Haha that long rant where you project a liberal caricature onto me is exactly what I am referring to when I say he's destroyed the idea of a formal debate.

> he didn't deny the gish gallop

Really checking all the boxes of bad-faith argumentation here, friend.

This is absurd. If all you have is telling the other commenter _what they really believe _ then you have nothing and there shouldn't be a comment here.

I've watched Charlie Kirk debate. He's an absolutely awful debater.

First off, he chooses his opponents. He's going up against college students, often unprepared ones. He never goes up against people with experience.

Secondly, he's the absolute KING of gish galloping [0]. If someone ever actually starts getting an upper-hand, he just resorts to spewing a non-stop tirade of bullshit. He'll ask 10 questions and then interrupt them after they've only answered one, just to go off on more bullshit. The problem is, people who don't know shit about debate thinks that's winning.

So yes, his style hurts the national dialogue.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

He was an awful debater.

I admit I found him unwatchable, and did not watch any of his content.

But I also don't know why most people consume the content they do. For whatever reason, his format got traction with certain people, and it wouldn't have if they got nothing out of it.

Quite comical it is to act as a judge of what helps or hinders the "national conversation", whatever that is. I assume it's something one shakes one's jowels during.

Nope, I'm not obese either. Miss after miss.

You should get obese then, you may find the jowel shake satisfying

Why are you here?

what were his ideas

I too eagerly await _rm's response

You've suddenly forgotten how to find Wikipedia?

I think you've missed that it was a rhetorical question, likely referring to how he believed ideas such as "the civil rights act was a mistake."