That comment (by Cal Myers) was The Best, Most Accurate Synopsis of Charlie Kirk's brief career- succinct, accurate, on point! No, he most definitely did not deserve to die as he did (no one does)- but I despised the man. His whole King of Debates faux aura, it was never an actual "free and open discussion of ideas" as his followers insist to this day. Both racist and misogynist, he would excel at luring naive, impressionable college students, and after letting them have their brief moment in the sun... pounce and cut them down with his well rehearsed, rapid fire talking points. He had the formula down!
The few times he actually debated knowledgeable, experienced adults (as in England), it wasn't such a smooth cruise- he would shrewdly move the gold posts, ever so slightly and persistently change the subject matter he was responding to and not quite answer the question at hand... in short, it was his turn to squirm.
A couple of years ago there was a great video of a professor analyzing the debate tactics and strategies Kirk used to dominate; he broke it down in step by step detail with his actual debate cuts- brilliant breakdown and explanation, and of course, can't find it now for the life of me! Here's the Cliff Notes:
I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational. -Charlie Kirk
