In his last debate Charlie Kirk asserted that leftist violence was epidemic. His challenger Hunter Kozak asserted they WEREN'T violent, only to see Charlie murdered before his eyes. The guy he'd been debating was visibly shocked. www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-3Z...

In a debate you're not there to prove the other guy's point. But you can disagree, even after hearing good logical arguments from either debater.

I was a kid when MLK Jr was assassinated. There was defamation about him, but not this much vitriol and unseasoned hate.

As a Buddhist I was particularly impressed when he took all the positions that this guy had (the caricature of what people claim Charlie believed) and refuted EACH ONE with bible quotes.

Someone ill-prepared or who doesn't understand formal debate might not have gotten the fact it wasn't personal.

He didn't let them interrupt. Bad faith is projection.

I'd just started to watch him this year, only saw a few debates, found his confident style (what you're describing) as off-putting, but he was respectful of debate partners.

One of the best I've seen this week he shuts down a homophobe.