Why am I supposed to be impressed with who Charlie Kirk was?

[u/Vert_der_Ferk25]

He was a paid professional debater. He went to a college campus, set up a tent and cameras, and engaged with amateurs who had no experience doing what he did. And the right loved him for it. His media team would then cut clips of him scoring points against amateurs, and they would push them out on all their social media feeds.

Isn't this like LeBron James going to a campus and setting up cameras while he played pickup games against kids who, at best, were on the college team but more likely dabbled in basketball, but were no match for the expert? And then what would people think if LeBron's media people cut clips of him dunking on these young amateurs and pushed them out as "highlights"?

"LeBron's TOP 10 Most SAVAGE College TAKEDOWNS 👀🔥"

"COCKY College Kid gets OWNED By Lebron James! Follow for more👉"

"LeBron James SHUTS DOWN 3 Arrogant College Students Best DUNKS Compilation"

"1 NBA Hall of Famer vs 25 Amateur College Students (Feat. LeBron James) | Surrounded"

Isn't Kirk's legacy just sad?

[u/Seated_Heats]

He debated woefully unprepared and untrained college kids. When faced with defeat he’d rely on “well the bible says x, and you can’t argue with the bible.” He turned down trained debate opponents like Dean Withers because it would be bad for his brand, Turning Point.

[u/PrestigiousSunburn → u/Seated_Heats]

Yeah, literally, not an argument he ever made. 

[u/Seated_Heats → u/PrestigiousSunburn]

That the bible says “x” so that’s where his belief of his argument comes from? GTFO

Anytime gender, or sexuality came up he’d go to the bible and say “I believe in the bible and it says “x” is a sin, so, being gay is wrong.” That’s not a debate, that’s a religious trope.

Kirk often relied on presuppositional apologetics, explicitly arguing that the Bible proves itself. He would point to the presence of multiple “eyewitness” testimonies within the texts as historical validation of biblical events.

In one “debate” with a student who asked how he can support being a Christian nationalist, Kirk said he wasn’t… he was a Christian and a Nationalist, and then quoted Jeremiah 29:7 and said “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” to defend his Nationalism… but he took that quote woefully out of context. It was a comment about exiled being stuck in a country for 70 years. Jeremiah was saying that god told them to become a part of that nation because, well, they ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. So he not only relied on the Bible as a “bulletproof” defense, he abused the text to fit his argument, which is sort of his whole grift.

Kirk used and abused the Bible to ignore real debates and bullied young and underprepared students to make them feel small. Now, he fully didn’t deserve to be killed, but he’s a tremendous snake oil salesmen to get this many people to follow a woefully obvious deception.

[u/PrestigiousSunburn → u/Seated_Heats]

Calm down a second and actually think through this...

If someone says, in effect, "How can you justify [insert claimed religious position] according to the Bible."  Then the rational response is to respond by explaining your position using the Bible.  If someone asks you about your moral value-based opinion on a thing, and you claim that your moral values come from the Bible (or Quran or Communist Manifesto or whatever) then the rational response is to say that your values come from there.

Kirk didn't run around saying, "our tax policy should work this way because the Bible says so" or "our foreign policy should work that way because the Bible says so."  He was asked specifically about worldview issues, and he responded by explaining his worldview.

You may disagree with his worldview, but t hat's just normal human discussion/debate.  There is nothing inherently improper with that.

[u/Seated_Heats → u/PrestigiousSunburn]

That’s not what’s being said. No one’s bringing up the Bible. He’s using the Bible as a moral compass. The Bible is not non-fiction.

Tax policy is not the only thing he argued. He’d use the Bible to support one of his arguments and then ignore the Bible when it didn’t fit his point. It’s grossly disingenuous. He “debated” out of bigotry and hate disguised behind “but muh religion says so” (Narrator: it didn’t), and released curated clips that made him look better. I disagree with his worldview, his selective storytelling, his inability to use his own source material properly, and his bigotry (he was racist… and didn’t particularly hide it).

[u/PrestigiousSunburn → u/Seated_Heats]

You sound very young and you don't seem to be getting my point. I wasn't saying he only debated tax policy.  I am saying that if someone asks you a values-based opinion, you have to cite to where you get your values.  That was why Kirk would cite the Bible, because that was his claimed source.  

You may disagree with him, and that's fine.  But the Bible is a nuanced book and many different and seemingly contradictory arguments and positions can be drawn from it, which is why there have been Christian pacifists, and Christians who believe in  just war, and all different kinds of "Christians" with different contradictory views on various topics who may all have a valid argument.

Critical thinking means being able to examine an argument without getting emotional and attacking your opponent as a bad person for making the argument.  

[u/Seated_Heats → u/PrestigiousSunburn]

You sound young and easily corrupted by poor debate tactics. I wasn’t saying he used the Bible for tax policy. You brought it up out of nowhere as a straw man.

The Bible is a contradictory book that people have used to push their own agenda with no concern that only some things fit. You can’t say “I believe in x because of the Bible, but I don’t believe in y despite the Bible saying I should.” If that’s what you’re doing you’re selecting your own morals and therefore can’t use “I believe in this because the Bible says so and the Bible is an authority on the subject.” If it was the authority, you’d need to abide by all of it. You can’t quote Jeremiah in the OT as an infallible source and then not be into stoning women.

Critical thinking is realizing you can’t use the Bible and say “because the Bible is right in my eyes” and not abide by all of it. Otherwise you’re the authority because you’re selecting what to believe and follow and at that point the Bible is irrelevant because you’re creating your own moral guide.

[u/PrestigiousSunburn → u/Seated_Heats]

Kirk would give values-based responses to values-based questions.   I didn't bring up tax policy as a straw man or to suggest that was your argument, I was giving examples of what Kirk would NOT say.

The Bible is not just a lengthy rule book. It was intended to contain law, poetry, philosophy, history, etc.  It was supposed to be read and chewed on by the reader.  So one section gives a rule or standard, another section gives exceptions to a rule or standard, another section forces the reader to rethink the rule and its exceptions, and another section gives a story where people maybe ignored the rule and ignoring the rule was actually the correct moral choice. For example, we see law which required stoning people for adultery but then we see Jesus seemingly flouting that law by suggesting that only someone without sin (which is no one) was in a position to throw the stones. So,  the law and Jesus's handling of the law are treated as "good" by the text.  But this requires someone to examine the Bible with an understanding and appreciation of these nuances.  If they don't have that ability, they will be quickly upset or dismissive of the Bible. 

So yes, someone can absolutely quote Jeremiah as an infallible source and also not believe in stoning women.  That is a position that is internally completely consistent within the canon of scripture.   And that is also.the view of probably 99.999% of Christian denominations, scholars, and practitioners who study the Bible. 

So your view would be a minority or extreme view. 

[u/Seated_Heats → u/PrestigiousSunburn]

You know what the Bible was intended for? It’s “God-breathed” according to itself. It is written through man, by God. You cannot read both treatments and not see that those are two distinct gods. Murder is wrong… but in a bet I’ll slaughter your entire family to prove you’ll still love me... or as punishment I’ll slaughter everyone’s first born in a specific city… but also if someone wrongs you, give them your other cheek… but only do unto others as you’d have done to yourself… Judas hung himself but he also bought a field where he tripped and his body burst… while turning the other cheek, I’ll also flood all the land and kill everyone’s first born except this one dude and two of each animal… but a few lines later it’s actually 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean… and while talking about unclean animals… but that’s ok because animals and plants were created first, oh wait… a few lines later man was formed first before the plants and animals…

The Bible is full of inconsistencies and illogical differences where gif is infallible yet contradicts itself. I’m assuming Kirk never ate pork.

I’ll also correct Kirk, he quoted Jeremiah out of context and used it as a a source.

You cannot read both claim there’s nuance, but that’s making an infallible loophole. “If there’s no inconsistency, it’s straight up fact… if there is it’s that you lack nuance.”