Yeah, I agree. It's a poverty of ours that he's the most prominent "debater" we've seen. Ideally we'd have a few dozen folks, maybe even a whole culture that debates. That way I think it'd be harder for grifters to gain a huge following through slick edits and rhetorical tricks.

Nonetheless I think his killing will have more of a chilling effect on debate of any sort, though I'd like to proven wrong and see a more trend of more sober, thoughtful debate take hold.

If you have a certain argument to a certain talking point, then you're always going to repeat that same argument whenever that talking point emerges. There's nothing bad faith about that. These kinds of arguments get repetitive so you're going to see people repeat the same points.

As for the value of debate, even bad debate is better than nothing. Sometimes it feels like there's nothing being gained from it, but if you question people who have engaged in a lot of debates, you find that they're much more informed after the debates — even very acrimonious debates, where both sides are just trying to defeat the other side — than they were before it. A society needs people to communicate, for it to progress in its ability to effectively coordinate on complex social issues, and that process of communication is not going to be without warts, given how complex these social issues are, and how high the stakes are for a great number of people.

Societies which embrace civil discourse and protect free speech are far better off for it. This killing strikes at the heart of a civil society.

Charlie Kirk’s “certain argument” was “what is a woman?”. He would gish gallop weak and fallacious arguments to pretend like his definition was valuable (it wasn’t) and he would steam roll the nuanced definitions provided by his interlocutors.

And no, bad debate isn’t necessarily valuable and that dichotomy doesn’t get us anywhere. Kirk was not the only person doing valuable debates. He was a propagandist with a façade of debater.

Medhi Hasan is an eminently more honest and more skilled debater. Destiny is decent (although he does streaming debates for a living, so he gets a little too “debate bro” for my taste). Matt Dillahunty and some of his crowd are more informed and charitable than Kirk was.

We should be encouraging young minds to seek out honest interlocutors, not ones that sate their “dunking” appetites.

I’m not arguing for killing and your framing is not valuable. I’m arguing that Kirk was not a good role model for the kind of debate where people might actually learn facts.

Regarding even bad debate being better than no debate, I used to believe the same, then realized how much progress had been made in the process of low-quality arguments between 'heels dug in' interlocutors. It was like the inverse of a frog slowly being boiled.

Alas, we can agree to disagree.

But the question "what is a woman" is trying to get at finding this honesty. Even many allegedly highly educated professors respond to that with the answer "anyone that feels like one," which is an absurd and and demands the obvious response "but what is that thing?" Simply because a position can be correctly assailed with such a blunt question does not mean the criticism is not valid. Of course, it doesn't.

The professors are likely willing to differentiate between biological sex and gender. Kirk purposefully conflated the two to suit his debate needs.

The question doesn't predispose that one consider sex synonymous with gender.

The question was never the problem. It was always how Kirk chose to respond after the answer.

The problem was the answer was self-referential, e.g. "anyone who identifies as a woman"

But you haven't made a point, the question remains: "what is that thing?"

Do these 'more honest and more skilled debater'(s) happen to align with your political viewpoints, by any chance?

I think Medhi Hasan is among the best debaters alive, but I think he’s 100% wrong on his religious views.

Generally I’m a fan of Oxford style debates, such as Intelligence Squared.

Kirk was a rapid-fire debater who made all of his content to go viral. I don’t see much value in that style, because it steamrolls so much important nuance.

This isn't a valid accusation. I believe "both sidesism" has cursed Americans into locked thinking patterns where they can never develop, because they have to spend an eternity giving sober consideration to endless wrong-headed positions.

My viewpoints don't align with flat earthers, and also I criticize their unscientific methods.

I have not seen much of him, but I did watch a video from Jubilee where he was debating a bunch of people.

In that instance, I have to say I saw no indication of bath faith; to the contrary, he seemed to listen very carefully, and would use the most charitable interpretation of what people were saying. I’d heard a lot of negative things about him, so I was actually impressed. I might not have agreed with him, but he was genuine and respectful.

I think his death is truly a tragedy. I worry about how this will further radicalize the right, and the chilling effect it will have on already chilled discourse.

Really? All I know of him was was his "What is a woman?" stunt, which seemed bad-faith.

It seemed just try to be a jab against trans identity without even bothering to make an outright argument. You could do the same shtick with "What is a Republican?" or anything else.

IIRC he did ask that at one point, and got a pretty interesting answer.

I also don’t see how that is a bad faith question.

I think in certain contexts the question “what is a Republican” would be important, for example the right wing has been trying to answer that since Trump ran in 2015.

It was never the question that was bad faith. It is that he pretends like there is only one definition to the word, so there’s never a fruitful discussion. His entire existence at these events is to get video footage to use as marketing for his political group, not to actually debate in good faith.

An informed take from Forest Valkai on Kirk’s “what is a woman?” Debate style:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M0uCLgFMC-c

It probably seemed bad faith because you did not like the outcome. Usually what happens there is someone says "a woman is anyone who thinks he/she/ze/xe/they/it is a woman". At that point no further argument is required, most people can think about that definition on their own and realize that it is dumb.

No, Kirk used the same debate bro tactics about people who were very informed and nuanced about the biological facts. Forest Valkai has explained this ad nauseum.

Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips.

He ran into plenty of college students who tried the thing you described, but he was equally dismissive of the people who knew more than him on the subject.

> Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips

Marshall McLuhan would like a word with you

It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. If I ask you, "what is an adult," there's no simple and rigorous answer to that question. You can say, "you're an adult when everyone agrees you're an adult," but that's a bit circular, and it risks making you sound dumb. Or you could get into different cultural ideas of adulthood, what happens when someone who's an adult in one culture enters a different culture where they're considered a child, the role that legal systems plays in establishing an age of majority, the social agreements that give that legal system the power to enforce certain rules based on that age, and so forth. But that's not going to come over very well in a snappy debate video where the other guy gets to edit the footage of whatever you say.

If a progressive were running the debate, they would never ask a question like, "what is a woman." They don't care that Republicans think trans women are men. They'd ask, "why should your conception of womanhood be used to determine who gets put in a women's jail when putting transgender women in male prisons measurably increases prison violence?"

"What is a woman" is a nebulous cultural question with no real importance compared to the actual lives and freedoms of transgender women.

> It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct.

And the Democratic Party still wonders why they lost. I’m saying this as not an American. The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct.

> The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct.

Brother, you'll never guess what type of construct numbers are.

If American voters prefer simple, incorrect answers over complex truths, that's a problem with their education system, not with trans rights.

You're proving his point. Discussion of Peano axioms or however you want to construct natural numbers is irrelevant to the question what's two plus two, which has a straightforward answer to anyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse.

A better point of comparison would not be a question like "what is 2+2," but "what is 4?" There's a superficial, circular answer ("What is 4? It's 2+2"), and there's a more complex and rigorous answer which doesn't look good on camera ("What is 4? Well, numbers are a social construct used to communicate and analyze etc etc, Peano arithmetic blah blah").

These questions also admit "straightforward" answers ("what's 4?" raises 4 fingers "this many") ("what's a woman?" points to a woman "one of those"), but these don't really answer the deeper question being asked. They gesture at a preexisting category and demand that it be recognized without actually explaining the nature of that category or its boundaries.

Well, I'm also not an American and I thought their answer was insightful and yours was dumb. We can all play this game.

Alternatively you could actual engage with the substance of the argument?

That anything can be whatever we want because everything is defined by society/culture?

It’s clear to me that these people lack real problems and are creating their own.

If you ask a biologist, you will find that categories like "woman" are not clearly defined. Even the concept of biological sex is really complicated. If you want to pretend that this stuff is all black and white, that's up to you but its not a scientifically literate perspective.

That's not the same as saying that "everything is defined by society/culture?" That's a strawman - no-one was claiming that.

> Even the concept of biological sex is really complicated.

In some insect, reptile or fish, like the clown fish, sure.

In mammals? It’s not. And to be more specific, in primates, it’s not.

Yeah, it really is.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-s...

You bring an article by an anthropologist to a question about biology:

> Agustín Fuentes is a professor of anthropology at Princeton University.

You should actually read the opinion of a biologist:

https://archive.is/wUZTM

> When biologists claim that sex is binary, we mean something straightforward: There are only two sexes. This is true throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. An organism’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) it has the function of producing. Males have the function of producing sperm, or small gametes; females, ova, or large ones. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes. Sex is binary.

> Gender ideology seeks to portray sex as so incomprehensibly complex and multivariable that our traditional practice of classifying people as simply either male or female is grossly outdated and should be abandoned for a revolutionary concept of “gender identity.” This entails that males wouldn’t be barred from female sports, women’s prisons or any other space previously segregated according to our supposedly antiquated notions of “biological sex,” so long as they “identify” as female.

> But “intersex” and “transgender” mean entirely different things. Intersex people have rare developmental conditions that result in apparent sex ambiguity. Most transgender people aren’t sexually ambiguous at all but merely “identify” as something other than their biological sex. Once you’re conscious of this distinction, you will begin to notice gender ideologues attempting to steer discussions away from whether men who identify as women should be allowed to compete in female sports toward prominent intersex athletes like South African runner Caster Semenya. Why? Because so long as they’ve got you on your heels making difficult judgment calls on a slew of complex intersex conditions, they’ve succeeded in drawing your attention away from easy calls on unquestionably male athletes like 2022 NCAA Division I women’s swimming and diving champion Lia Thomas. They shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender.

Ironically, "trans women think they're women but I think they're wrong!!" is by far the least real problem being discussed here. Nobody's forcing you to have a nuanced discussion about gender. You asked how we define "woman"; this the answer.

I didn’t ask, just that it’s up for discussion is ridiculous to me, but well, some people don’t have enough issues in life it seems.

The context you are missing here is that Charlie Kirk spent a decade crafting this into a wedge issue while gaslighting the informed academics that their answer was wrong.

Kirk would always use the first dictionary definition of “woman” while academics would incorporate both the first and second definitions. And the cultural effect ballooned when this specific question became a meme and a virtue signal.

Forest Valkai explains this all in a few minutes:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M0uCLgFMC-c

2+2? That’s 1! In Z mod 3 field. Gender is a social construct. How we define numbers in a field? Also a construct. Sorry you’re dumb and can’t figure that out

No, the question is “is Pluto a planet” and the answer is complicated, but if you take the time to read up on how the scientific community reached consensus, then chances are you’ll end up better understanding the nuance - and why the answer is simply “No.”

Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB. Do you understand how we arrive at that answer though?

I understand now all the complaints from regular people about how the democrats and colleges are out of touch with reality, it’s like another universe or twilight zone.

How do you mean?

> Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB.

This redefinition of "woman" comes from a fundamentally sexist and conservative perspective.

If you actually knew any gender-non-conformant butch women, you'd know they are overwhelmingly trans allies.

Yes, precisely! Modern conservatism is almost primarily characterized by the way it holds traditional gender roles as sacred! Gender unorthodoxy is their main objection to progressiveness!

That’s the reason any of this is even an issue, conservatives still think cows are sacred, queers are hungry for steak!

I don't think anyone would seriously make the claim that two kids in a trench-coat are actually an adult and must be let into adult-only spaces.

As just one example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation

> but I did watch a video from Jubilee where he was debating a bunch of people.

Full, uncut video, or video edited and hosted by Kirk on his youtube channel?

I ask in good faith, I've seen him stumbling about badly in UK debating clubs where debate is an art form and I've seen "debates" on his channels that appear to have numerous edits.

Not op but I've seen the video they referenced and their account is accurate from what I remember and the whole debate is shown (it's actually a long video). There were preselected topics with time limits for each one. The way they picked who was up was a bit odd with them basically racing to the chair but the ones not up there could vote to stop the current debaters turn and let someone else take over. It was definitely interesting.

In that production he was pretty engaged and most of the time seemed to be putting out relevant, thought out responses.

That's not to say there weren't any gotcha responses being thrown around but IIRC (it's been a while) it was coming from both sides of the debate. IIRC, there was some one of the debaters was actually more ,than Kirk (provided I'm not mixing up videos, healthy distrust for my memory lol).

I saw the video on the Jubilee channel- so far as I’m aware it is full and uncut.

I have not seen any videos from his channel, I wasn’t aware he had one though obviously in retrospect it is unsurprising.

I found it: https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=N9dU3r4DxJzK1a2i

Perhaps if you watch it you’ll have a different impression than I did.

Jubilee does cut their videos just so you're aware. I've never heard of them ever releasing a full uncut version. They have good editors, it's hard to tell. They'll snip entire participant segments.

First thoughts, having never been aware of this whole "20 X Vs 1 of Y" Jubilee format before are that;

* this seems highly contrived, and

* "Now Casting 55+ year old Trump supporters for an upcoming SURROUNDED video" (on the home page)

supports that notion.

This isn't the format of Buckley V. Vidal (perhaps the start of the end of intellectual debate in the US) and nor is it a debate in the sense of equal time, three rounds (case, defense, conclusion), etc.

I've moved on to looking at:

The Problem with Jubilee’s Political Debate Videos - https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-po...

The ‘one voice against 20 extremists’ format is designed to monetise hate - https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-on...

which at a first rapid skim appear to flesh out many of the initial issues and feelings that I have.

Right now I have hedges to trim and a roof to tin so it'll be many hours before I can watch an hour and half contrived 'battle' and take notes .. but I will give it a shot.

Thanks for the link.

It’s definitely contrived, and Jubilee for sure seems to make clickbait-y videos. I don’t particularly fault them for it, it seems to be the arena they are playing in.

But I do think they are fairly neutral, and they get people who disagree to talk to each other, and I appreciate that.

I watched another video of theirs where it was inverted, with many conservative students debating one liberal pundit, and of course the students did worse- they’re just a bunch of kids. But good to be exposed to another point of view.

Best of luck on your hedges and roof! That sounds far more worthwhile than watching that video.

Agreed. He was respectful of differing opinion, and encouraged diversity of thought. All Americans, from the left and right, should view this as a Fundimental aspect of a healthy democracy. We don't always need to agree, but if we cannot talk we are no longer an Nation.

How many transgender mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount and not "too many"?

How many black mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount?

How many WASP mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount?

How many ginger-haired mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount?

Why is it suddenly a problem now, to the point of restricting the 2nd amendment?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Why don't you answer the question of how many is "many"? Isn't it because the number would absolutely ridiculuous when mass shooting count is in the hundreds without any reaction from you (and Charlie Kirk himself who said it was the price to pay for the 2nd amendment)?

Bad faith is not an argument.

Nope, you just didn't like what he had to say, so you attack the form rather than the content, i.e. bad faith.

I’ll leave this here in case someone else forgets how terrible Kirk’s content was:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

I disagree, I think his positions are generally quite logical and based on facts. I think it is also clearly a positive when positions are predictable because positions that follow logically should be predictable. If you mean his "style," I don't know what that means or how that matters, even the so-called "most qualified presidential candidate in human history," as she was actually numerous times, Kamala Harris was quite predictable in what she would say in terms of being a "middle class kid," and so forth. I would say your video is just an example of a couple of smug leftist dilletantes congratulating themselves. I listened to her and it sounded like a child less educated than myself lecturing me about what an academic is or some such nonsense.