I have seldom (probably never) seen anyone have a big change of heart from such discussion, but often both sides concede a little, and it feels like progress toward common ground, minuscule though it may be.
Charlie Kirk was polite and simply had a debate. If you think there's any justification of his assassination, you're the fascist who is saying there is no room for any political debate. It's the left that thinks everyone must have the same opinion, or else they are justified in assassinating you in front of your family on a college campus. Shameful and mentally ill and evil.
Regardless of how you feel, these types of statements are gross generalizations and against the HN guidelines. If you're going to comment, find a way to express your disappointment without smearing your personal boogeyman.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
these people don't argue to uncover the truth, they just provoke you into some debate-bro logical gotcha that is simply borne in ignorance.
it's not even if you agree or not with him, he has no intention of ever learning your side, it's just a smorgasbord of conservative bs on repeat.
murder bad. but this guy was a provocateur who tried to get the most "impact" for his side. that is why his hot takes are so insane. they aren't points to argue against, they are dog whistle rallying points for all the racists and misogynists to think society is theirs. so let's not defend his work as "just having opinions i disagree with" ...