civil, you must be right in your ideas, disgusting as they may be. In my mind, this is hypocrisy. This is Jesuitism at its best. But it is also sooo stupid because people know hypocrisy when they see it.
Dispensing IQ grades - low for those he hated, like Black African women, and high for those he loved - was a favorite activity for the bigoted Radical Right activist Charlie Kirk, something he borrowed form the tree-hanging primate Donald Hump.
He believed himself to be soooo intelligent and smart that he could pull the form-over-susbstance trick on ignorant dumb people. He had the arrogant gonads to freely attribute intelligence or stupidity to others without subjecting them to a real IQ test. That by itself is a mark of stupidity and of the intellectual mediocrity that often characterizes American rightwing conservatives.
I already discussed this topic in [ https://lebanoniznogood.blogspot.com/2025/09/the-kind-of-impulses-that-charlie-kirk.html ] by arguing that his sweet-talking and surface civility camouflaged a deep-seated hatred and racism of anyone who is not a white anglo-saxon protestant. This is the way of a snake, that slowly and insidiously - without open confrontation - spills its poison.
=====================================================
The students who debated with Charlie Kirk: ‘His goal was to verbally defeat us’
Alaina Demopoulos
Sat, September 20, 2025
‘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’ … Trent Webb, rhetoric professor.Illustration: Guardian Design/Jubilee/Youtube
In the days after his killing, Charlie Kirk was remembered by his allies as a great debater. A quote taken from a widely shared video of Kirk discussing his life’s work – “when people stop talking, that’s when violence happens” – emblematized such eulogies.
Kirk toured American college campuses with his rightwing non-profit Turning Point USA, where he would set up a tent, table and microphone, and debate with undergrads. The goal, he said, was to “save western civilization”, and remembrances after his death positioned him as a budding statesman – a conservative hero who strode across the political divide for the sake of open dialogue.
I don’t think Charlie entered debates to come to a common consensus or to discover the truth
Mason
Kirk applied basic rules of civility to his debate style, asking opponents their name and saying it was nice to meet them. He engaged young people in political discourse at a time when society has been split into bitterly antagonistic camps. But his critics are taking issue with any version of his legacy that does not account for the bigoted nature of his arguments. They are also closely examining his very style of debate.
“I don’t think Charlie entered debates to come to a common consensus or to discover the truth,” said Mason, a 26-year-old graduate student who debated with Kirk on the YouTube show Surrounded last fall. “I think Charlie came to debates to verbally beat his opponents.”
This made him a formidable combatant. “He 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,” said Mason, who is based in Los Angeles.
During one debate, Kirk insisted on the truthfulness of a racist hoax about Haitian immigrants eating their neighbors’ pets. In another, he falsely called the term foetus “just a word for a human being”. He goaded college students, who eagerly stepped up to query or challenge him, with leading questions that were intended to elicit strong emotions – “what is a woman?” and “what is racism?” were two of his go-tos.
“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,” said Trent Webb, a professor of writing studies and rhetoric and director of the speech and debate team at Hofstra University. “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.”
After a Kirk debate, clips spun out on to social media, inviting millions into the fray. In celebration of perceived wins, Turning Point USA titled its YouTube videos things like: “Charlie Kirk ANNIHILATES Smart-Aleck Student Accusing Him of Propaganda”, “Charlie Kirk wrecks DEI talking points” and “Liberal Student Can’t Answer Charlie Kirk’s Simple Question.”
Dr Charles Woods, a professor of rhetoric and composition at East Texas A&M University, and the host of The Big Rhetorical Podcast, said Kirk distilled nuanced topics into stifling, good v bad arguments.
“Charlie turned myriad opportunities for meaningful dialogic transactions rooted in civility and turned them into confrontational interactions by amplifying binaries in his argumentative structure,” Woods wrote in an email. “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.”
Hasan Piker, the popular leftist Twitch streamer who was scheduled to debate with Charlie Kirk later this month, wrote in a guest essay published in the New York Times that his would-be opponent was an “expert” at “[taking] advantage of people’s resentments and [redirecting] them toward vulnerable communities”.
Still, leftists lined up to debate with him. Some, like a sociology professor who appeared genuinely curious to talk about the economic prospects of young people under Donald Trump, desired a meeting of the minds. For his part, Piker told Slate that while he is “not the biggest fan of the debate format”, he finds the forum “entertaining” and “galvanizing”.
Perhaps no forum fit Kirk’s shtick better than the platform given to him by Jubilee Media, a YouTube channel that produces Surrounded, a thunderdome of debate where one person is encircled by a ring of ideological opponents who attempt to undercut his stances in lightning-fast rounds of verbal sparring, governed by literal red flags.
You got the sense that you were an opponent to him even when you weren’t debating
Naima Troutt
“Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?” asked the series’ first episode, an hour and a half of nonstop ragebait released last September. In the show, Kirk debated with his opponents such statements as: “Abortion is murder and should be illegal” (wherein Kirk said yes, he would hypothetically make his 10-year-old daughter carry a child to term if she were to get pregnant from rape); “college is a scam”; and “Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate.” (Consider these Kirk’s greatest hits; he often debated these topics on campuses.)
Naima Troutt, a 22-year-old film student at the University of Southern California, said the students made $25 for their appearance on the show, which has since raked in more than 35m views on YouTube and spawned countless viral clips.
A campus organizer who was involved with Black Lives Matter and Palestinian solidarity protests, Troutt did not know who Kirk was when she showed up to set that day, which helped her see him as less of a rightwing celebrity and more as a man she disagreed with.
Troutt described a “camaraderie” between the students, with some of the more “chronically online” trying to explain Kirk’s significance to her before they started filming. But Kirk was not as eager to chum it up. “He was either on his phone, or outright rude. You got the sense that you were an opponent to him even when you weren’t debating.”
Troutt jumped into the hot seat twice to spar with Kirk over fetal viability, Harris’s qualifications for president and affirmative action. They agreed on practically nothing, but Troutt found some merit in debating Kirk. “I think I became much better at articulating my viewpoints and defending my viewpoints, because one thing about Charlie is that as much as I disagree with – and at times hate – everything that he believed and stated in the past, the fact is he’s one of the only rightwingers who regularly puts themselves out there,” Troutt said.
Troutt is not alone in this opinion. California governor Gavin Newsom, who debated with Kirk on his podcast earlier this year (and admitted his son was a fan), wrote in a statement that he “admired [Kirk’s] passion and commitment to debate”. Representatives for New College of Florida, formerly a progressive school that fell under the control of rightwing allies of Governor Ron DeSantis, announced it will commission a statue of Kirk with his table and mic on campus. The school’s social media officer told Fox News that the statue will represent “what America is all about”.
Ultimately it was not rhetorical prowess but an insult that made Troutt a social media folk hero in #resistance circles: after Kirk attempted a gotcha moment by saying that “foetus” means “little human being” in Latin, Troutt called his self-satisfied smile “creepy”.
You can’t negate that it’s very interesting to watch, but those students are not armed with proper data and evidence
Trent Webb
“Smiling is creepy?” Kirk clapped back, to which Troutt responded: “No, your smile specifically.” The quip landed her an Interview magazine feature branding her “the college student who owned Charlie Kirk”. (Foetus in Latin actually means “a bringing forth; producing; fertile”.)
In March, Kirk asked her to come to the stage for a 10-minute debate he held at USC, where they tussled over DEI again.
“I was shocked by that,” Troutt said. “I literally just roasted this man, and now he wants to debate with me again. But the second time he was a lot nicer. A lot of Trump and Kirk supporters came to watch it, and it was a more hostile environment, but he was less hostile to me.”
Mason, who debated with Kirk on Surrounded, describes himself as a progressive and felt it important to showcase leftist values.
“They’re so often caricatured, especially for those in echo chambers of the right,” Mason said. (He asked that his last name not be shared for privacy reasons.) “As someone who feels very confident in my beliefs and convictions and my ability to communicate, I think it’s beneficial for me to go on a platform like this.”
Mason and Kirk’s topic was gender and transgender rights. Mason got Kirk to admit that he did not know the bimodal theory of gender, to which Kirk called him “condescending”; Mason apologized for his tone, but said he was “trying to match” Kirk’s energy toward other debaters. Despite the testiness, the pair had a lively debate.
“Having a conversation with him was very easy to do,” Mason said. “I’ve consumed so much of his content that I knew what he was going to say. I wouldn’t say that it was easy for a lot of the other [Surrounded debaters], because he understands the sport of rhetoric and debate, and is really good at controlling the conversation. I had to put in a strong effort to assert myself.”
Webb, the Hofstra professor, called the unmoderated format of Surrounded where claims are not factchecked, “unnerving”.
“You can’t negate that it’s very interesting to watch,” Webb said, “but those students are not armed with proper data and evidence, and a lot of times they’re speaking to things that sometimes are blatantly untrue.”
After the debate, Kirk hinted that he wanted Mason to come on his radio show. That never happened, but the two kept in touch. The second time they debated – about wealth inequality at the USC event – Kirk praised his “high IQ”. But Kirk never put the debate up online. “I like to believe that’s because the conversation didn’t go the way he planned,” Mason said, “but it could have also just been because I don’t have the same online presence as someone like Naima.”
***
The circus around Kirk’s social media did not just advance conservative causes. His work boosted young leftists like Troutt and to a lesser extent Mason. Gaining a platform as “the girl who owned Charlie Kirk” overwhelmed Troutt at first. “It did feel like getting thrown to the wolves,” she said. But she sustained her viral moment and has over half a million followers on TikTok, where she posts about politics.
This small online community of Kirk debaters consider themselves an influential voice of reason against “alt-right” internet stars like Kirk, Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens.
Hungry for another go, Troutt and other Surrounded debaters were scheduled to star in a reunion episode with Kirk later this month. On the morning of the day Kirk was killed, debaters in a Surrounded group chat were theorizing what topics might come up so they could start preparing. “It was surreal that in the middle of all of that, we got a news article sent by someone, saying: ‘Oh my God, this just happened,’” Mason said.
After Kirk died, a range of reactions poured out on social media, with many recalling Kirk’s incendiary takes or honoring his memory. Kirk allies advocated for firing those who they said spoke against him. Meanwhile, some of the debaters were criticized by followers for their eulogies of their former opponent and the sadness they expressed about his killing.
Dean Withers, who appeared on the Surrounded episode and was called “the Democrats’ Bro Whisperer” by the the New York Times, mourned Kirk’s death through tears in a TikTok video. Tilly Middlehurst, a student who Kirk asked about feminism and what defines a woman at an event for Cambridge Union Society, her university’s debate club, choked up as she said the act of political violence left her “shaken and disgusted”.
Withers later said that he became emotional watching the violent video of Kirk’s shooting online, because a close friend had been in the audience of the event and because he knew Kirk personally. “My tears weren’t me telling you how you should feel, but rather you happening to see me in how I felt,” he said. Middlehurst made her social media profiles private. (Neither responded to a request for comment. A representative for Cambridge Union Society wrote in an email: “Any comments made by speakers who openly debated with Mr. Kirk during our event earlier this year are expressed in a personal capacity and do not reflect the views of the Cambridge Union.”)
Troutt felt “hesitant” to speak about Kirk’s death, though people looked to her for comment. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing and hurt people and lead to more violence. But I do want to help people in this moment process what this means for our country,” she said.
After speaking with the Guardian, Troutt posted her own TikTok. “All acts of gun violence are horrible and must be condemned. That is my baseline,” she said in the clip. She added: “Mind your karma, watch what you put online.”
Mason believes that “two things” can be true at once: “The video [of the shooting] was incredibly grotesque, this is terrible across the board, and I do grieve for his young children, but that does not make the life or the principles that the victim stood for any more palatable.”
He found it hard to square the Kirk he interacted with, if briefly – a professional, nice enough man – with the hateful views he promoted.
“I think that speaks to the dissociation that politics allows, where somebody can have these abstract concepts of what a group is, or speak ill of them, but it’s much more difficult to be insulting or vitriolic toward somebody who’s right in front of you,” Mason said.
In the aftermath of his death, Kirk’s legacy remains as divisive as one of his debates. But there is no denying his influence on public discourse.
“When we teach argumentation and debate in our classrooms, it’s not necessarily agenda-driven,” said Webb, the rhetoric professor.
“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’.”
