The Charlie Kirk Show – A Civil Debate with Someone Whom I Completely Disagree ft. Vaush and Tim Pool

Date: September 4, 2021
Guests:

• Charlie Kirk (Conservative activist, founder of Turning Point USA)
• Vaush (YouTuber, self-described libertarian socialist)
• Tim Pool (Podcast host, centrist commentator, moderator)

Episode Overview

This episode of The Charlie Kirk Show features a long-form, civil debate on some of America’s most contentious current issues. Hosted by Tim Pool, the discussion brings together Charlie Kirk (conservative activist) and Vaush (left-leaning YouTuber, libertarian socialist) for an extended, advertiser-free conversation on topics including vaccine mandates, critical race theory (CRT) in schools, race and systemic inequality, criminal justice reform, activism, patriotism, economic policy, and more. The debate is lively but generally respectful, with all sides striving for clarity rather than shouting matches and trying to model constructive discourse.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Vaccine Mandates and COVID-19 Policies

Timestamps: 05:35 – 31:00

Mandates and Vaccine Passports

• Tim Pool introduces the topic of vaccine mandates, referencing New York's "Key to NYC" requirement and protests in Australia.
• Vaush’s stance: Supportive of some mandates, likening them to prior requirements (e.g., MMR vaccines for schools). Stresses public health over individual choice but is cautious not to exacerbate tensions or ostracize people.
  • “With regards to Covid, since this is an ongoing pandemic, we need to focus on approaches that are effective and don’t ostracize or exacerbate tensions.” (06:10)
• Charlie’s stance: Unequivocally opposed to mandates, framing them as “medical apartheid” and an infringement on personal liberty.
  • “Yeah, this is medical apartheid. This is trying to create a two-tiered system where if you don't make the proper medical decisions, you're not able to go to Broadway shows or go into restaurants... It’s pretty obvious.” (07:16)
• Debate over the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, with Charlie referencing breakthrough cases and concerns about side effects; Vaush counters with data showing vaccine efficacy and rarity of serious adverse events.
• Notable exchange: Vaush is accused of “defending Big Pharma” despite being a socialist, to which he replies he only supports the workers, not the profit-driven system.
  • “It's not a praise of the capitalist industry behind... No, I was just enjoying the irony.” (12:51)

Vaccine Risks and Data Interpretation

• Discussion about the VAERS side-effect reporting site. Charlie raises concerns about 7,000+ deaths listed post-vaccination; Vaush and Tim explain the self-reported nature and lack of established causality in VAERS data.
  • “The VAERS system is entirely self reported.” - Vaush (13:18)
  • “VAERS isn't here to say it Is or isn't. They’re here to say, can we find a pattern in this?” - Tim Pool (15:51)

Trust, Science, and Messaging

• Conversation about which authorities to trust—CDC/Fauci vs. critics and alternative experts (Malone, Bret Weinstein). All acknowledge the public’s crisis of trust.
• Tim observes, “Ultimately what it comes down to is, in my opinion, having a trusted medical professional that you can consult with.” (24:15)
• The group touches on alternative treatments (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin) and the role of profit motives among pharmaceutical giants.

2. Critical Race Theory, Race, and Education

Timestamps: 31:26 – 76:15

What Is Critical Race Theory in Schools?

• Vaush distinguishes between academic CRT—a legal theory studied in some law schools—and the broader label “critical race theory” used by political actors to describe various anti-racist or “woke” curricula.
  • “There are two CRTs... Then there's the critical race theory that people like Christopher Rufo have been trying to push... a catch-all term to describe all anti-racism.” (31:51)
• Charlie agrees but insists that “the basics of [CRT] are definitely in schools,” referencing the National Education Association’s embrace of the term. Suggests using “wokeism” or “racial justice education” as catch-alls.
  • “We can talk about critical race theory as an academic theory, or we could use a filler term like wokeism, which is more like racial justice...” (33:22)
• Tim suggests the term “critical race praxis” for what’s actually being implemented (35:03).

Specific Controversies: Integration vs. Essentialism

• Vaush and Charlie discuss examples: black-only dormitories (Vaush not a fan), reparations for slavery (Vaush supports structural/class-based over cash/race-based).
• Discussion of whether programs to address racial disparities should be “colorblind” or targeted; Charlie argues most inequality comes down to class, not race, and fears racialization is a distraction from economic power dynamics.
  • “I think the racial thing is being used as this distraction tool to throw smokescreen in the middle...” (39:58)

Curriculum and Children’s Racial Awareness

• Tim cites controversial teaching materials (workbooks, books like the “contract with a devil tail”), prompting debate on whether children should be taught to be highly race-conscious.
  • Vaush: “Conversations about those things can be valuable. I don’t believe we live in a colorblind world.” (54:00)
  • Charlie: “For me, very little to none... de-emphasize it. Look at the spirit, the soul, the conduct and character of the human being. Their skin color means nothing.” (54:41)

1619 Project & Historical Narratives

• Disagreement over use of the 1619 Project in schools. Charlie: “It is not even charitably, in the most charitable reading, even remotely fair to the ethos or the founding of the country.” (63:34)
• Vaush supports teaching uncomfortable truths and historical complexity, not just “patriotic gratitude” (65:56).
  • “Gratitude is not the purpose of education... When I want people graduating from high school, I don’t want them to feel this sense of contentedness. Contentedness is the death of activism for all that’s good.” (66:01–67:30)

Patriotism vs. Activism

• Key philosophical divide: Charlie wants education to produce grateful, moral, patriotic citizens; Vaush wants to “graduate activists that know the flaws and are willing to mobilize to try to fix them… as long as it’s responsible and effective.” (68:14)

3. Criminal Justice, Crime, and Systemic Reform

Timestamps: 81:10 – 94:44

• The debate shifts to bail reform, crime spikes in major cities, and racial/socioeconomic disparities in criminal justice.
• Vaush argues that “we lock way too many people up just flat out,” supports decriminalization and reduced sentences for nonviolent offenses, and wants more focus on tackling poverty and recidivism.
• Charlie pushes for tougher sentences on violent offenders, voices skepticism toward arguments that link poverty to crime and that suggest leniency will fix everything.
• Tim mediatizes on the “lock too many people up” vs. “wrong people in prison” framing, noting that both operate on flawed criminal justice incentives.

4. Economic Systems, Labor, and Socialism

Timestamps: 94:44 – 100:57

• Discussion of post-COVID labor shortages, stimulus, UBI, the role of incentives, and American work culture.
• Vaush celebrates the new bargaining power among workers, encourages higher wages and less “stagnation,” and calls for further economic democracy.
• Charlie supports the Fifth Amendment argument for compensating those forced out of work by government, but views lockdowns as overly harsh.

5. Deeper Philosophical and Moral Questions

Timestamps: 98:57 – 109:56

• Human nature: Charlie is Hobbesian (people are fundamentally brutish/nasty), Vaush is more tabula rasa/blank slate; both agree society needs to be designed for flawed humans.
• Patriotism and collectivism: Vaush is leery of appeals to “the nation above the self,” calling them “rather fascist” (109:56). Charlie differentiates between the state and nation as “the people.”
• Limits on freedom: Lively exchange on the necessity of a moral/legal framework; where to draw lines on personal liberty (e.g., “What about dealing drugs to kids?”).

6. Abortion, Libertarian Socialism, and Political Priorities

Timestamps: 117:51 – 124:15

• Abortion: Charlie opposes it as violation of the non-aggression principle; Vaush supports legal abortion for reasons of personhood, admits philosophical ambiguity.
• Libertarian Socialism: Vaush explains the history and logic—championing economic democracy alongside personal freedom; Charlie quips left-libertarians are “less threatening” to American life.
• Political issues: Charlie lists dialogue/civil discourse as the biggest crisis (“We’re about to tear this country apart…”). Vaush highlights climate change as the gravest 2022 issue.

7. Closing & Meta-Conversation About Debate

Timestamps: 134:47 – end

• Many superchats thank all three for having a good-faith, mostly non-combative debate.
• Tim expresses nostalgia (and some sadness) for a time when people could have “bar discussions” about politics without hatred.
• Final words on philosophy in education, the value of teaching analytical thinking, and critique of both CRT and generic “racial sensitivity” trainings.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “You can’t trust or distrust... It comes down to having a trusted medical professional that you can consult with.” – Tim, on COVID & authority (24:15)
• “I'm just enjoying the irony here that I'm the one criticizing the pharmaceutical companies, and you're the one defending them.” – Charlie (11:25)
• “I want to get kids interested in the flaws in this country because that teaches them to grow up and care about them so hard, they fix them.” – Vaush (67:42)
• “I think the racial thing is being used as this distraction tool to throw smokescreen in the middle while we're talking about something that we're never really going to have consensus on, when the true struggle right now is mainly economic.” – Charlie (39:58)
• “The best society merges those two. The best interest for you is the best interest for everyone. The social contract from now until we die.” – Vaush (99:00)
• “For me, the value I want to maximize... is freedom. That's what I care about most.” – Vaush (113:26)
• “We’re about to tear this country apart. And I think dialogue is something that is so beautiful and is so complex and almost spiritual in nature that if we don't have dialogue with people that you fundamentally disagree with, then there's really not a middle ground until you start ripping each other apart. And I’m really afraid of that.” – Charlie (124:13)
• “When I want people graduating from high school, I don’t want them to feel this sense of contentedness. Contentedness is the death of activism for all that’s good.” – Vaush (66:01)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Vaccine Mandates/Debate Starts: 05:35
• VAERS and Vaccine Safety: 13:09
• Critical Race Theory in Schools: 31:26
• Reparations/Wealth Inequality: 36:58
• Activism vs Patriotism in Education: 65:37
• Criminal Justice/Crime Wave: 81:10
• Economic Freedom/Work Culture: 94:44
• Philosophy of Human Nature: 98:57
• Abortion, Libertarian Socialism: 117:51
• Biggest Political Issues: 124:15
• Closing, Philosophy in Schools: 138:26

Tone and Atmosphere

The debate is robust but civil, with occasional teasing and irony. Charlie and Vaush find a few surprising areas of agreement (such as class-based instead of race-based reparations, skepticism toward Big Pharma, and the virtue of work), though core differences remain stark, particularly on the role of the state, national narrative, activism, and how to handle America’s legacy issues. Tim Pool plays the moderator, often clarifying, injecting data, and helping translate/join ideas from both guests. The discussion purposefully avoids devolving into a shouting match and instead models how major ideological differences can be explored productively.

For Listeners:

Whether you’re progressive, conservative, or something else entirely, this episode is an excellent model of high-level civil discourse—covering many of the core issues animating American politics in 2021. The hosts disagree substantively on most matters, but by maintaining respect and seeking clarity, they offer a template for how to debate “with someone whom you completely disagree.”