Kirk is being posthumously celebrated by much of the mainstream press as a noble sparring partner for center-left politicians and pundits. Meanwhile, the very real, very negative, and sometimes violent impacts of his rhetoric and his political projects are being glossed over or ignored entirely.
He told his followers exactly what they wanted to hear in response to every question, including the last two before he was shot.
It doesn’t matter if he was right or wrong factually, he gave his followers warm and fuzzy feelings.
Exactly, and if you’d watched his long standing stuff it was always very much him debating to a crowd using bad faith arguments and taking advantage of the fact that he had a skill that’s easy to not be aware of, is completely irrelevant to the stated goal (proving that one is correct) or implied goal (coming to mutual agreement), and that most people he debated lacked. Furthermore because he was the one recording any time he loses he can not publish it. He financially, professionally, and emotionally was never in a place conducive to productive debate and discussion. And I would argue he was in many ways antithetical to the concept of university.
Debate as a competition cannot be fair when it attempts to reflect healthy and positive debate because in that case the better side has an advantage unrelated to player skill. What Kirk was doing was a long campaign against consensus reality. He was particularly skilled at combining the Shapiro tactic (priming the audience by saying you’ve won by using facts and logic so that’s what they see) alongside a belligerent strategy (ie constant advancement regardless of merit) and politely phrased incendiary ideas to tilt his opponents and make them lose their cool and seem overly emotional.
He was a rhetorical stage magician