Holding a large following across a multitude of social media platforms such as X and Instagram, Charlie Kirk is a right-wing political influencer who undermines the meaning of civil discourse by sensationalizing topics and setting up events in his favor. His most viral method of pushing his biased narrative is through toxic debate tables at various U.S. college campuses.
These open mic debates are held usually outside on campus for students walking by to challenge his stance on a specific current topic. The set up of this system sounds impartial and open, but there are certain ploys in place that give Kirk an advantage. These tactics push the misconception that political stances are either right or wrong and that disagreeing with Kirk is illogical.
With his platform being centered around creating content, the entertainment from controversial interactions with people drives his success. This, in turn, results in his using tactics to make his social media videos more dramatic. “He doesn’t leave much room for real conversation because he seems to care more about going viral and ‘beating’ whoever he’s debating than actually having meaningful, insightful discussions,” said junior JJ Garcia. “Instead of debating people on his level or experts, he picks easy targets and uses attention-grabbing statements to win the crowd and go viral,” she added.
While Kirk claims he is bringing meaningful discussions to young Americans across the country, he is really doing the opposite. By censoring the debates he chooses to have and filtering what goes on the internet, viewers jump to conclusions on issues without taking the time to fully understand the point of discourse. He chooses issues that aren’t just political, but also have ethical implications like immigration and abortion, so manipulating information on these kinds of topics is even more harmful.
Clips of Kirk belittling and yelling at students over current controversial issues have amassed millions of views, and typically, his most popular videos are the ones that make the person disagreeing look the worst. Kirk almost always tries to discredit the college student from the start, and paints them as a villain instead of taking the time to listen to their stance on an issue.
When young people see this on the internet it sends the wrong message on what productive civil discourse is. “That dynamic ends up spreading half-truths or misleading takes as if they’re facts, which is harmful—especially when a lot of viewers take what he says at face value. He also cherry-picks what statistics to use and edits his clips in a way to make him look better and promote his messages,” said Garcia.
Lack of proper public discourse displayed on the internet are what contribute to an increasingly divided country. With so much anger surrounding political issues in the U.S., having a conversation with someone who doesn’t necessarily share the same opinion continues to get more challenging. “I think that misinformation is a tool that is being used to divide us and make us not realize that we are more alike than different. We see these fake ideas and news stories more peddled on one side than we do the other and I think they use it more to make their base angry and keep them ignorant,” said senior Ryan Pottratz.
With so many influencers utilizing social media’s impact on the circulation of information, it is important to take notice when the algorithm pushes content that is more destructive than educational. Charlie Kirk, along with other political influencers with varying opinions, should be called out when they actively hide their own personal incentives behind a wall of lies claiming to be bringing truth to the public.
