Charlie Kirk’s “Debate Me, Bro” Act Wasn’t Politics “the Right Way”

Debate isn’t the answer to political violence. But there might be another, better option

“Argument” by Holly, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, many of his supporters, and even some of his critics, like Ezra Klein, have suggested that what made the killing especially horrific is that Kirk had been open to debating and calmly discussing issues on campuses, even with people who strenuously disagreed with him.

As Klein put it, Kirk was “practicing politics in exactly the right way,” by “showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him.” Presumably, Kirk was some latter-day Socrates just hoping to engage in elevated philosophical discourse, and thus, to kill him is particularly awful because it suggests that some would rather settle political differences with bullets than with better arguments.

This all sounds very nice. But it’s rubbish.

First, Kirk, whose killing was indeed terrible — not because of the way he lived but simply because murder is wrong — did not merely engage in good-faith debates with political adversaries.

He also held forth three hours a day on a podcast where he said, among other things, that:

• Executing gay folks…