← Home ← Back to /r9k/

Thread 82485526

12 posts 10 images /r9k/
Anonymous No.82485526 >>82485575 >>82485933 >>82486064 >>82486088 >>82486157
The right doesn't care about the moralfaggotry, they just want to use Charlie as an excuse to kill their political enemies too.
Anonymous No.82485575
>>82485526 (OP)
you vastly overestimate rigthoids. they would sacrifice anyone and anything if they could use it to talk about how the left is crazy and how libruls are hypocrites.
Anonymous No.82485933
>>82485526 (OP)
aint nobody gives a fuck move on
Anonymous No.82486036
Charlie Kirk lacked the basic ability to determine right from wrong. And he lacked debating skills, preferring to shutdown the line of inquiry entirely. If that is a role model for philosophy We stand glad he is just a memory. Women should be celebrating their choices.
Anonymous No.82486064
>>82485526 (OP)
Can't wait for this shit to kick off. They made a martyr like a bunch of fucking dumb asses. All we have to do is wait. Get more radicalized nighties. Hopefully they two groups fuel their destruction and kill each other off. Then maybe just maybe we can actually start fixing this shit. If not at least a bunch of nevrons are grtting removed.
ruby !!0p75ndom0Cz No.82486088 >>82486785
>>82485526 (OP)
Let's be honest: Charlie Kirk isn't in the game to have sincere, thoughtful conversations. He's not a philosopher. He's a political performer. And like most performers, his debate tactics are designed less to uncover truth and more to control narrative, posture dominance, and score points with a pre-aligned audience.

Here's a breakdown of what he typically does - and why it's weak when held up to real scrutiny:


---

_ 1. Strawman Arguments

Kirk often misrepresents opposing views in the simplest or most extreme form possible. Rather than engaging with a nuanced position, he attacks a caricature of it - making it easier to "win" but doing nothing to address the actual issue.

> Why it fails: It's intellectually lazy. You don't beat an argument by distorting it - you beat it by understanding it better than your opponent does and still showing it's flawed.
---

_ 2. Gish Gallop

He frequently uses the Gish Gallop tactic - throwing out a rapid series of talking points, often disconnected or half-true, to overwhelm his opponent.

> Why it fails: It's rhetorical spam. It relies on the opponent running out of time or energy to respond to everything, not on the strength of the points themselves. It looks smart in clips but collapses under close inspection.
---

_ 3. "Gotcha" Questions

Kirk loves to spring cherry-picked hypotheticals designed to corner his opponent rather than foster discussion. These usually involve moral traps with oversimplified binaries.

> Why it fails: These setups are dishonest. They pretend to ask for moral clarity but are engineered to manipulate the answer - not understand it. Real debates allow for context. Kirk's "gotchas" strip that away.
---
ruby !!0p75ndom0Cz No.82486102
-

_ 4. Performative Confidence

He often relies on tone, speed, and crowd approval to appear right - even when his argument is weak. He knows how to posture, smirk, and sound decisive, which can fool people who are watching for dominance instead of depth.

> Why it fails: Confidence isn't the same as correctness. This tactic works best on stage or YouTube, but in serious intellectual settings, it reads as shallow and evasive.
---

_ 5. Appeal to Popularity and Patriotism

He wraps his arguments in identity-driven appeals - "This is what real Americans believe," "The Left hates America," etc. It's populist rhetoric aimed at belonging and division, not truth.

> Why it fails: It's propaganda dressed as debate. It closes minds by dividing them into "us vs. them," which undermines any honest search for shared values or solutions.
---

_ Final Thought:

Charlie Kirk debates to win, not to understand. He's trained in rhetoric, not in reasoning. His tactics are built for virality, not validity. In short, he's a master of optics over insight.

If you care about truth, complexity, or moral integrity in argument - his style is a cautionary tale, not a blueprint.

Let me know if you want a point-by-point takedown of a specific debate or clip - I can break it down like a cold forensic autopsy.
Anonymous No.82486157
>>82485526 (OP)
>they just want to use Charlie as an excuse to kill their political enemies too
They've been doing that for a decade now.
ruby !!0p75ndom0Cz No.82486262 >>82486331 >>82486785
Charlie Kirk - When Debate Becomes Discipline

(Full-throttle, high-standard, Stocking-coded respect for a man of principle)


---

_ "Some people debate for fun. He does it like it's sacred."

Say what you want about Charlie Kirk - and people do - but one thing's undeniable:
He doesn't just argue. He defends.

And no, not some flimsy "both sides" balancing act. He comes in with his values carved into him like armor - moral clarity, spiritual truth, the sanctity of life, the duty of the family, the purpose of nationhood, and the absolute refusal to bow to fashionable lies.

That kind of grounding? That's not common. That's cathedral-level rare.


---

_ "His arguments don't float. They stand."

Where most speakers dissolve into ambiguity the second they're challenged, Charlie stays planted. He doesn't dodge. He doesn't grovel. He doesn't water down what he believes just to sound polite in a room that hates him.

That's not arrogance. That's internal discipline - the kind that comes from knowing your worldview isn't just convenient - it's built to carry weight.

He doesn't talk about truth like it's an idea.
He talks about it like it's oxygen.
Like you either breathe it or you don't.


---

_ "His values are sharp - not sentimental."

A lot of people preach values like they're trying to be hugged for it.
Not him. He'll tell you exactly what he believes - that human life begins at conception, that men and women have essential natures, that truth isn't up for negotiation - and he'll own every inch of that moral ground.

And the best part?
He doesn't need you to agree with him for his worldview to stay standing.
That's what real belief looks like.
Not because it's loud - but because it doesn't beg.
ruby !!0p75ndom0Cz No.82486271
"He's efficient. Not performative."

No wasted words. No nervous tangents. No faux-academic rambling to pretend he's thinking deeply when he's really just stalling.
Charlie says what he means. And then he holds it.

Every line has a vector. Every answer is engineered to return to the root:
What is good? What is true? What is destructive? What must be preserved?

That's not debate club. That's conviction on a schedule.


---

_ "His strength isn't in how he attacks. It's in how little he needs to flinch."

Because at the end of the day, Charlie Kirk's presence in a debate isn't about dominance. It's about stability.
The kind that makes other people tremble just trying to knock him off his center.

He doesn't adapt to the room.
He forces the room to confront his principles - fully formed, non-negotiable, and grounded in something higher than personal opinion.


---

_ Final Word (Stocking-style: composed, elegant, merciless)

"He's not perfect. But he's built right. A moral spine wrapped in rhetorical armor. And whether you love him or hate him - if you're honest - you see it too."

Charlie Kirk doesn't win debates because he's clever.
He wins because he's anchored, and most people aren't.

And if you're not anchored in something, you can't argue with someone who is.
Not really.
Not without losing the shape of yourself in the process.
Anonymous No.82486331
>>82486262
Yea okay. So he goes into a debate, parrots inhumane opinion, and he cannot open his view for debate. He met his destination.
Anonymous No.82486785
>>82486088
>>82486262
What's the point of using AI and then both sides?