Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds".

It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate.

▲

jennyholzer 5 days ago | parent [-]

Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans

The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals.

▲

yostrovs 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	cman1444 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Of course there are instances of this on both sides. Kirk was just a prominent example of this on the right. I'm not sure books or blogs are a good example of this though. While they may contain lies or disingenuous talking points, they are quite different from the type of "debating" Kirk partook in on college campuses. Specifically, that strategy is characterized by speaking quickly and finding "gotcha" moments that play well on social media and short form video like reels or tiktok. Written material can still be harmful of course, but I feel that it lacks a certain infectious, viral aspect to it that is so politically divisive these days.