Charlie Kirk (1:51)

That's a separate issue. There's plenty of babies that are in loving monogamous marriages that are mistreated and abused separate. There is no correlation. There's no moral justification to say that I think or I even have data that that baby will be misbe, abused or mistreated. Therefore murder is okay.

Interviewer (2:05)

I mean there is correlation. I think it's very clear when they've been perceived in very, very horrific situations. The mother specifically as well is obviously in terms of mentally the impact they have on her, that still the mother has to raise that baby all the way to 18 years old.

Charlie Kirk (2:16)

Still not a justification for murder. And if you think that abortion is just a medical procedure, a cosmetic type intervention, no different than getting plastic surgery, women have regrets after abortion. They have psychological trauma. Again, the question is, do we defend human life universally as a statement? And if the question is, I'm going to just kind of, well, I can eliminate the smaller life because I have regret of a sexual encounter I had then I find. Great question with that.

Narrator/Commentator (2:43)

So, I mean, look at how good that is. I mean, that really, really is good. The best thing here from Charlie is that image at the very beginning. It's a creative use of an image that really clarifies. When he says, at the very beginning, you've got two pictures of an ultrasound. You don't know which is which. Are you going to make a decision about which one of these babies gets to be terminated? It's a fantastic point. It's irrefutable. There's no way to rebut it without actually going to the heart of the matter, which is you don't actually think that human life begins at conception. Or if you do, if you acknowledge that reality, then you are okay with certain types of killing. Next up, Charlie Kirk did Gavin Newsom's podcast. And again, this is just an example of the reality, which is that Charlie was willing to go talk to pretty much anybody. He had debates and conversations with pretty much anybody, and this is what he was murdered doing. Even Gavin Newsom recognized that. Gavin had a conversation with Charlie. The conversation not go well for Gavin Newsom for a good reason.

Charlie Kirk (3:33)

What do you do?

Progressive Insurance Announcer 2 (3:33)

But what do you do? Seriously, Charlie Kirk, give us some advice, better ideas.

Charlie Kirk (3:37)

Governor, for example, I mean, like, if you want to, like, you have an opportunity to, like, you know, run to the middle and seize this man. So obviously you're talking to me of all people. So, like, you right now should come out and, and be like, you know what? The young man who's about to win the state championship and the long jump in female sports, that's. That. That shouldn't happen. You as the governor should step out and say no.

Progressive Insurance Announcer 2 (3:55)

No. And I appreciate, but like, would you.

Charlie Kirk (3:57)

Do something like that? Would you say no? Men in female sports?

Progressive Insurance Announcer 2 (3:59)

Well, it's. I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It's deeply.

Charlie Kirk (4:04)

Would you speak out against this young man, A.B. hernandez, who right now is going to win the state championship in the long term? I can see you wrestling with it.

Progressive Insurance Announcer 2 (4:11)

No, I'm not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with You. The issue of fairness is completely legit. And I saw that the last couple of years. Boy, did I saw how you guys were able to weaponize that issue at another level.

Charlie Kirk (4:23)

Not weaponized. Don't. That's.

Progressive Insurance Announcer 2 (4:24)

That's, well, weaponized, maybe pejorative, you're right. But you were able to shine a light on. Highlight it in a way that, frankly, I. There are not that many. We're talking about, I think NC2A what, 510,000? No, no.

Charlie Kirk (4:36)

But I just didn't realize it's 890 medals and trophies that we know of in the last five years. That's a lot.

Narrator/Commentator (4:41)

So, again, look at Charlie just. Just corner Newsom. And he's right. You can see Newsom getting ever more uncomfortable because he understands that he's now boxed himself in that once he says it's a fairness issue, then why don't you just say that it shouldn't happen? And this was a very bad exchange for Newsom because one of the things that happened from it is that it started to be implied that maybe he was actually going to break the mold. It would've been good for him to do it. By the way, Charlie is right about this. It would've been very good for Gavin Newsom to run to the middle on this issue. Just take that issue off the table for Democrats. Newsom wouldn't do it because it is an order of faith for Democrats that men can become women and women can become men, and some sort of sin to claim the opposite. So here was Charlie back at Oxford Union, talking about trans. Now, of course, this is an issue that effectively got him killed because the assassin of Charlie Kirk was a gay man in a relationship with a man who believed he was a woman and who believed that the assassin thought that Charlie was hateful for saying that men aren't women. Here is Charlie defending that position. See if this sounds hateful to you.

Interviewer (5:38)

You'Ve previously expressed the view that people who identify as trans are part of a social contagion due to causes such as bullying and autism. Why do you hold this position and what evidence do you have to support this position?

Charlie Kirk (5:50)

I mean, it's true. I mean, first of all, you can't be what you are. Not very fundamentally so. If you are a man, you can't become a woman. If you're a woman, you can't become a man. As far as the bullying, we know this because of the skyrocketing rates of peer pressure, social contagion data. In fact, the cast report was one of the most Interesting ones. You guys are actually better on the trans issue than us. Don't mess it up. Guys, please. Your Supreme Court actually defined, I think, what was it like? A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Like, they actually had clarity on this topic recently. By the way, all can agree that J.K. rowling is a hero. Yes. So funny how the left will no longer applaud their heroes when you differentiate from the faith. Everyone loved J.K. rowling. She's wonderful. Make her a dame. She's the best. She's. Oh. She says that a woman is a woman and is a man. Is a man. Crucifier.

Narrator/Commentator (6:42)

Colorful stuff there from Charlie, obviously. The point that he's making about rapid onset gender dysphoria. It was backed by a study at Brown University, rapid onset gender dysphoria that demonstrated repeatedly that there was a massive uptick in the number of young girls who are identifying as transgender for a very, very long time. All studies showed that it was essentially a subset of young males who are identifying as girls. And then all of a sudden, disproportionately, women, young girls, you know, underage girls, actually started identifying as transgender. And it was all in small social groups, and one girl would go transgender, and then all would go transgender. The researcher in that case was suspended by Brown for that discovery. Abigail Shrier talks about this in her book Irreversible Damage. And the data are very clear on this. It is absolutely 100% a social contagion, which is why you go from a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of people identifying as transgender to 25% of all of the young generation identifying as LGBT and a significant percentage of that 25% identifying as transgender. We'll get to more of this in a moment. First, the system isn't broken very often. It's rigged. Because, you know, a lot of people get rich when you are in debt. And that's not an accident. That's the plan. PTSD has helped hundreds of thousands of people flip the script on credit cards, personal loans, medical bills. They know how to beat these companies at their own game. Your money, your future. It's time to take it back with PDS debt. PDS debt doesn't just crunch numbers and then call it a day. They actually take the time to understand your specific situation and build a plan that works for you, not some cookie cutter approach. And here's the best part. They don't care what your credit score looks like, whether it's pristine or completely shot. They're focused on one thing. Helping you save more money, crush your debt faster, and finally start keeping more of what you earn instead of handing it over to creditors every single month. They've built a reputation by actually delivering results. And that's why they have an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, thousands of five star Google reviews, and perfect scores on trustpilot. When you're drowning in debt, you need someone in your corner who knows how to fight back. That's exactly what PDS debt does for their clients every single day. I have friends who've gotten into debt. It is horrible, truly horrible. And so I understand what it's like to try to get out of debt where you feel like you're digging and digging. You can't get out. Well, you're 30 seconds away from starting the process of becoming debt free. Get your free debt assessment. Find the best option for yourself right now@pdsdebt.com Shapiro that's pdsdeb.com/shapiro pds.com Shapiro so obviously Charlie was murdered while he was doing his debates on campus. Those became quite viral on TikTok particularly he would show up with the traveling tent. That said, prove me wrong, here is one of these debates that he had with one of the students over dei.

Student/Debate Opponent (9:13)

What do you think about blind hiring? Are you for blind hiring?

Charlie Kirk (9:17)

No.

Student/Debate Opponent (9:17)

No. So why not? Because blind hiring for those who don't know is based on merit. Where you don't. So what's blind hiring?

Charlie Kirk (9:24)

Blind hiring would be that you do not put the race actually when you submit for, you know, actually you don't even see the person when you interview them for a job.

Student/Debate Opponent (9:31)

No, no, no, that's. That's one part of blind hiring. There's multiple ways to do blind hiring, but at the end of the day, blind hiring is exactly not knowing the person's race, age or gender. That's based on merit. Like you said, you want merit, correct?

Charlie Kirk (9:43)

Well, hold on. Those things can factor into merit as well. For example, if I'm trying to hire for an Amazon warehouse worker and all of a sudden I find out that they're at 69 with one year left from retirement and the age is not disclosed, wouldn't I prefer to have a 24 year old man than a 69 year old woman who's overweight.

Student/Debate Opponent (9:59)

You're moving the goalpost. Let's bring it back here. The whole point was about blind hiring.

Charlie Kirk (10:03)

No. You said race, sex and age is not incorporated.

Narrator/Commentator (10:08)

Correct.

Charlie Kirk (10:09)

I think you should have a full picture of a human being is when you hire them.

Student/Debate Opponent (10:13)

So you care about diversity?

Charlie Kirk (10:15)

No, actually, I don't.

Student/Debate Opponent (10:15)

How? Why? Because that's basically merit. You're focusing solely on merit.

Charlie Kirk (10:20)

You said you want me to just be clear. I want. If diversity happens naturally through meritocracy, great. If all of a sudden we have that. Well, no, no, it's not. DEI is by force.

Student/Debate Opponent (10:29)

So let me explain.

Charlie Kirk (10:30)

No, no, no, I got it. I got to interject. DEI is that we are going to forcibly make an institution more colorful. We're going to forcibly make an institution more black. Where if all of a sudden. If half of Texas A and M was black because it was all on merit, praise God, that's an amazing thing. It doesn't matter. If all of a sudden, for example, if the NBA is 75% black because it's on merit, great, terrific. If the NFL is half black because on merit, we don't want to force race. We want excellence and meritocracy over race in every possible circumstance.

Narrator/Commentator (11:01)

So I think that even the person that Charlie's supposedly debating here seems to agree with that basic premise. And Charlie is cutting through the semantic game that's being played here. The semantic game that's being played is the idea that if you want to take into consideration relevant factors, that some form of DEI know that is the opposite of dei, if the factors are relevant. What Charlie I'm sure was in favor of and articulated many times that he was in favor of race blind meritocracy. So if the question is blind hiring where you don't put the person's race on the form, then yeah, I think Charlie would have been in favor of that. I've been shocked if he wouldn't be in favor of that. Here's Charlie on campus debating the second.

Progressive Insurance Announcer (11:37)

Amendment with somebody in United States. There are 39,707 gun deaths in 2019 alone. The average of one gun related death every 11 minutes. In 2023, there were 346 school shooting incidents in the U.S. so far there have been 385 mass shootings in 2024. And a mass shooting is defined as an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed. Why are you pro second Amendment and can you give me your stance on that?

Charlie Kirk (11:59)

Great. So I just want to make sure I can know where you're coming from. Do you believe owning a firearm is a right or a privilege?

Progressive Insurance Announcer (12:05)

I believe it's a privilege. I'm gonna go with that.

Charlie Kirk (12:07)

Okay, so then you, you do not believe in the Second Amendment as it is written?

Progressive Insurance Announcer (12:10)

No, I believe it needs to be amended I believe in a ban for guns.

Charlie Kirk (12:13)

Okay, so that's where we disagree. And that's okay. We have clarity but not agreement. I believe that the right to protect yourself and your family against a tyrannical government or a home invader is a inalienable right that must be protected and that no one can take it away. Now let's just. And that's okay. We have, we have clarity on that. Now let's go through why I believe that and some, also some clarifying statistics. Everything you said is true, but one part of it is misleading is that yes, there are, There are about 30,000 gun deaths a year or death by firearm, but two thirds of them are death by suicide.

Progressive Insurance Announcer (12:46)

Yes.

Charlie Kirk (12:46)

Yeah, right. So it's a little misleading to say 30,000 or even every 11 minutes. And so there's some people that say, well, it's easier to commit suicide if you have a gun in the house. You and I would both agree though that if someone is committing suicide of the firearm, there's other underlying issues. The firearm is secondary. Okay, so that's a reason. Thank you for agreeing with that. Okay, so therefore that gives you about 10,000 gun deaths a year. The vast majority of those are gang related in about 10 cities across the country. Not excusing it, but there's other underlying factors associated with it. Now let's get into what our position is. Those of us that believe in the second Amendment, we fully acknowledge that when you have liberty that you're going to have sometimes undesirable outcomes. For example, there are 50,000 people a year that die in auto fatalities. And it's tragic. However, no reasonable person would come up to the MIC and say, let's ban driving.

Narrator/Commentator (13:38)

An excellent, well reasoned argument from Charlie. He's going point by point through the statistics and when he gets to the final conclusion, which is that public policy is a series of trade offs, that really is the key thing. That really is the key thing. Now it'd be interesting to hear the argument from the other side that gun rights are not pure self defense. There are other forms of self defense. That if you have a society that didn't have any guns in the first place, then maybe you don't wanna bring guns in. Right. That's an argument that's been made with regard to societies that actually do not have many guns in them. There are some really fascinating debates to be had with the second Amendment here. But Charlie's making obviously a very forceful and rational defense for the second Amendment there. Here is Charlie Kirk debating Western civilization on campus.

Charlie Kirk (14:17)

What country has ever grown stronger, the more divided it's been.

Debate Opponent (14:22)

None. But I'm not saying to get more divided.

Charlie Kirk (14:25)

No, no, no. But diversity definitionally will divide you. Unity unit unifies you. You notice they never say unity is our strength. They say diversity is our strength. In fact, just so we are clear, there is nothing racist or xenophobic to say that you want your kids to be around people that speak English. There's nothing racist to say that it actually means that you want to be able to communicate with your neighbor. There's nothing racist and xenophobic to say, for example, we don't want to import people from a far off distant land that don't share Western values, that don't treat women the same, that don't have the same respect for freedom of speech. So what we see is the unraveling of the United States of America. Because a country is again, it is the people that inhabit it. So you have to be very careful what people you allow into your country.

Debate Opponent (15:10)

Sure. And I, but I think that what you're talking about, this like mass shift in American culture, culture is like not happening. I think you're fear mongering. And also I think that the United States forever has been a mix of culture. I don't really know, like where you can point to a time in the US history that hasn't included immigrants in its culture.

Charlie Kirk (15:30)

Again, from the 20s to the 1920s and 1960s, we had very little immigration in this country, nearly 40 years. In fact, that is what largely led to us becoming a world superpower in the 1950s.

Narrator/Commentator (15:41)

Okay, so the argument here that he is making about diversity, that diversity just inherently is not our strength, that unity is our strength. That's obviously true. Now you could have theoretically racial diversity with unity of purpose. That's what many churches are about, for example. So I don't think Charlie is arguing against diversity on its own. He's just saying that diversity as our strength is a nonsensical slogan. As far as his final immigration point, that immigration is somehow inherently weakening. I mean, there's actually a point where I sort of disagree with Charlie. The reality is that the booming economy of the 1950s was not brought about by low immigration policies in the 1930s and 40s is brought about by the fact that the entire world had been destroyed in World War II, except for the industrial capacity of the United States and actually the very fast growth period of the American historical spectrum from, say the 1880s to the 1920s, which are a very, very high growth area of the American economy. That Actually, we actually did have quite high immigration during that time. So you can make the argument against mass immigration. I make that argument all the time because the factors have changed, including with regard to the welfare state, for example, and our failure to assimilate people in. I sort of disagree actually with Charlie's economic argument there. Well, Charlie also did a debate recently over at Cambridge where he made his positions with regard to the Israel Hamas conflict absolutely clear.

Charlie Kirk (16:57)

In the conflict of Israel versus Hamas, who's the good guy?

Debate Opponent (17:00)

Believe both Hamas and the Israeli government are evil. But I think also there is no just equally.

Charlie Kirk (17:06)

Are they equally.

Debate Opponent (17:07)

There is no justification for the murder and mutilation of thousands of innocent people and children. There is no justification, Mr. Kurt, for invading hospitals, for bombing innocent populations and dragging out a war which is damaging Israel and the west security.

Charlie Kirk (17:26)

You've made that point.

Debate Opponent (17:27)

But that's not a point, it's a moral truth, isn't it?

Charlie Kirk (17:29)

Okay, yeah. It was also a moral truth that the war started because 1300 Jews were killed and 200 were taken hostage. And when you declare war on Israel, exclus. Expect a firestorm in reaction. Let me finish. I let you talk. Israel had its holiest day of the calendar year besides Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah Samat Torah, the 50 year anniversary of the Six Day War on Shabbat, Hamas invaded Israel, deciding to go recklessly to music concerts, to homes, to kibbutzes and taking 200 plus hostages. They knew what they were doing in one of the most cloistered urban environments on the planet. Two million people live in a place where it's impossible to wage war. Impossible where they wear civilian clothing, they violate every tenant of the Geneva Convention and the idf. When they do something right, they get no credit. When they do life saving surgeries of a Gazan child, they get no credit. When they drive leaflets, drop leaflets, they get no credit. But when they happen to bomb a place where they are operating their military, from which we now know from third party verified sources, hundreds of Hamas military operations are in mosques, schools and hospitals. I'm sorry, the country that where they were living in relative peace on October 6, that all of a sudden we had a war and Hamas started the war. And I don't see people that were really upset about the 2 million Germans that were killed in World War II civilians. A tragic truth of war is that civilians die. I don't like it and you don't like it. And they brought it upon themselves. The only operation and entity to blame is the leadership of Hamas, not the Israeli government, for fighting this defensive war after they were invaded. There is a good guy and there is a bad guy. I honestly.

Debate Opponent (18:59)

Isn't that the morality of a child?

Charlie Kirk (19:00)

Well, instead. Well, hold on. It's interesting you say that, because a child who knows that Israel is the good guy, Hamas is bad, has a lot more wisdom than a student like yourself at Cambridge University.

Narrator/Commentator (19:15)

Oh, Charlie says it quite well there. Alrighty, folks. Well, obviously, Charlie. Charlie's legacy is going to live on in clips like the ones we've shown you. Charlie's a very strong debater. He took very strong public positions. Those clips are gonna get traffic for decades to come. Clips that you're gonna show your kids. Their kids are probably gonna show their kids. There's a reason that Charlie racked up in the months leading up to the last election cycle, something like 15 billion views on various social media outlets. He leaves behind a lot. And for that, at least, we are very gr. Sam.