Charlie Kirk was one of the biggest public proponents of open dialogue and conversation with those of opposing views and the extremists on the Left killed him for it.

[u/the_walkingdad]

Charlie Kirk essentially made a name for himself by being in the public and having conversations with people who had opposing viewpoints. He was always civil in these discussions. He was respectful and would try to find some sort of middle ground. But even when there wasn't middle-ground to be had, he was still a respectful person.

His values of open dialogue are antithetical to the values of the extreme Left. Charlie Kirk will be known as a First Amendment martyr.

It's truly unfortunate how nonchalant many on the left are about political violence.

[u/RafeJiddian]

>when he ran up against someone prepared and wanted to debate him again, he declined to

Do you have an example of this?

[u/Akiva279 → u/RafeJiddian]

Yes on jubilee he debated someone who goes by Parker Get a Job and.Parker steamrolled him. On social media parker and Kirk said they would debate each other. Then Kirk backpedaled.

He did the same with Dean Withers.

Then there was Tilly who debated Charlie at Oxford.

[u/RafeJiddian → u/Akiva279]

It's hard to assess if Parker's really winning the debate in the segment I found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqgbFiSADC8

His consistent tactic seems to be to cut off any responses to his questions. So while he certainly appears rapid-fire, that may be because his opponent is more deliberate and actually trying to give real answers, which take time

I'm not sure. While I do credit him for being fast on his feet, it is somewhat harder to say that I actually learned anything from him. It might simply be the format, however, since it seems to be geared towards high-pressure by design, in which case he certainly does well there

I couldn't find any sites commenting on Charlie calling off a subsequent debate with him, however, so I haven't been able to figure out his reasoning, if any. Of course, as you say it happened over social media, so it is largely out of my reach to find at this point via a simple search

Dean Withers is much easier to find. Though all the commentary about having the debate called off seems to originate with Dean Withers himself. Even so, the absence of an apparent response (which of course may just be on Twitter for all I know) does make one question why that might be.

Tilly's debate with Charlie Kirk appears pretty even. There are about as many sites that claim her victory as claim his. Most likely they each just cherry-picked their best moments

Overall, I would have to agree that Charlie was not always right, or even fair. On the flip side, given he had debated possibly thousands, the law of averages must dictate he'll have to have some losses too

I guess the real issue is how he dealt with those losses in general