You are an absolute clown if you think this kid humiliated Charlie. Dude doesn’t even know how to have a conversation let alone a debate. Claimed Charlie was stalling but interrupted every sentence for the remainder of the time THEN Constantly kept diverting from the actual topic at hand.
@@samb7396 Democrat liberals are the goats.. .You are the party that follows ANYONE you're told to with PASSION. Your 'Democracy' was LITERALLY stolen from you and you still cheer with all your heart, for the person you never fkn voted for, one single time! Your Democracy was stolen by YOUR party and you don't give one flying shit!
Parker was using comparisons to win the argument while Charlie was changing the subject I can see how that can be difficult for some people to differentiate… Also on that note if you watch the entire debate Charlie makes it nearly impossible for other students to speak with him constantly interrupting them and by this point in the debate Parker has withdrawn himself until now for him to properly analyze Charlies debating style so he can properly get his point across hence the loudening of his voice because Parker knows that the only way to defeat an interrupter is by playing their game and talking louder.
@@Anonymous-q9l1mCharlie was not changing the topic. He was answering the question at hand. Parker had personal anti-religion issues he was randomly throwing in during random debate topics.
@Anonymous-q9l1m he wasn't changing the subject. Parker just kept spitting questions and talking over him trying to answer. Then he brought religion in and got the debate way off the actual topic question multiple times. Kids was whiny and praddling
@@gladiator-bl2qg Is his argument right? That's where your focus needs to be. It's not a debate of manners. If you think he's wrong, then refute his case. Many horrible people make cogent arguments, some don't.
@@thequestion2056he is applying his flawed logic to his own ridiculous beliefs. and charlie could not defend his stance. thats how you break down an argument
The kid humiliated himself at best - always trying to deflect to the religious component, knowing that Charlie is a deeply religious man, while not addressing his questions at all and making baffling comparisons between Christian divinity and trans "women" somehow. Obnoxious, irritating and completely not how you're supposed to debate in good faith, besides the kid shooting 5 different questions a second wihtout letting Charlie reply.
I am not a Charlie Kirk fan, but he didn't get owned here. Parker just jumped around so fast and avoided the issue that was originally being discussed. It was just a mess. No winner
He would talk too fast and avoid the question and spout nonsense thinking he’s winning Charlie kept stumbling because he had to answer 29 questions at the same time and not given enough time to answer without dumbass Parker interrupted him
Charlie's strategy: 1. Make stupid, inconsistent, fragile points. 2. Get exposed by Parker. 3. Switch the topic completely by asking a totally unrelated question. Example: 1. Early on, Charlie makes a point about how women who have abortions shouldn't be put in jail because abortion has been normalized, even though he views abortion as murder. An absolutely stupid point. 2. Parker exposes him in his very first argumentative framework with Charlie by drawing an analogy to pedophiles a few centuries ago. Adult men used to marry adolescent girls and it was normalized, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't lock them up for life if one of them wandered into modern society. Just because something is normalized, it doesn't mean we shouldn't punish it when we find out it's wrong. 3. Charlie, knowing Parker just completely analized him, asks "So, when does life begin?" I genuinely laughed out loud when he asked that question, because it meant he just got completely demolished by Parker, so bad that he had to ask such a ridiculously random question to try to avoid getting exposed even further.
@@herroyung857 Soyboy Parker changed the topic into a religious debate, when the initial topic was clearly about "abortion", because he knew he can't win fair and square without bringing someone else's religious BELIEFS. That's a cowardice move that I expect from any brainwashed soyboy college kid 🤣
Charlie is ready to debate college professors who already agree with him any time, like Jordan Peterson. Well, ex professor. But is it Charlie's fault if the professors who agree with him tend to quickly become ex professor?
Right. I watched this debate an thought the speed talker came across as a total buffoon. And I'm not against abortion. If you watch the whole video the crux if his argument was asking Charlie if pedophiles from hundreds of years ago should go to prison and if Charlie possessed a time machine would he send these dead pedophiles to prison.
@@orome9793 Parker threw out a Red Herring to take Charlie off his script. BUT The Logic there is sound, because Parker is asking Charlie about his Morals AND what he would do if he was given that power to travel back in time... Well you already know how he answered that. AND THAT - Speaks Volumes about his stances on every Prompt he brought up. Given the Power, He would Always Abuse it...
Just because he interrupted him a bunch, even tho Charlie does that a bunch too, does not mean he didn’t win the debate lol what made Charlie win the debate?
2:40. Look up what adoni is, this comes up btw. As with Elohim, Adonai's grammatical form is usually explained as a plural of majesty. In the Hebrew Bible, the word is nearly always used to refer to God (approximately 450 occurrences).
Yep, we live in a time where someone says something stupid, someone calls them out and is called disrespectful. Or nasty. If you have no arguments, play the victim card and pretend the other side played you dirty. Just when Charlie tries to shift the topic lightning fast *he* knows he won't win that one. It's only the deluded fan club that thinks Trump won his debate or Charlie won this one. Neither did - they both lost badly. Charlie wanted a quick win with "What is a woman?" and lost because he had to say "It's opaque" when asked what a man was. Total win for the student.
You guys are actually slow huh? This kid didn't win anything or make any sense. Claiming that someone doesn't know what a man is because he refuses to put a sex on a "transendent" being that is literally outside of and unaffected by space and time is just straight up stupidity.
Just because you talk fast and constantly redirect the conversation to religion by not sticking to the subject at hand, doesn't mean you get to humiliate ANYONE, it just means more air came out of his mouth.
Religion being brought in might sound like it has no correlation to the conversation at hand but if u know what analogies are then his arguments made perfect sense. It challenged his way of thinking
Parker is an atheist who tried to use religion to help his case completely dodging the actual questions and never letting Charlie speak. Sounds like a lost defensive liberal
He used religion as a comparative fallacy in Charlie's arguments. Religion is innately illogical and relies on a lot of looking the other way in regards to explanations for anything, so the kid just brought it up in relation to Charlie's points because then Charlie either has to admit he knows his religion is a lie, or that his point is wrong. It's a catch 22 you just sort of can't break out of when you enter the debate stage against someone competent as a religious follower without personal interpretations.
@thegloriousryan8981 it is still a lazy way to approach a debate where he is not working hard in proving his own point. For Parker to prove his point, he relies on Kirk admitting error, as you said, either in the form of "religion is a lie" or "I am wrong in my own concept." Kirk did not admit either, but in an alternative scenario, it is quite likely he would have maintained his science-based definition because it is logical and widely agreed upon. In view of that, let's say that he had admitted or suggested that his religion was a lie. What does that leave Parker with? Basically, in that religion is a lie, and "man" can not be defined by describing appearance. It is, therefore, delusional or illogical to base the definition on that. What is Parker's definition based on then? In the same illogical premise of appearance and social behaviour. Which would be exactly what is used to identify God as a male. This is the conclusion based on Parker's trail of thought.
@@amisvega9756 Who cares if it's lazy? The point of a debate is to win over the other person (unfortunately). How easy the method is doesn't really factor in. Also, regarding the parallel, the point of it besides just in regards to christianity is to show that masculine or feminine conceptions of things do exist outside of sex, and that it isn't unreasonable to disconnect the two. The fact that the words masculine and feminine are even used regarding anything beyond biological composition is proof of gender's existence as a construct. Parker focused in on christianity specifically because its the one thing that somebody with charlie kirk's debate style wouldn't mold his opinion on based on the current topic and arguments.
@@amisvega9756 I will say that Parker didn't do a great job of communicating the point I just said in the debate(atleast from the parts I have seen), but that is ultimately the source of the argument, and the point of bringing it up regardless of his delivery.
@thegloriousryan8981 answering your question: the people who care are those who, in the comments section, express that Parker was a disappointment and did not "own" Kirk. The point of debating goes beyond "destroying," sort of speak, the opponent, it is also for your ideas to resonate with the audience. For them to say "yes, this is actually a very good point" It is evident there wasn't anything particularly impressive in his argumentation. To be fair, Kirk did not approach the response in this particular topic well. However, his opponent still did not manage to "destroy" his argument. This brings me to your second point: It is somewhat relevant to bring to the table that feminine and masculine are not bound to biology. However, it is what these words mean anyway. There is no revolutionary concept there. Feminine and masculine are used to describe attributes. They still do not define man or woman. For example, people talk of feminine men or masculine women. That is just the natural and correct use of language and definitions. Trying to define man by alluding to the feminine and masculine not being bound to biology is a confusion of terms. The core problem with this topic is that traditional definitions that have been understood for centuries and further described by science are now challenged by a group of people who want to construct definitions for their own convenience. Parker was the only one who was able to provide a definition. However, his definition is a fabrication made to suit. In any case, I am not debating you and genuinely appreciate the exchange of ideas.
The only one humiliated in that exchange is the child who thinks he's right because he can talk louder than and over Kirk. That's an obvious sign that he wasn't there to debate, he only wanted to make his dopey argument and leave without giving Kirk a chance to respond. He made a fool out of himself, just as you make fools of yourselves by applauding that stupidity.
That kid looked absolutely ignorant and only interrupted Charlie, while trying his hardest to talk fast to appear smart. He also continued to go way off topic and his smug attitude came off as rude and childish. That little kid needs a reality check. Be humble. Charlie owned him
Right. Then he said how did jacob see the face of God. Man what? So now God has a face? He thought he had something brilliant there. Plus, the Bible says he saw the face of God. Perhaps he saw what he believed to be the face of God. Just like cultures tend to create God in their own image. Seeing the face of God doesn't imply his gender but they still refer to him as a male
That's not an unprepared college kid though he's a well known Gen Z influencer and I think he's actually on the DNCs payroll. He's debates on TT all the time.
@@bloodliner_comics Please provide credible, verifiable evidence to prove he is on DNC's payroll. Your "making things up will make them true" tactic doesn't work any more.
Why...I mean, why do these weirdo's insist on "debating" college kids. It's like fist-fighting a toddler. If you lose, you got beat by a college kid, pretty embarrassing. If you win, congrats, you beat a college kid, how pathetic. In what scenario do these guys coming out looking good?
The right needs colleges to be ineffective bastions of woke ideology, because the truth that they're effective means of continued education goes against their need for self-serving anti-intellectualism.
Kirk's a high school dropout and he has major insecurity issues because of it, so confronting college kids on their way to class gives him the validation he desperately wants.
Because in their eyes it's all about power. Debating younger people is in a sense a power play. A younger person being "educated" is, therefore, correct in their eyes. And if they should happen to lose, well that's "librul indoctrination" at work. It's a win-win for them.
@@Tashellll Prove it (Just because he kept asking questions in like 5x speed, bring up pointless topic, and not let the other person speak, that doesn't mean Parker won).
It takes a special kind of stupidity to think that Charlie got humiliated. Speaking over someone in a condescending way and always changing the topic every second doesn't mean you are correct and smart. Parker never allowed Charlie to answer a single question, every time while Charlie is trying to answer a question, Parker would interrupt him with another condescending question, when Charlie entertains it, Parker goes back and says that Charlie didn't answer his previous question, which doesn't make sense because he doesn't even give him a chance to answer even a single question without interruption
@@ghostcruncher1043but he asked Charlie a new question everytime he tried to explain which detracted from the original question. That was his strategy, he asked a question then did his hardest to make sure Charlie didn’t have time to actually answer it
The college students just screamed and talked over him lol, who ever thinks they destroyed him is just because of biases that makes them concur with the college students
You know when you'll know who won this debate? In 5 years, when Kirk is still managing Turning Point, USA and Parker is out of school and applying for jobs. Employers right now, the first thing they do when they get an application is check the online and social presence - I'm a boss, employment manager, HR, one look at Parker in this "debate" and right away I'm seeing a liability, someone who is not informed, doesn't seem interested in learning new things, is a poor listener, is smug and rude.
Same, his only shot now is being a RUclipsr which I think is what he’s trying to do. He made zero progress on the interpretation of what progressives think a woman actually is. They cannot identify as something that they believe is completely subjective. This in itself is so illogical on their part. If it’s subjective then we can never agree what constitutes a woman. This question is so pivotal
lol humiliated?? Parker didn’t answer a single question and change every subject to religion. How did he win again? All he did is talk loud and was condescending. That’s not winning a debate at all. What facts did he speak of? He even agreed with Charlie that abortion after a certain point is considered wrong. I certainly don’t agree with everything Charlie said and especially his 10 year old daughter being pregnant. I would hit that person with my 10 year old daughter will be raised with values and morales that hopefully she will never be in the position. Charlies point of “college is scam” was proven by data and statistics. Of course there is outliers just like anything in life. If over 50% of college students go graduate or get jobs in fields that aren’t directly related to their jobs or would be jobs he has proven his argument already. The best debater was guy with facial hair. He was articulate in talking points and even Charlie acknowledged it and gave him praise on some of his arguments. The whole point of any debate take 2 opposing ideas/issue and have opposing arguments(based on empirical data/facts) and try to find a middle ground.
No he didn’t. He just yelled loud. What did he actually answer? Winning means you have a strong argument and he didn’t. Thats the issue today, people think winning an argument is being loud and not even talking with any validity behind their points.
@@Yungrexy I would not consider Cenk an actual good commentator or debater. The point the person you replied to was making is if Kirk went up against someone who actually knows their shit. Kirk would crumble big time if he went up against Sam.
That kid was painful to watch. His time spent there was almost meaningless, changing the topic or moving goalposts and getting off topic about every 7 seconds. Boys, do not look up to that foolishness.
@@telethon7893 because he claimed not to be a charlie kirk fan in another comment on this video, but it seems like he only clicked this video of him because there are no comemnts from him on other videos on this channel
@@mariannehavisham8323 I personally never heard of that and I used to read the Bible for a long time. It’s always the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. All of them male.
@ReacherFN no. I've been studying New Testament Greek for at least 2 years, the holy spirit is referred to using female pronouns. I also went to a couple of talks a couple of weeks ago at a Christian Arts festival (Greenbelt) where I learnt God in one verse is referred to as having a womb. I think God is also referred to as mother in parts of the Bible but I am less confident on that (half remember that and couldn't say for certain) but I know my first two points are true
@ReacherFN so in Hebrew and Arameic (the original languages the Bible was written in before ever being translated) the holy spirit is consistently referred to using female pronouns
People who typically call themselves 'Bible believing Christians' are always saying 'with God all things are possible.. except that, and that, and that, and that..
Religious people have it all wrong. Instead of basing their transphobia on the belief that God only created two sexes, they should've argued that only God can be transsexual
I don’t like Charlie Kirk a single bit but you people really and truly need to look up the word “ humiliated”. I don’t think it means what you people think it means
There wasn’t no “substance”. He kept reverting back to religion when for the most part, it had nothing to do with the arguments at hand. Parker is one of the worst debaters I’ve ever seen.
The fact that you guys agree with parker’s definition of what a woman actually is, is extremely concerning. Being a woman is not a social construct determined by your feelings.
But a woman isn't just " the producer of large gametes" There's more to women than just chromosomes or their fertility.. Both sides are wrong here.. Women in general are people with xx chromosomes.. Women who can't give birth are infertile women.. Women who have XY chromosomes are intersex women... Women who have different wiring of their brains and experience gender dysphoria are trans women, whether you agree with their biological condition or not is your problem.. But all of these people are women.. Sure, just social conditioning isn't a woman... But just 5th grade biology is also not a woman 😂😂
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to these guys' fire and makes trans people and their supporters look ignorant and like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality. It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth. However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans man, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth. Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to these guys' fire and makes trans people and their supporters look ignorant and like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality. It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth. However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans man, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth. Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to Charlie's fire and makes trans people and their supporters look like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality. It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth. However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans men, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth. Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to Charlie's fire and makes trans people and their supporters look like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality. It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth. However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans men, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth. Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
This kid was all over the place. If word salad wins the day, I guess he won. It is kind of pathetic that people need to use this horrible example as a win
Exactly, that definition of woman was so diminishing. It's almost as if they make it seem like women aren't anything special. When they truly are. A woman is just a human that takes on the identity of a female in society.
Thanks for stating an obvious fact. If one were to argue that, they’d be right about most civilizations up until recently, but it does not refute the other obvious fact that gender is a social construct and there can be as many as society agrees upon whether that’s zero or seven hundred.
@@davidduneman1883 who said gender identity? Gender is a thing made up by people who absolutely need to have people grouped into categories to judge them. It doesn’t actually exist and I could claim my gender is “rock” in 2024 or 1496, and I’d be correct.
It certainly wasn’t humiliation. Just because Charlie Kirk couldn't provide his best answer, despite being Christian, doesn't mean the student won the debate. That poor guy must have struggled thinking of a difficult question that Kirk likely didn't know much about. On the other hand, he just kept interrupting Kirk with a disrespectful and smirking attitude without contributing any interesting or relevant information to support his affirmations or claims. He seems like a smart boy but really lacks knowledge, principles and good manners
Seems like he's still too afraid to ever go on Tim Pool's show, like many other Marxist leftists are. That's the real reason why there hasn't been any leftists on Tim's show recently: he tries to invite them but they constantly refuse.
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov You mean like Tim the Russian shill has been afraid to debate Sam, and most on the left? Especially after Ana K. trounced him?
@@XxTesla21xXHe’s been using the same arguments for the last decade plus, so it seems like a fitting statement. He’s simply regurgitating his own nonsense and has never given credence for far more enlightened arguments, simply so he can continue pretending his bigoted arguments have any validity where they do not. Human rights are simply not up for debate, full stop.
@@scottnelson9 What exactly are human rights? are they not something that has been agreed upon by the majority? We aren't born with shit... go tell the Ottoman Empire that they are violating human rights... or better yet... go tell The Sentinelese on Sentinal Island and tell them the American they killed in 2018 had human rights... It is unfortunately always up for debate.
ha ha just like what socrates said “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” even if socrates did not say this it is still true.
"What is a man?!" Charlie - "it's opaque!" 😂 ohh, so theres ambiguity, its not black and white, there's nunace and differences to the human existence? Wow, keep going Charlie, you might eventually get to some introspection and critical thinking.
Watch the full video. The idiot sitting in front of him was sending information his way at a million miles per hour, switching the topic and then wondering why questions leave unanswered.
@@PoweredIncorporated aww do you not like it when the left does that? Does it not help that he's actually using facts and logic? People like Charlie and Crowder love to completely barrage with flat out lies, half-truths, obfuscation/distraction, hate, and fear, and they do it while speaking a million miles an hour, sorry Parker talked a little faster than Charlie was able to, you snowflake.
I'm not sure what's sadder, this kid's arrogance and cocky attitude or the fact there are so many midwits here thinking he somehow gave a valid and strong argument for his case....
In fairness, I'm a community college dropout and I'd massacre a debate with Kirk. Education doesn't necessarily make or break debate or rhetorical skill.
@@AnarchoPunkChadjudging by you name, as an ansyn myself, probably... But even the best of us can be caught of guard and steamrolled. That's their tactic. This kid started cooking and kept the debate at his rhythm.... We should all take notes, tbh. Because overconfidence tends to wreck us when faced with truly bad faith...
I think Charlie Kirk was just stunned by how stupid this kids logic was about God. I think I'm stunned these commentators think this kid won. God made man AND woman in his image as told in Genesis. Jesus has always been a man. He is not created, he is God in the flesh. Our minds cannot fathom pre existence. If you are an atheist, you cannot comprehend what was before the "big bang" and if you are a Christian you cannot comprehend what was before the creation of time and space.
Sometimes these titles on RUclips can be clickbait about "Destroying" others in debates and they are barely a clip. BUT THIS. Holy shit, this kid was confident and absolutely demolished Charlie's poor little ego.
What do you mean he destroyed him? He talked over him and asked new questions when Charlie tried to answer his previous question. Your definition of "destroying" someone in a debate is talking over the other side and bombarding them with endless additional questions while they try to answer. 🤨
@@thecoolestdaniel Talking over? isnt that what ben shapiro does and people say he destroys? The boy just took a page out of their book thats all and it worked. Now, onto the question he asked, Charlie couldnt answer because at the end of the day it will circle back to the fact that the father is not defined and if it is not defined then it is allowed to have any pronoun and if we can do that to an supreme being then it is possible to do that to yourself, it will always go back to the fact that you cant use one thing to define what a man is like xy chromosome, the same way you can't use "He" as a basis to determine god the father is male since charlie says the father isnt.
@@thecoolestdaniel Charlie could not keep up at all. The kid kept hammering the same point but different explainations of it because Charlie refused to concede despite every one else in the room knowing how ridiculous the double standard is. Kirk did get owned and rightfully so. It's always rules for thee but not for me. No consistency. And the kid was right, Kirk's motivs aren't based in logic, but rather in transphobia.
@@thecoolestdanielHe did exactly what Charlie Kirk has done to others for well over a decade. Do you really not see it, or are you just a hypocrite? This was astoundingly amazing to watch because he deserves it for thinking he has any validity in being an egregious bigot. He’s been corrected and debunked over and over again, yet it never seems to stick. Why is that? Is Charlie just an idiot or a liar? He’s very likely both.
Trying to argue with brainwashed Liberals who think that gender is a personality trait is very difficult. It's very hard to argue with brainwashed people. Few people are going to agree with you in this comments section because they're far gone anyway. The liberal majority who watched this video literally think that talking in a condescending manner and talking over you decides the debate winner. These Liberals are all hypocrites
Do people actually believe Parker won? He just spoke really fast, changed the topic from abortion to Christianity and insulted Christianity. He also just asks questions really fast and interrupts every 5 seconds. Also his soyboy boyfriend in the back with the mustache has done nothing but emoting and pretending to go for the seat but is scared so he just lets other ppl take it haha.
That’s always been my standard response. No reason to enquire about other people’s genitals unless you are their doctor or interested in becoming a sexual partner.
@@jescolloCharlie Kirk always resorts to “what is a woman” when he doesn’t have any enlightened responses to the subject at hand. It wasn’t the current topic; he just assumes it’s always a “gotcha” question. A question he’s been disproven on over and over again. Where have you been?
ha ha just like what socrates said “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” even if socrates did not say this it is still true. [also what is a woman?]
@LooseShin who is anyone? WHEN YOUR DEBATING AND START CUSSING AND START MAKING FUN OF SOMONES CHARITOR, FACE, OR ANYTHING ELSE ITS OFF TOPIC AND OVERALL NOT HONERABLE AND YOUR A LOSER FOR DOING SO
If you actually believe that child bested Charlie Kirk, then your so biased against the facts of the discussion you cannot see how ridiculous that child was made to be.
If Kirk is right and god is genderless, then does that mean they are misgendering God every time they use he/him pronouns? Don’t think they appreciate that, seems kind of blasphemous if you ask me
Parker is an idiot. Smart but an idiot. He was loud and condescending and didn't debate or have a conversation.. he just kept deflecting and being a douche to just try and get followers. lol
@@simonsrandomlife5446 there is a timer. So getting you voice heard and point across; involves over talking. Either way, Parker deploys solid logic and traps Charlie into being logically inconsistent.
@@simonsrandomlife5446 Yep that’s called dominating. One of the ways you can win a debate. Another is completely dismantling your opponents argument, which he also did.
Yes, and the point is that Charlie uses his *preferred pronouns* for a god that has no gender. This debate is about the use of gender pronouns, and Charlie got wooped.
@@ms.l643 But God is in a completely different category as humans or all of creation. So, the argument is a category error and does not work for humans. That is how I would have answered Parker. It is easy to debunk his baseless argument. It is simple.
It's an excellent rhetorical trap. Kirk can either admit that men don't need to have genes or say God isn't male. Neither wound be consistent with his worldview or popular with his audience.
The student begins his definition by saying ‘Adult human person’, then starts talking about God (to which his definition wouldn’t apply). Charlie missed it but the student messed up completely.
@@MsHopeH It isn't a missed point, it was a trap by the student. If Charlie says Man/Woman only apply to Humans, he has to explain why God is referred to as He.
Jubilee wanted this to happen actually, so judging Kirk on his age and the college student’s age is low hanging fruit. Also, Addonai was not a PLACEHOLDER for God, please re-read the scripture and learn why they refer God as HIM/HE. Last point: Parker strayed from the topic to go against Christianity proving his ignorance
Wat an insane world we live in. Only in the USA we got students trying to debate that god is not a man and society is pumping them up. We r soo doomed its not even funny 🤦♂️🤦♂️
I can't stand Charlie Kirk, but to be fair, the argument itself is fallacious. This Parker fellow asked why we use the word "He" when referring to God, without acknowledging that the Bible, at least the Old Testament, was written in a semitic language i.e. Hebrew. Anyone who has learnt any semitic language, like Hebrew or Arabic, understands that they are grammatically gendered languages, and that every noun, pronoun and adjective has an assigned gender, and the default gender is masculine. So just because the masculine pronoun is used when referring to God does not mean that God is a "man." This is just how semitic languages work.
Soy boy Parker is not a debater. constant continuous interruptions, talking stupid fast, and asking questions not related to the topic of discussion, is not a debate. Yall sit there and laugh but I guarantee that nobody on this panel would agree to debate 25 other people with opposing viewpoints. All I see is a bunch of cowards laughing here.
Not really a monster. Just a major creepy weirdo. Thought so the first time I saw him start verbally abusing a very young unprepared student. Between him and Shapiro I get the willies!
Link to his TikTok?
www.tiktok.com/@parkergetajob?lang=en
@@TheMajorityReport thank you Mr Report
Downloading TikTok because of this lad
@@Alex-cw3rz He does political debates every day on tiktok that are very entertaining to watch.
@@samharold9022totally worth it - he’s awesome
You are an absolute clown if you think this kid humiliated Charlie. Dude doesn’t even know how to have a conversation let alone a debate. Claimed Charlie was stalling but interrupted every sentence for the remainder of the time THEN Constantly kept diverting from the actual topic at hand.
Like charlie aint always interrupting and diverting discussions, ur goat got out interrupted this time and u cant take that
@@samb7396talk that shit
You are absolutely right
@@bandachiwengo7050we will buddy
@@samb7396 Democrat liberals are the goats.. .You are the party that follows ANYONE you're told to with PASSION. Your 'Democracy' was LITERALLY stolen from you and you still cheer with all your heart, for the person you never fkn voted for, one single time! Your Democracy was stolen by YOUR party and you don't give one flying shit!
How is raising your voice and asking a million questions and not letting your opponent answer winning a debate?
It's not. It's really losing and childish.
Parker was using comparisons to win the argument while Charlie was changing the subject I can see how that can be difficult for some people to differentiate…
Also on that note if you watch the entire debate Charlie makes it nearly impossible for other students to speak with him constantly interrupting them and by this point in the debate Parker has withdrawn himself until now for him to properly analyze Charlies debating style so he can properly get his point across hence the loudening of his voice because Parker knows that the only way to defeat an interrupter is by playing their game and talking louder.
@@Anonymous-q9l1mCharlie was not changing the topic. He was answering the question at hand. Parker had personal anti-religion issues he was randomly throwing in during random debate topics.
@@Anonymous-q9l1mI watched it and he hardlyyy interrupted as much as they did
@Anonymous-q9l1m he wasn't changing the subject. Parker just kept spitting questions and talking over him trying to answer. Then he brought religion in and got the debate way off the actual topic question multiple times. Kids was whiny and praddling
Did we watch the same video? I'm absolutely not a Charlie Kirk fan, but that kid in the thumbnail was completely horrible.
Factsss broo. Same! This is beyond pathetic
@@gladiator-bl2qg Is his argument right? That's where your focus needs to be. It's not a debate of manners. If you think he's wrong, then refute his case. Many horrible people make cogent arguments, some don't.
@@GS44691he was never right about anything. How is bringing random topics and overly interrupting prove that he won the debate?
@@GS44691yeah completely going on a tangent away from the original prompt already destroys one’s credibility.
@@thequestion2056he is applying his flawed logic to his own ridiculous beliefs. and charlie could not defend his stance. thats how you break down an argument
It’s sad to see people actually think yelling and interrupting so one can’t talk means winning a debate
Agreed
Literally Kirk was interrupting them the whole time literally 95% of the time
@@Hanfri89 did we watch the same debate? Cause you can clearly see one side looked way more keen on interrupting and not allowing the other to talk
@@Tricolor40004 Literally Kirk didn't let them talk all the time and he got upset when someone suddenly didn't let him talk, that's hypocrisy
@@Hanfri89he was replying or informing them lol
The kid humiliated himself at best - always trying to deflect to the religious component, knowing that Charlie is a deeply religious man, while not addressing his questions at all and making baffling comparisons between Christian divinity and trans "women" somehow.
Obnoxious, irritating and completely not how you're supposed to debate in good faith, besides the kid shooting 5 different questions a second wihtout letting Charlie reply.
I am not a Charlie Kirk fan, but he didn't get owned here. Parker just jumped around so fast and avoided the issue that was originally being discussed. It was just a mess. No winner
He would talk too fast and avoid the question and spout nonsense thinking he’s winning
Charlie kept stumbling because he had to answer 29 questions at the same time and not given enough time to answer without dumbass Parker interrupted him
you must not know anything about debating and how much charlie lied during this
You haven't seen the fact check? Charlie was right@@faeman1a
@@MrDenjok ok “little person”
@@MrDenjok Who ran the fact check? ✡️?
Parker's strategy:
1. Ask questions at 10x speed, don't let opponent speak
2. Change the topic
3. "Why can't you answer the question?"
Charlie's strategy:
1. Make stupid, inconsistent, fragile points.
2. Get exposed by Parker.
3. Switch the topic completely by asking a totally unrelated question.
Example:
1. Early on, Charlie makes a point about how women who have abortions shouldn't be put in jail because abortion has been normalized, even though he views abortion as murder. An absolutely stupid point.
2. Parker exposes him in his very first argumentative framework with Charlie by drawing an analogy to pedophiles a few centuries ago. Adult men used to marry adolescent girls and it was normalized, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't lock them up for life if one of them wandered into modern society. Just because something is normalized, it doesn't mean we shouldn't punish it when we find out it's wrong.
3. Charlie, knowing Parker just completely analized him, asks "So, when does life begin?"
I genuinely laughed out loud when he asked that question, because it meant he just got completely demolished by Parker, so bad that he had to ask such a ridiculously random question to try to avoid getting exposed even further.
Exactly.
It's Parker that refused to answer and changed the subject. Good lord you are dense.
Parkers Strategy:
1. Adderall
2. Get Upset like a bitch
3. Whine
@@herroyung857 Soyboy Parker changed the topic into a religious debate, when the initial topic was clearly about "abortion", because he knew he can't win fair and square without bringing someone else's religious BELIEFS. That's a cowardice move that I expect from any brainwashed soyboy college kid 🤣
Sorry not a Charlie Kirk fan and I’m actually left leaning but today I’m ashamed because this debate showed how poorly the leftist students debated
Perhaps in time Charlie will be able to accept that not everyone thinks exactly like Charlie does. And vice versa.
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan He knows that, the rules of the debate is to make someone think like you do or at least defeat them.
@@FindTheLongestWord I wish it were for awareness but debate bros suck.
Why do they always debate college students? Why not college professors?
Because they know they'd lose.
@@alin81-82They regularly lose to students.
@@tulsacaupain2882Now they do. Because we now know the tactics. Ten years ago that wasn't the case. The left has adapted. The right had not.
I think you know why.
Charlie is ready to debate college professors who already agree with him any time, like Jordan Peterson.
Well, ex professor. But is it Charlie's fault if the professors who agree with him tend to quickly become ex professor?
Talking fast and going off topic doesn’t win debates
It’s the fact check 😂
Right. I watched this debate an thought the speed talker came across as a total buffoon. And I'm not against abortion.
If you watch the whole video the crux if his argument was asking Charlie if pedophiles from hundreds of years ago should go to prison and if Charlie possessed a time machine would he send these dead pedophiles to prison.
@@orome9793 Parker threw out a Red Herring to take Charlie off his script. BUT The Logic there is sound, because Parker is asking Charlie about his Morals AND what he would do if he was given that power to travel back in time...
Well you already know how he answered that. AND THAT - Speaks Volumes about his stances on every Prompt he brought up. Given the Power, He would Always Abuse it...
This young man took Charlie Kirk's lunch, ate it, then gave Charlie's Bozo the Clown lunchbox and burped in his face.
@@mossmoonslambeau9332you sound as dumb as the speed talking child.
There is no way people actually think this kid won right? He just interrupted Charlie the entire time and didn’t even let him get his point across.
Fascism 101
many Christian apologist do the same strategic during a debate with Muslim on comparison faith
@@sal8334lol what are you even talking about?
Just because he interrupted him a bunch, even tho Charlie does that a bunch too, does not mean he didn’t win the debate lol what made Charlie win the debate?
@@amymdez you realize winning a debate is subjective
Charlie doesnt get humiliated. The college students are humiliated online showing how they are so disrespectful.
2:40. Look up what adoni is, this comes up btw.
As with Elohim, Adonai's grammatical form is usually explained as a plural of majesty. In the Hebrew Bible, the word is nearly always used to refer to God (approximately 450 occurrences).
Parker lost
Because Charlie is older they should just believe his lies? That's not how facts work!
Yep, we live in a time where someone says something stupid, someone calls them out and is called disrespectful. Or nasty. If you have no arguments, play the victim card and pretend the other side played you dirty. Just when Charlie tries to shift the topic lightning fast *he* knows he won't win that one. It's only the deluded fan club that thinks Trump won his debate or Charlie won this one. Neither did - they both lost badly. Charlie wanted a quick win with "What is a woman?" and lost because he had to say "It's opaque" when asked what a man was. Total win for the student.
How are they disrespectful lol???
You guys are actually slow huh? This kid didn't win anything or make any sense. Claiming that someone doesn't know what a man is because he refuses to put a sex on a "transendent" being that is literally outside of and unaffected by space and time is just straight up stupidity.
He wasn't humiliated at all. That student is a whiney little brat. Get real.
Just because you talk fast and constantly redirect the conversation to religion by not sticking to the subject at hand, doesn't mean you get to humiliate ANYONE, it just means more air came out of his mouth.
Religion being brought in might sound like it has no correlation to the conversation at hand but if u know what analogies are then his arguments made perfect sense. It challenged his way of thinking
being rude, interrupting, and talking bullshit fast is winning a debate. GOT IT
I guess kirk has never won a debate against any of the KIDS he went after (:
Rich coming from a conservative. Hahaha
@@améliehester6996 To be fair, I'm a liberal and I completely agree with OP.
@@darthvaderoftheredpill5196University and College students aren't kids, they're young adults and all 18+, not sure what you're smoking but go off...
If you watched the whole video and think Parker humiliated Charlie at all then you’re part of the problem XD
Agreed
Agreed 1000%
This. 💯
Yep
Hector of Troy mf. You are blind and deft.
Reading the fact checks as Parker spews objectively incorrect information while insisting he's correct was truly hilarious lmao
People who said Charlie got own clearly never listened to a word from this debate
Are we watching the same debate? Because this kid literally just humiliated himself in front of everyone and then sat back down.
Kirk: That argument is ridiculous on it's face.
Me: Well your face is ridiculous on it's head.
I saw the thumbnail and came to the episode *exclusively* to say it looks like he got hit in only the face with a shrink ray.
RM Brown Sound Board:
Boom boom boom
seriously, it's insane how his head keeps getting fatter while his face remains the size of a 9-year-old's
His oversized head is also ridiculous on his silly little body.
I lol'd.
Yall are dumb if you think Parker won this.... This literally made me not want to vote dem... Parker is annoying
Parker is a clear example of how "articulating well" means nothing when you listen to what he's actually saying
Speaking over people and yelling or saying you dominated someone doesn’t mean you won an argument or debate lol silly Parker .
Yes, Parker kept interrupting
yes he interuppted but he still destroyed charlie kirk
Interrupting is not only acceptable but necessary for a good faith debate when Gish galloping occurs and Charlie Kirk was absolutely Gish galloping
@@ulrich7404Nope Kirk took them all to school no sweat .
@@eowynsalvadoracceptable says who? to a 2th grader that’s what Parker looks and sounds like lol
Interrupting someone doesn't mean you win an argument.
Charlie Kirk got owned on substance and style. Charlie Kirk is good at debating kids but he can't debate smart kids especially when they are right.
Tell that to every single person who “debates” on TikTok (they don’t actually know how a debate works)
by the way I love Parker he’s awesome
Bro it was Larker literally interrupting
The fox news playbook
Lol you chose God's gender based on a face in a desexed Babylonian creation myth
Parker is an atheist who tried to use religion to help his case completely dodging the actual questions and never letting Charlie speak. Sounds like a lost defensive liberal
He used religion as a comparative fallacy in Charlie's arguments. Religion is innately illogical and relies on a lot of looking the other way in regards to explanations for anything, so the kid just brought it up in relation to Charlie's points because then Charlie either has to admit he knows his religion is a lie, or that his point is wrong. It's a catch 22 you just sort of can't break out of when you enter the debate stage against someone competent as a religious follower without personal interpretations.
@thegloriousryan8981 it is still a lazy way to approach a debate where he is not working hard in proving his own point.
For Parker to prove his point, he relies on Kirk admitting error, as you said, either in the form of "religion is a lie" or "I am wrong in my own concept."
Kirk did not admit either, but in an alternative scenario, it is quite likely he would have maintained his science-based definition because it is logical and widely agreed upon.
In view of that, let's say that he had admitted or suggested that his religion was a lie.
What does that leave Parker with? Basically, in that religion is a lie, and "man" can not be defined by describing appearance.
It is, therefore, delusional or illogical to base the definition on that.
What is Parker's definition based on then? In the same illogical premise of appearance and social behaviour. Which would be exactly what is used to identify God as a male.
This is the conclusion based on Parker's trail of thought.
@@amisvega9756 Who cares if it's lazy? The point of a debate is to win over the other person (unfortunately). How easy the method is doesn't really factor in.
Also, regarding the parallel, the point of it besides just in regards to christianity is to show that masculine or feminine conceptions of things do exist outside of sex, and that it isn't unreasonable to disconnect the two. The fact that the words masculine and feminine are even used regarding anything beyond biological composition is proof of gender's existence as a construct. Parker focused in on christianity specifically because its the one thing that somebody with charlie kirk's debate style wouldn't mold his opinion on based on the current topic and arguments.
@@amisvega9756 I will say that Parker didn't do a great job of communicating the point I just said in the debate(atleast from the parts I have seen), but that is ultimately the source of the argument, and the point of bringing it up regardless of his delivery.
@thegloriousryan8981 answering your question: the people who care are those who, in the comments section, express that Parker was a disappointment and did not "own" Kirk.
The point of debating goes beyond "destroying," sort of speak, the opponent, it is also for your ideas to resonate with the audience. For them to say "yes, this is actually a very good point"
It is evident there wasn't anything particularly impressive in his argumentation.
To be fair, Kirk did not approach the response in this particular topic well. However, his opponent still did not manage to "destroy" his argument.
This brings me to your second point:
It is somewhat relevant to bring to the table that feminine and masculine are not bound to biology. However, it is what these words mean anyway.
There is no revolutionary concept there.
Feminine and masculine are used to describe attributes. They still do not define man or woman.
For example, people talk of feminine men or masculine women.
That is just the natural and correct use of language and definitions.
Trying to define man by alluding to the feminine and masculine not being bound to biology is a confusion of terms.
The core problem with this topic is that traditional definitions that have been understood for centuries and further described by science are now challenged by a group of people who want to construct definitions for their own convenience.
Parker was the only one who was able to provide a definition. However, his definition is a fabrication made to suit.
In any case, I am not debating you and genuinely appreciate the exchange of ideas.
The only one humiliated in that exchange is the child who thinks he's right because he can talk louder than and over Kirk. That's an obvious sign that he wasn't there to debate, he only wanted to make his dopey argument and leave without giving Kirk a chance to respond. He made a fool out of himself, just as you make fools of yourselves by applauding that stupidity.
That kid looked absolutely ignorant and only interrupted Charlie, while trying his hardest to talk fast to appear smart. He also continued to go way off topic and his smug attitude came off as rude and childish. That little kid needs a reality check. Be humble. Charlie owned him
Wow its crazy how quickly they crumble when not "debating" random unprepared college kids on their way to class
Right. Then he said how did jacob see the face of God. Man what? So now God has a face? He thought he had something brilliant there. Plus, the Bible says he saw the face of God. Perhaps he saw what he believed to be the face of God. Just like cultures tend to create God in their own image. Seeing the face of God doesn't imply his gender but they still refer to him as a male
That's not an unprepared college kid though he's a well known Gen Z influencer and I think he's actually on the DNCs payroll. He's debates on TT all the time.
@@bloodliner_comicsmight wanna read what they said again. The commenter isn’t talking about the student in the video.
@@bloodliner_comics that's what he said. Not debating
@@bloodliner_comics
Please provide credible, verifiable evidence to prove he is on DNC's payroll.
Your "making things up will make them true" tactic doesn't work any more.
Why...I mean, why do these weirdo's insist on "debating" college kids. It's like fist-fighting a toddler. If you lose, you got beat by a college kid, pretty embarrassing. If you win, congrats, you beat a college kid, how pathetic. In what scenario do these guys coming out looking good?
The right needs colleges to be ineffective bastions of woke ideology, because the truth that they're effective means of continued education goes against their need for self-serving anti-intellectualism.
Kirk's a high school dropout and he has major insecurity issues because of it, so confronting college kids on their way to class gives him the validation he desperately wants.
They look good to high school kids. That's the point.
Because in their eyes it's all about power. Debating younger people is in a sense a power play. A younger person being "educated" is, therefore, correct in their eyes. And if they should happen to lose, well that's "librul indoctrination" at work. It's a win-win for them.
Charlie weird babyface Kirk has never been in a fist fight. Dude has soft podcaster hands.
Parker was annoying and didn't humiliate anyone but himself. Parker didn't win any interaction with Charlie.
Wrong
@@Tashellll Prove it (Just because he kept asking questions in like 5x speed, bring up pointless topic, and not let the other person speak, that doesn't mean Parker won).
It takes a special kind of stupidity to think that Charlie got humiliated. Speaking over someone in a condescending way and always changing the topic every second doesn't mean you are correct and smart. Parker never allowed Charlie to answer a single question, every time while Charlie is trying to answer a question, Parker would interrupt him with another condescending question, when Charlie entertains it, Parker goes back and says that Charlie didn't answer his previous question, which doesn't make sense because he doesn't even give him a chance to answer even a single question without interruption
Parker was defending pedophelia from the start!
@@ghostcruncher1043but he asked Charlie a new question everytime he tried to explain which detracted from the original question. That was his strategy, he asked a question then did his hardest to make sure Charlie didn’t have time to actually answer it
😂😂😂
Here's a KIeenex, softie. Your Daddy got demoIished
Normalize humiliation
End the kinkshame!
Wait, shaming is a form of...
Kif, we have a conundrum.
@@georgesears934 💀
Normalizing humiliation would be great, because right now it seems to be fetishized and it makes me uncomfortable to see that in public.
Underrated comment. If we weren’t so passively “they’ll come around” about supporting 45 in 2015 we may not be in this mess.
He put Charlie through a fuckin table!
“What is a woman?”
The half of the population who avoid interacting with Charlie Kirk at all cost
Lolol😂😂😂😂
I'd assume that at least 90% of the population wants to avoid him, he's a twerp.
You're assuming he likes women.
@@dave2408cry more
@@dave2408 irony being lost on you shouldn’t be a surprise.
The college students just screamed and talked over him lol, who ever thinks they destroyed him is just because of biases that makes them concur with the college students
That.... how can you guys not see the irony in that statement?
You know when you'll know who won this debate? In 5 years, when Kirk is still managing Turning Point, USA and Parker is out of school and applying for jobs. Employers right now, the first thing they do when they get an application is check the online and social presence - I'm a boss, employment manager, HR, one look at Parker in this "debate" and right away I'm seeing a liability, someone who is not informed, doesn't seem interested in learning new things, is a poor listener, is smug and rude.
Same, his only shot now is being a RUclipsr which I think is what he’s trying to do. He made zero progress on the interpretation of what progressives think a woman actually is. They cannot identify as something that they believe is completely subjective. This in itself is so illogical on their part. If it’s subjective then we can never agree what constitutes a woman. This question is so pivotal
Good for you. I'm sure every HR manager in the near 400million strong country is threatened by college students like you.
Charlie Kirk ruined the character Butthead for me...
Butthead: "Uh-uhuhuhuhu! Uh-uhuhuhuhu! You said 'butt', uh-uhuhuhuhu!"
@@JohnnyTheWolf-d3p Uhuhuh, you said, "pronoun" uhuhhuhuhuhuhhuh... what's a noun?
@@ashkebora7262 "Yeah, eheheh! Yeah, eheheh! Like, hum... I think a nun is when a chick wears more clothes and goes live in a church. Or something."
Butthead is smarter
@@davet.3782 "No way, eheheheh! I'm smarter! Yeah, eheheheh! Like, I AM THE GREAT CORNHOLIO! I NEED TP FOR MY BUNGHOLE!"
Why does Charlie Kirk look like a Garbage Pail Kid?
Because he IS a Garbage Pail Kid.
Coz he is one!
Now i cant unsee that, thanks a lot
Because his parents are garbage
😂😂 was not expecting a GPK reference!
The shrunken face in the thumbnail is crazy bc he actually does look like that so I have to do a double take 😂😂😂😂
Mr. Meeseeks
I had to watch the video again to see if they made it that small or if it is that small bro I can't breathe idk lol
I had the same thought lol
He will always be Mr Potato head to me.
It was shrunken?
lol humiliated?? Parker didn’t answer a single question and change every subject to religion. How did he win again? All he did is talk loud and was condescending. That’s not winning a debate at all. What facts did he speak of? He even agreed with Charlie that abortion after a certain point is considered wrong. I certainly don’t agree with everything Charlie said and especially his 10 year old daughter being pregnant. I would hit that person with my 10 year old daughter will be raised with values and morales that hopefully she will never be in the position. Charlies point of “college is scam” was proven by data and statistics. Of course there is outliers just like anything in life. If over 50% of college students go graduate or get jobs in fields that aren’t directly related to their jobs or would be jobs he has proven his argument already. The best debater was guy with facial hair. He was articulate in talking points and even Charlie acknowledged it and gave him praise on some of his arguments. The whole point of any debate take 2 opposing ideas/issue and have opposing arguments(based on empirical data/facts) and try to find a middle ground.
Nope he won HAHAHAHHAHAH
No he didn’t. He just yelled loud. What did he actually answer? Winning means you have a strong argument and he didn’t. Thats the issue today, people think winning an argument is being loud and not even talking with any validity behind their points.
For a guy who hates socialism, Charlie sure does seem to love being publicly owned.
Good one 😂
And Jesus was anti-capitalist. WOKE BIBLE! Charlie Kirk must be a Satanist...
Lmfao nice
That is so clever
damn....thats good!!!
I see why he doesn't debate actual left wing commenters or ever even mention Sams name since
*"I live like a capitalist every day, Cenk"* (while strutting about on stage wearing a suit and a pair of feckin Yeezys) was certainly a moment.
@@Yungrexy I would not consider Cenk an actual good commentator or debater.
The point the person you replied to was making is if Kirk went up against someone who actually knows their shit.
Kirk would crumble big time if he went up against Sam.
@@pandaeyezSam couldn't handle Sean Fitzgerald from Actual Justice Warrior.
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov so why is Sam blacklisted then?
@@shis1988 Because he's malicious. Tim explained this.
It should be titled "college kid humiliates himself" and also the person who posted this.
That kid was painful to watch. His time spent there was almost meaningless, changing the topic or moving goalposts and getting off topic about every 7 seconds.
Boys, do not look up to that foolishness.
Why is this your only comment on this channel
@@darthvaderoftheredpill5196 Why does that matter?
@@telethon7893 because he claimed not to be a charlie kirk fan in another comment on this video, but it seems like he only clicked this video of him because there are no comemnts from him on other videos on this channel
Kirk would be triggered if someone told him God is a woman. And only for this debate he shifts that point view.
God actually uses mixed pronouns in the Bible
@@mariannehavisham8323 I personally never heard of that and I used to read the Bible for a long time. It’s always the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. All of them male.
@ReacherFN no. I've been studying New Testament Greek for at least 2 years, the holy spirit is referred to using female pronouns. I also went to a couple of talks a couple of weeks ago at a Christian Arts festival (Greenbelt) where I learnt God in one verse is referred to as having a womb. I think God is also referred to as mother in parts of the Bible but I am less confident on that (half remember that and couldn't say for certain) but I know my first two points are true
@@mariannehavisham8323 drop those verse cause I am curious of where I missed that.
@ReacherFN so in Hebrew and Arameic (the original languages the Bible was written in before ever being translated) the holy spirit is consistently referred to using female pronouns
It’s laughable to think Parker actually ate in any kind of way. He clearly did not. Dude couldn’t stay focus on the topic at any given point in time.
Bruv ate lol
Interrupting is not winning a debate. What a joke!
Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Steven Crowder all act like they have not mentally aged out of high school
I can't think of a conservative pundit that HAS aged out of high school.
I never really thought they were acting in that regard.
You forgot Matt Walsh, but maybe that is generous for Walsh as he seems not to have aged out of pre-school.
Neither have you
That's bc all three of them have a narcissistic personality disorder. Childhood Trauma. They are mentally stuck between ages 8-12.
I like how people think that not shutting up is winning a debate
No way y’all think Charlie won
@@gunnarhernandez5140 Oh yes because saying that a bodyless person should be compered with humans is right. Ate you really that stupid?
@@VoiceofTruth-k8j whatever man
@@gunnarhernandez5140 pretty much everyone thinks that.
When did he get owned?
Exactly!
Lol he doesn't
The kid is just trying to intimidate Kirk but his arguments do not make sense
Sticking to using their religion against them.
“Do you think that anyone can become a woman”
“..with God all things are possible"
Yes, artificial wombs and sex robots will make feminist Gen Z women who sleep around with a ton of guys and get abortions for it obsolete.
People who typically call themselves 'Bible believing Christians' are always saying 'with God all things are possible.. except that, and that, and that, and that..
Religious people have it all wrong. Instead of basing their transphobia on the belief that God only created two sexes, they should've argued that only God can be transsexual
@@mariannehavisham8323 why would you want to become a woman, if your a man?
In my opinion at least I don't think God is a man or woman or non-binary he's a white owl. I think he's a spirit who looks over people.
Charlie Kirk looks like a South Park character! 😂
Pretty sure he was in Ren and Stimpy.😂
@@euanreid6682 😂😂
Men In Black
Do you think if he loosened his collar his head would shrink to fit his face size?
just like what socrates said “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” even if socrates did not say this it is still true.
I don’t like Charlie Kirk a single bit but you people really and truly need to look up the word “ humiliated”. I don’t think it means what you people think it means
If a clip says someone has been “humiliated” “owned” or “destroyed”, you can guarantee they haven’t been.
I don’t consider continually talking someone “humiliating“ them.
If you actually listen to the substance, Parker owned him
There wasn’t no “substance”.
He kept reverting back to religion when for the most part, it had nothing to do with the arguments at hand.
Parker is one of the worst debaters I’ve ever seen.
The liberal Guy:
Speak fast and clear ✅
Sound authentic ✅
Saying something Real ❌
Subscribed to Ishowspeed and neon add up about right
U literally subscribe to neon, ur opinion is unimportant
You know you’re correct when they have to attack who you’re subscribed to rather than your actual argument 👍 ignore these two fools.
@@nerojay2105 exactly 😅
I think they themselves have suffered from Brainrot 💀
The fact that you guys agree with parker’s definition of what a woman actually is, is extremely concerning. Being a woman is not a social construct determined by your feelings.
But a woman isn't just " the producer of large gametes"
There's more to women than just chromosomes or their fertility..
Both sides are wrong here..
Women in general are people with xx chromosomes..
Women who can't give birth are infertile women..
Women who have XY chromosomes are intersex women...
Women who have different wiring of their brains and experience gender dysphoria are trans women, whether you agree with their biological condition or not is your problem..
But all of these people are women..
Sure, just social conditioning isn't a woman...
But just 5th grade biology is also not a woman 😂😂
Charlie did not get humiliated…that kid made himself look like an arrogant idiot
There are people with xy chromosomes who have given birth. So Charlie must believe men can give birth. That’s very woke of him.
xy = male, not man. Male is the sex, man is the gender.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to these guys' fire and makes trans people and their supporters look ignorant and like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality.
It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth.
However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans man, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth.
Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to these guys' fire and makes trans people and their supporters look ignorant and like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality.
It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth.
However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans man, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth.
Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to Charlie's fire and makes trans people and their supporters look like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality.
It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth.
However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans men, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth.
Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
Not to be that person, because I do believe in trans rights, but no unfortunately that can't be true. Supporting trans rights doesn't mean spreading misinformation even if you mean well, that's what adds fuel to Charlie's fire and makes trans people and their supporters look like they're living in a fantasy bubble to avoid reality.
It is full on impossible for someone with XY chromosomes to give birth, because that is biologically a male with an internal male reproductive system (ie a urethra, etc). Because of this, biological men and trans women cannot give birth.
However, if there is a type of man that could get pregnant and give birth, it is trans men, because by birth they do have XX chromosomes as they were born biologically female and have the adequate internal reproductive system (ie ovaries, a uterus, etc) to give birth.
Now, I know you might think that an argument like this gives someone like Charlie Kirk the edge, but I don't see why. Recognizing reality doesn't suddenly crumble a trans person's existence. After all a trans person is exactly that. A person who physically TRANSITIONED to present as the opposite sex. So one must recognize reality in order for this transition to even happen in the first place. Does this alter their internal birth biology or chromosomes? No, but they are culturally still a new breed of men and women that have their own journeys in life just like biological men and women have theirs.
This kid was all over the place. If word salad wins the day, I guess he won. It is kind of pathetic that people need to use this horrible example as a win
You don't have to be religious to make the argument there are 2 genders. Which up until recently wasn't even an argument.
Exactly, that definition of woman was so diminishing. It's almost as if they make it seem like women aren't anything special. When they truly are. A woman is just a human that takes on the identity of a female in society.
Thanks for stating an obvious fact. If one were to argue that, they’d be right about most civilizations up until recently, but it does not refute the other obvious fact that gender is a social construct and there can be as many as society agrees upon whether that’s zero or seven hundred.
@@josephmother2659 You are very welcome. And no, gender identity is a John Money construct.
Seek growth, read a little 📚
@@davidduneman1883 who said gender identity? Gender is a thing made up by people who absolutely need to have people grouped into categories to judge them. It doesn’t actually exist and I could claim my gender is “rock” in 2024 or 1496, and I’d be correct.
It certainly wasn’t humiliation. Just because Charlie Kirk couldn't provide his best answer, despite being Christian, doesn't mean the student won the debate. That poor guy must have struggled thinking of a difficult question that Kirk likely didn't know much about. On the other hand, he just kept interrupting Kirk with a disrespectful and smirking attitude without contributing any interesting or relevant information to support his affirmations or claims.
He seems like a smart boy but really lacks knowledge, principles and good manners
Fact check : Kirk claims he is a Christian, but fails to actually behave like one.
Parker proved to be extremely dumb.
This argument was a stone cold annihilation. DAMN! I love this kid.
Seems like he's still too afraid to ever go on Tim Pool's show, like many other Marxist leftists are. That's the real reason why there hasn't been any leftists on Tim's show recently: he tries to invite them but they constantly refuse.
Than why is he too afraid to appear on Tim Pool's show, like many other leftists are? Tim invites them, but they no longer come.
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov Why would we want to contribute to Russian propaganda?
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov You mean like Tim the Russian shill has been afraid to debate Sam, and most on the left? Especially after Ana K. trounced him?
Lol
I know Kirk was unintelligent but I didn't realise he was this bafflingly incompetent. All he can do is his pre prepared talking points.
How do you pre prepare something? Preparing ahead of time is just Preparing
@XxTesla21xX It's like when people say "pre warning". Or the big one for me "overexaggeration". It bugs meee
@@XxTesla21xXHe’s been using the same arguments for the last decade plus, so it seems like a fitting statement. He’s simply regurgitating his own nonsense and has never given credence for far more enlightened arguments, simply so he can continue pretending his bigoted arguments have any validity where they do not. Human rights are simply not up for debate, full stop.
What did he say that was wrongv
@@scottnelson9 What exactly are human rights? are they not something that has been agreed upon by the majority? We aren't born with shit... go tell the Ottoman Empire that they are violating human rights... or better yet... go tell The Sentinelese on Sentinal Island and tell them the American they killed in 2018 had human rights... It is unfortunately always up for debate.
Cringy and dishonest
Charlie's face seemed to keep getting smaller the more he was humiliated.
Every time he debates, he loses face
ha ha just like what socrates said “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” even if socrates did not say this it is still true.
@@robinvik1🔥🔥🔥
How he got humiliated
@@GothboiKenzy he opened his mouth, usually a good bet that he will when that happens.
"What is a man?!"
Charlie - "it's opaque!"
😂 ohh, so theres ambiguity, its not black and white, there's nunace and differences to the human existence? Wow, keep going Charlie, you might eventually get to some introspection and critical thinking.
he drank the frog water and he didn't even know
A man is a miserable little pile of secrets.
You guys enable the mentally ill instead of helping them.
Watch the full video. The idiot sitting in front of him was sending information his way at a million miles per hour, switching the topic and then wondering why questions leave unanswered.
@@PoweredIncorporated aww do you not like it when the left does that? Does it not help that he's actually using facts and logic? People like Charlie and Crowder love to completely barrage with flat out lies, half-truths, obfuscation/distraction, hate, and fear, and they do it while speaking a million miles an hour, sorry Parker talked a little faster than Charlie was able to, you snowflake.
Talking fast, all over the place, and not letting your opponent speak is not winning a debate
Humiliated? You can see anything if you really want to.
He was disrespected, definitely not humiliated.
I'm not sure what's sadder, this kid's arrogance and cocky attitude or the fact there are so many midwits here thinking he somehow gave a valid and strong argument for his case....
Parkers Stategy:
1. Adderall
2. Ramble Incoherently
3. Get Pegged
Ha Ha!!! so true
This is what happens when a community college dropout debates someone smart enough to be able to stay in college. Jus say'n.
In fairness, I'm a community college dropout and I'd massacre a debate with Kirk. Education doesn't necessarily make or break debate or rhetorical skill.
He’s a tiktokker lol, so definitely not a random college kid. Hes been honing the debate skills
This is the kind of comment that happens when a college graduate huffs too many of their own farts.
@@CaptainSnackbeardhe ain’t wrong though
@@AnarchoPunkChadjudging by you name, as an ansyn myself, probably... But even the best of us can be caught of guard and steamrolled. That's their tactic. This kid started cooking and kept the debate at his rhythm.... We should all take notes, tbh. Because overconfidence tends to wreck us when faced with truly bad faith...
I think Charlie Kirk was just stunned by how stupid this kids logic was about God. I think I'm stunned these commentators think this kid won. God made man AND woman in his image as told in Genesis. Jesus has always been a man. He is not created, he is God in the flesh. Our minds cannot fathom pre existence. If you are an atheist, you cannot comprehend what was before the "big bang" and if you are a Christian you cannot comprehend what was before the creation of time and space.
That face isn't real. Nobody could look like that
Lol. I agree. That picture has to be manipulated.
That's what I thought at first.
No that’s just what Charlie looks like /s
Mr. Meeseeks
Man I laughed out loud at the pic
That kid was annoying
yea
He beat Charlie’s ass 😅
@@susanng4040 how by talking fast..kid made no sense
@@catenriquez5601 they are on a timer, so they have to talk fast
Sometimes these titles on RUclips can be clickbait about "Destroying" others in debates and they are barely a clip. BUT THIS. Holy shit, this kid was confident and absolutely demolished Charlie's poor little ego.
What do you mean he destroyed him? He talked over him and asked new questions when Charlie tried to answer his previous question. Your definition of "destroying" someone in a debate is talking over the other side and bombarding them with endless additional questions while they try to answer. 🤨
@@thecoolestdaniel Talking over? isnt that what ben shapiro does and people say he destroys? The boy just took a page out of their book thats all and it worked.
Now, onto the question he asked, Charlie couldnt answer because at the end of the day it will circle back to the fact that the father is not defined and if it is not defined then it is allowed to have any pronoun and if we can do that to an supreme being then it is possible to do that to yourself, it will always go back to the fact that you cant use one thing to define what a man is like xy chromosome, the same way you can't use "He" as a basis to determine god the father is male since charlie says the father isnt.
@@thecoolestdaniel Charlie could not keep up at all. The kid kept hammering the same point but different explainations of it because Charlie refused to concede despite every one else in the room knowing how ridiculous the double standard is. Kirk did get owned and rightfully so. It's always rules for thee but not for me. No consistency. And the kid was right, Kirk's motivs aren't based in logic, but rather in transphobia.
@@thecoolestdanielHe did exactly what Charlie Kirk has done to others for well over a decade. Do you really not see it, or are you just a hypocrite? This was astoundingly amazing to watch because he deserves it for thinking he has any validity in being an egregious bigot. He’s been corrected and debunked over and over again, yet it never seems to stick. Why is that? Is Charlie just an idiot or a liar? He’s very likely both.
Parker avoided the actual topic at hand every single time lol
I'm not right winger or Kirk fan but the only one humiliated here was Parker, the college student.
He was not humiliated, that kid never let him speak and chronically spewed his jumbled rhetoric. Classic cheap debate tactics.
yup, thank you
Cope
Trying to argue with brainwashed Liberals who think that gender is a personality trait is very difficult. It's very hard to argue with brainwashed people. Few people are going to agree with you in this comments section because they're far gone anyway. The liberal majority who watched this video literally think that talking in a condescending manner and talking over you decides the debate winner. These Liberals are all hypocrites
Do people actually believe Parker won? He just spoke really fast, changed the topic from abortion to Christianity and insulted Christianity. He also just asks questions really fast and interrupts every 5 seconds. Also his soyboy boyfriend in the back with the mustache has done nothing but emoting and pretending to go for the seat but is scared so he just lets other ppl take it haha.
Just Like Benny boy does.. tell me, isn't your medicine bitter?
Charlie asked "what is a woman?"
I ask "what does it matter?”
That’s always been my standard response. No reason to enquire about other people’s genitals unless you are their doctor or interested in becoming a sexual partner.
They were debating different topics and the current topic was “what is a women” so that’s why he asked.
@@jescolloCharlie Kirk always resorts to “what is a woman” when he doesn’t have any enlightened responses to the subject at hand. It wasn’t the current topic; he just assumes it’s always a “gotcha” question. A question he’s been disproven on over and over again. Where have you been?
ha ha just like what socrates said “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” even if socrates did not say this it is still true. [also what is a woman?]
@LooseShin who is anyone? WHEN YOUR DEBATING AND START CUSSING AND START MAKING FUN OF SOMONES CHARITOR, FACE, OR ANYTHING ELSE ITS OFF TOPIC AND OVERALL NOT HONERABLE AND YOUR A LOSER FOR DOING SO
If you actually believe that child bested Charlie Kirk, then your so biased against the facts of the discussion you cannot see how ridiculous that child was made to be.
Talking over someone doesn’t mean you won the argument
If Kirk is right and god is genderless, then does that mean they are misgendering God every time they use he/him pronouns? Don’t think they appreciate that, seems kind of blasphemous if you ask me
They’ll say God is okay with any/all pronouns, digging themselves deeper in the hole 😂
God always anthropomorphically uses male pronouns.
When God created the man she was still practicing...🙃
@@autisticphaglosophy7128 well then kirk is wrong and God uses preferred male pronouns despite not having a matching biology
Depends on which of the 4,000+ gods they speak about!
This kid is a legend.
Parker and Dean ( the blonde guy with nice hair ) are a regular TikTok duo.
Parker is an idiot. Smart but an idiot. He was loud and condescending and didn't debate or have a conversation.. he just kept deflecting and being a douche to just try and get followers. lol
What do you mean all he did was talk over him and not letting him speak
@@simonsrandomlife5446 there is a timer. So getting you voice heard and point across; involves over talking. Either way, Parker deploys solid logic and traps Charlie into being logically inconsistent.
@@simonsrandomlife5446 Yep that’s called dominating. One of the ways you can win a debate. Another is completely dismantling your opponents argument, which he also did.
Kids definition of woman is wrong
The Bible actually says more than once "God is not a man" ie Human. It does say that Spirits are neither male nor female.
Yes, and the point is that Charlie uses his *preferred pronouns* for a god that has no gender. This debate is about the use of gender pronouns, and Charlie got wooped.
@@ms.l643 But God is in a completely different category as humans or all of creation. So, the argument is a category error and does not work for humans. That is how I would have answered Parker. It is easy to debunk his baseless argument. It is simple.
It's an excellent rhetorical trap. Kirk can either admit that men don't need to have genes or say God isn't male. Neither wound be consistent with his worldview or popular with his audience.
And he ends up admitting BOTH
The student begins his definition by saying ‘Adult human person’, then starts talking about God (to which his definition wouldn’t apply). Charlie missed it but the student messed up completely.
@@MsHopeH It isn't a missed point, it was a trap by the student. If Charlie says Man/Woman only apply to Humans, he has to explain why God is referred to as He.
@@MsHopeHwhich turns to why is called a he if god doesn't have a body.
@@BB-rh2ml correct
The video should be titled speed running logical fallacies with Charlie Kirk.
Jubilee wanted this to happen actually, so judging Kirk on his age and the college student’s age is low hanging fruit. Also, Addonai was not a PLACEHOLDER for God, please re-read the scripture and learn why they refer God as HIM/HE. Last point: Parker strayed from the topic to go against Christianity proving his ignorance
You could see how hard he was trying not to not yell a slur at him
Wat an insane world we live in. Only in the USA we got students trying to debate that god is not a man and society is pumping them up. We r soo doomed its not even funny 🤦♂️🤦♂️
I can't stand Charlie Kirk, but to be fair, the argument itself is fallacious. This Parker fellow asked why we use the word "He" when referring to God, without acknowledging that the Bible, at least the Old Testament, was written in a semitic language i.e. Hebrew. Anyone who has learnt any semitic language, like Hebrew or Arabic, understands that they are grammatically gendered languages, and that every noun, pronoun and adjective has an assigned gender, and the default gender is masculine. So just because the masculine pronoun is used when referring to God does not mean that God is a "man." This is just how semitic languages work.
Not a fan of Charlie Kirk but this Parker kid didn’t perform anywhere near as well as you guys think he did.
Facts lol
He did tho. Kirk got owned
@@requiem9749 You clearly didn’t watch this so called "debate”.
Soy boy Parker is not a debater. constant continuous interruptions, talking stupid fast, and asking questions not related to the topic of discussion, is not a debate. Yall sit there and laugh but I guarantee that nobody on this panel would agree to debate 25 other people with opposing viewpoints. All I see is a bunch of cowards laughing here.
Charlie Kirk's face looks like that bad guy that blows himself up at the end of Big Trouble In Little China
😂😂 I'll never unseen that!
"I don't think he's gonna stop!"
OMG!!! He's Thunder, minus the everything.
LOL
@@aggressiveattitudeera887Well he never has, so that’s a valid prediction.
Lol that kid was basically shooting off from a memorised text. Outsmart my ass.
Charlie “I AM NOT A MONSTER!” Kirk.
@@Σατανας666 Charlie "That's definitely not a dolphin fetus" Kirk.
@@aggressiveattitudeera887 Tell it to the artificial wombs and sex robots.
@@aggressiveattitudeera887 Artificial wombs would already make so called "reproductive care" illegal, once and for all.
"I LIVE AS A CAPITALIST EVERY DAY, CENK!"
Not really a monster. Just a major creepy weirdo. Thought so the first time I saw him start verbally abusing a very young unprepared student. Between him and Shapiro I get the willies!