Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure and founder of the right-wing nonprofit Turning Point USA, gained notoriety for his campus debates across American colleges. His method focused on pitching a tent, table, or soap box on campus to have respectful dialogue with students about these highly charged topics. Whether or not you agreed with Kirk’s polarizing views, his viewpoints forced discussions. They elevated young leftist voices such as Naima Troutt and Mason into the spotlight and demonstrated the exciting new shifts taking place within political discourse in education.
With a string of impressive performances on the debate stage, Kirk had voters — and donors — captivated. His best known work originated from the “Surrounded” series on Jubilee Media’s YouTube channel. In this format, he was up against several opponents in quick-hitting style exchanges that pushed the boundaries of their argument to the brink against his deep cuts. Issues usually focused on abortion rights, the worth of a college degree, and the dangers of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) candidates. Kirk was known for his sharp rhetoric, famously stating that “Abortion is murder and should be illegal” and labeling college as a “scam.” His description of Vice President Kamala Harris as a “DEI candidate” served to highlight his deliberate, incendiary flair for the dramatic.
Kirk’s unexpected death sparked a tidal wave of response on social media. Some users remembered fondly his most incendiary comments, while others honored his legacy as a master debater. Allies and opponents alike recognized Kirk’s gift for making complicated issues easy to understand. His prowess most notably got people riled up in 2003.
“I’ve consumed so much of his content that I knew what he was going to say,” reflected Mason, one of Kirk’s debate opponents. I wouldn’t claim that this was easy for many of the other Surrounded debaters either, because he knows the game of rhetoric and debate and is very skilled at monopolizing the dialogue. It took a lot of work on my part to step up and advocate for myself.
Yet Kirk’s presence on social media had a more sinister function. Though it pushed a lot of conservative agendas, it gave a valuable national platform for young critics to share their perspectives. Troutt noted the importance of this dialogue, stating, “Mind your karma, watch what you put online.” Her comments serve to remind us of our potential and obligation as the public square. More than ever, the power of our words affects the world around us.
Dean Withers, who was friends with Kirk, broke down after seeing video of the attack unfold on the internet. He expressed his feelings candidly: “My tears weren’t me telling you how you should feel, but rather you happening to see me in how I felt.” Kirk’s influence changed the lives of all who met him. His controversial persona produced a perfect storm of misinformed, confused, and angry feelings.
Kirk’s approach to engagement has inspired praise and condemnation alike. He was really good at fueling the fire of debate, but didn’t allow much area for subtlety or grey area discussion. Critics contend that his tendency to reduce complex issues to either/or propositions hampered a more nuanced comprehension. Yet many advocates see this as a powerful point of leverage in a political environment that is quickly becoming defined by extreme partisanship.
His legacy as a debater will surely last far longer than our friend’s too-soon passing. He suggested that he hoped Troutt would accompany him on his radio theater of the absurd after their matchups. This would demonstrate that he is genuinely open to continued dialogue—even with those who disagree with him. His belief that “when people stop talking, that’s when violence happens” emphasizes his commitment to fostering conversation—a principle he maintained throughout his career.