\n<\/p>\n
In the days after his killing, Charlie Kirk was remembered by his allies as a great debater. A quote taken from a widely shared video of Kirk discussing his life\u2019s work \u2013 \u201cwhen people stop talking, that\u2019s when violence happens\u201d \u2013 emblematized such eulogies.<\/p>\n
Kirk toured American college campuses with his rightwing non-profit Turning Point USA, where he would set up a tent, table and microphone, and debate with undergrads. The goal, he said, was to \u201csave western civilization\u201d, and remembrances after his death positioned him as a budding statesman \u2013 a conservative <\/strong>hero who strode <\/strong>across the political divide for the sake of open dialogue.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think Charlie entered debates to come to a common consensus or to discover the truthMason<\/p>\n Kirk applied basic rules of civility to his debate style, asking opponents their name and saying it was nice to meet them. He engaged young people in political discourse at a time when society has been split into bitterly antagonistic camps. But his critics are taking issue with any version of his legacy that does not account for the bigoted nature of his arguments. They are also closely examining his very style of deate.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think Charlie entered debates to come to a common consensus or to discover the truth,\u201d said Mason, a 26-year-old graduate student who debated with Kirk on the YouTube show Surrounded last fall. \u201cI think Charlie came to debates to verbally beat his opponents.\u201d<\/p>\n This made him a formidable combatant. \u201cHe knew the arguments for nearly every conservative principle and even theological concept, and he spent years to develop that ability, so he was very great at pivoting and changing the conversation when it was not going his way,\u201d said Mason, who is based in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n During one debate, Kirk insisted on the truthfulness of a racist hoax about Haitian immigrants eating their neighbors\u2019 pets. In another, he falsely called the term foetus \u201cjust a word for a human being\u201d. He goaded college students, who eagerly stepped up to query or challenge him, with leading questions that were intended to elicit strong emotions \u2013 \u201cwhat is a woman?\u201d and \u201cwhat is racism?\u201d were two of his go-tos.<\/p>\n \u201cAt its core, debate is supposed to be an academic exercise, with the goal being to be forthright and genuine in the information you present,\u201d said Trent Webb, a professor of writing studies and rhetoric and director of the speech and debate team at Hofstra University. \u201cIn a good faith debate, the final goal is to reach consensus. If that doesn\u2019t happen, then a lot of academics would consider it to be an exercise in futility.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/span>Charlie Kirk holds a debate event ahead of his scheduled speech on the campus of the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, in 2024.<\/span> Photograph: David Ryder\/Reuters<\/p>\n After a Kirk debate, clips spun out on to social media, inviting millions into the fray. In celebration of perceived wins, Turning Point USA titled its YouTube videos things like: \u201cCharlie Kirk ANNIHILATES Smart-Aleck Student Accusing Him of Propaganda\u201d, \u201cCharlie Kirk wrecks DEI talking points\u201d and \u201cLiberal Student Can\u2019t Answer Charlie Kirk\u2019s Simple Question.\u201d<\/p>\n Dr Charles Woods, a professor of rhetoric and composition at East Texas A&M University, and the host of The Big Rhetorical Podcast, said Kirk distilled nuanced topics into stifling, good v bad arguments.<\/p>\n \u201cCharlie turned myriad opportunities for meaningful dialogic transactions rooted in civility and turned them into confrontational interactions by amplifying binaries in his argumentative structure,\u201d Woods wrote in an email. \u201cWhat we know is that there is a spectrum of ideologies and worldviews, not just two: Charlie\u2019s and whoever is on the other side of the microphone.\u201d<\/p>\n Hasan Piker, the popular leftist Twitch streamer who was scheduled to debate with Charlie Kirk later this month, <\/strong>wrote in a guest essay published in the New York Times that his would-be opponent was an \u201cexpert\u201d at \u201c[taking] advantage of people\u2019s resentments and [redirecting] them toward vulnerable communities\u201d.<\/p>\n Still, leftists lined up to debate with him. Some, like a sociology professor who appeared genuinely curious to talk about the economic prospects of young people under Donald Trump, desired a meeting of the minds. For his part, Piker told Slate that while he is \u201cnot the biggest fan of the debate format\u201d, he finds the forum \u201centertaining\u201d and \u201cgalvanizing\u201d.<\/p>\n Perhaps no forum fit Kirk\u2019s shtick better than the platform given to him by Jubilee Media, a YouTube channel that produces Surrounded, a thunderdome of debate where one person is encircled by a ring of ideological opponents who attempt to undercut his stances in lightning-fast rounds of verbal sparring, governed by literal red flags.<\/p>\n You got the sense that you were an opponent to him even when you weren\u2019t debatingNaima Troutt<\/p>\n \u201cCan 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?\u201d asked the series\u2019 first episode, an hour and a half of nonstop ragebait released last September. In the show, Kirk debated with his opponents such statements as: \u201cAbortion is murder and should be illegal\u201d (wherein Kirk said yes, he would hypothetically make his 10-year-old daughter carry a child to term if she were to get pregnant from rape); \u201ccollege is a scam\u201d; and \u201cKamala Harris is a DEI candidate.\u201d (Consider these Kirk\u2019s greatest hits; he often debated these topics on campuses.)<\/p>\n Naima Troutt, a 22-year-old film student at the University of Southern California, said the students made $25 for their appearance on the show, which has since raked in more than 35m views on YouTube and spawned countless viral clips.<\/p>\n A campus organizer who was involved with Black Lives Matter and Palestinian solidarity protests, Troutt did not know who Kirk was when she showed up to set that day, which helped her see him as less of a rightwing celebrity and more as a man she disagreed with.<\/p>\n <\/span>Naima Troutt faces off against Charlie Kirk on Surrounded in 2024.<\/span> Photograph: Jubilee Media<\/p>\n Troutt described a \u201ccamaraderie\u201d between the students, with some of the more \u201cchronically online\u201d trying to explain Kirk\u2019s significance to her before they started filming. But Kirk was not as eager to chum it up. \u201cHe was either on his phone, or outright rude. You got the sense that you were an opponent to him even when you weren\u2019t debating.\u201d<\/p>\n Troutt jumped into the hot seat twice to spar with Kirk over fetal viability, Harris\u2019s qualifications for president and affirmative action. They agreed on practically nothing, but Troutt found some merit in debating Kirk. \u201cI think I became much better at articulating my viewpoints and defending my viewpoints, because one thing about Charlie is that as much as I disagree with \u2013 and at times hate \u2013 everything that he believed and stated in the past, the fact is he\u2019s one of the only rightwingers who regularly puts themselves out there,\u201d Troutt said.<\/p>\n Troutt is not alone in this opinion. California governor Gavin Newsom, who debated with Kirk on his podcast earlier this year (and admitted his son was a fan), wrote in a statement that he \u201cadmired [Kirk\u2019s] passion and commitment to debate\u201d. Representatives for New College of Florida, formerly a progressive school that fell under the control of rightwing allies of Governor Ron DeSantis, announced it will commission a statue of Kirk with his table and mic on campus. The school\u2019s social media officer told Fox News that the statue will represent \u201cwhat America is all about\u201d.<\/p>\n Ultimately it was not rhetorical prowess but an insult that made Troutt a social media folk hero in #resistance circles: after Kirk attempted a gotcha moment by saying that \u201cfoetus\u201d means \u201clittle human being\u201d in Latin, Troutt called his self-satisfied smile \u201ccreepy\u201d.<\/p>\n You can\u2019t negate that it\u2019s very interesting to watch, but those students are not armed with proper data and evidenceTrent Webb<\/p>\n \u201cSmiling is creepy?\u201d Kirk clapped back, to which Troutt responded: \u201cNo, your<\/em> smile specifically.\u201d The quip landed her an Interview magazine feature branding her \u201cthe college student who owned Charlie Kirk\u201d. (Foetus<\/em> in Latin actually means \u201ca bringing forth; producing; fertile\u201d.)<\/p>\n In March, Kirk asked her to come to the stage for a 10-minute debate he held at USC, where they tussled over DEI again.<\/p>\n \u201cI was shocked by that,\u201d Troutt said. \u201cI literally just roasted this man, and now he wants to debate with me again. But the second time he was a lot nicer. A lot of Trump and Kirk supporters came to watch it, and it was a more hostile environment, but he was less hostile to me.\u201d<\/p>\n Mason, who debated with Kirk on Surrounded, describes himself as a progressive and felt it important to showcase leftist values.<\/p>\n <\/span>Mason debates with Charlie Kirk on Surrounded.<\/span> Photograph: YouTube<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re so often caricatured, especially for those in echo chambers of the right,\u201d Mason said. (He asked that his last name not be shared for privacy reasons.) \u201cAs someone who feels very confident in my beliefs and convictions and my ability to communicate, I think it\u2019s beneficial for me to go on a platform like this.\u201d<\/p>\n Mason and Kirk\u2019s topic was gender and transgender rights. Mason got Kirk to admit that he did not know the bimodal theory of gender, to which Kirk called him \u201ccondescending\u201d; Mason apologized for his tone, but said he was \u201ctrying to match\u201d Kirk\u2019s energy toward other debaters. Despite the testiness, the pair had a lively debate.<\/p>\n \u201cHaving a conversation with him was very easy to do,\u201d Mason said. \u201cI\u2019ve consumed so much of his content that I knew what he was going to say. I wouldn\u2019t say that it was easy for a lot of the other [Surrounded debaters], because he understands the sport of rhetoric and debate, and is really good at controlling the conversation. I had to put in a strong effort to assert myself.\u201d<\/p>\n Webb, the Hofstra professor, called the unmoderated format of Surrounded where claims are not factchecked, \u201cunnerving\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can\u2019t negate that it\u2019s very interesting to watch,\u201d Webb said, \u201cbut those students are not armed with proper data and evidence, and a lot of times they\u2019re speaking to things that sometimes are blatantly untrue.\u201d<\/p>\n After the debate, Kirk hinted that he wanted Mason to come on his radio show. That never happened, but the two kept in touch. The second time they debated \u2013 about wealth inequality at the USC event \u2013 Kirk praised his \u201chigh IQ\u201d. But Kirk never put the debate up online. \u201cI like to believe that\u2019s because the conversation didn\u2019t go the way he planned,\u201d Mason said, \u201cbut it could have also just been because I don\u2019t have the same online presence as someone like Naima.\u201d<\/p>\n The circus around Kirk\u2019s social media did not just advance conservative causes. His work boosted young leftists like Troutt and to a lesser extent Mason. <\/strong>Gaining a platform as \u201cthe girl who owned Charlie Kirk\u201d overwhelmed Troutt at first. \u201cIt did feel like getting thrown to the wolves,\u201d she said. But she sustained her viral moment and has over half a million followers on TikTok, where she posts about politics.<\/p>\n This small online community of Kirk debaters consider themselves an influential voice of reason against \u201calt-right\u201d internet stars like Kirk, Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens.<\/p>\n Hungry for another go, Troutt and other Surrounded debaters were scheduled to star in a reunion episode with Kirk later this month. On the morning of the day Kirk was killed, debaters in a Surrounded group chat were theorizing what topics might come up so they could start preparing. \u201cIt was surreal that in the middle of all of that, we got a news article sent by someone, saying: \u2018Oh my God, this just happened,\u2019\u201d Mason said.<\/p>\n After Kirk died, a range of reactions poured out on social media, with many recalling Kirk\u2019s incendiary takes or honoring his memory. Kirk allies advocated for firing those who they said spoke against him. Meanwhile, some of the debaters were criticized by followers for their eulogies of their former opponent and the sadness they expressed about his killing.<\/p>\n <\/span>A woman lights a candle at a makeshift memorial for Charlie Kirk outside the headquarters of Turning Point USA in Phoenix, Arizona, on 17 September<\/span> Photograph: Joe Raedle\/Getty Images<\/p>\n Dean Withers, who appeared on the Surrounded episode and was called \u201cthe Democrats\u2019 Bro Whisperer\u201d by the the New York Times, mourned Kirk\u2019s death through tears in a TikTok video. Tilly Middlehurst, a student who Kirk asked about feminism and what defines a woman at an event for Cambridge Union Society, her university\u2019s debate club, choked up as she said the act of political violence left her \u201cshaken and disgusted\u201d.<\/p>\n Withers later said that he became emotional watching the violent video of Kirk\u2019s shooting online, because a close friend had been in the audience of the event and because he knew Kirk personally. \u201cMy tears weren\u2019t me telling you how you should feel, but rather you happening to see me in how I felt,\u201d he said. Middlehurst made her social media profiles private. (Neither responded to a request for comment. A representative for Cambridge Union Society wrote in an email: \u201cAny comments made by speakers who openly debated with Mr. Kirk during our event earlier this year are expressed in a personal capacity and do not reflect the views of the Cambridge Union.\u201d)<\/p>\n Troutt felt \u201chesitant\u201d to speak about Kirk\u2019s death, though people looked to her for comment. \u201cI don\u2019t want to say the wrong thing and hurt people and lead to more violence. But I do want to help people in this moment process what this means for our country,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n After speaking with the Guardian, Troutt posted her own TikTok. \u201cAll acts of gun violence are horrible and must be condemned. That is my baseline,\u201d she said in the clip. She added: \u201cMind your karma, watch what you put online.\u201d<\/p>\n Mason believes that \u201ctwo things\u201d can be true at once: \u201cThe video [of the shooting] was incredibly grotesque, this is terrible across the board, and I do grieve for his young children, but that does not make the life or the principles that the victim stood for any more palatable.\u201d<\/p>\n He found it hard to square the Kirk he interacted with, if briefly \u2013 a professional, nice enough man \u2013 with the hateful views he promoted.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that speaks to the dissociation that politics allows, where somebody can have these abstract concepts of what a group is, or speak ill of them, but it\u2019s much more difficult to be insulting or vitriolic toward somebody who\u2019s right in front of you,\u201d Mason said.<\/p>\n In the aftermath of his death, Kirk\u2019s legacy remains as divisive as one of his debates. But there is no denying his influence on public discourse.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we teach argumentation and debate in our classrooms, it\u2019s not necessarily agenda-driven,\u201d said Webb, the rhetoric professor.<\/p>\n \u201cSocial media has taught us to believe that all opinions said online are valid and require response, and because of that, people are nowadays easily baited into these \u2018debates\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n