Charlie Debate Throwback: Charlie on the Bible

Summary

---

The Charlie Kirk Show

Episode: Charlie Debate Throwback: Charlie on the Bible

Date: February 28, 2026
Host: Charlie Kirk

---

Brief Overview

In this episode, Charlie Kirk fields live questions and debates from students and audience members, centering on the role of the Bible and faith in America’s political and cultural divides. Kirk addresses hot-button topics including immigration, abortion, objective morality, and the interplay between Christianity and America’s founding, defending his unapologetically conservative, Bible-based viewpoint. Through exchanges with pro-immigration advocates, pro-choice Christians, and atheists, Kirk critiques secular approaches to morality and defends traditional Christian interpretations and values.

---

Key Discussion Points, Insights & Memorable Moments

---

1. Immigration, Scripture, and National Policy

Timestamps: 01:09 – 09:04

Student Question (Immigration Supporter)

• Cites biblical references (Matthew 2:13-15) connecting the plight of immigrants to Jesus’s flight to Egypt.
• Shares personal family experience: parents emigrated legally, but laments slow bureaucracy and expresses sympathy for those fleeing existential threats.
• Critiques Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy as cruel and inhumane.

Charlie's Response

• Scripture Nuance:

  "Jesus actually didn't emigrate. He stayed within the confines of the Roman Empire because Egypt was actually under Roman jurisdiction." (02:08)

• Law and Order:
  Emphasizes distinction between legal and illegal immigration, equates illegal entry and working under a stolen social security number to theft:

  “They stole an American Social Security number to be able to work here, which drives down wages…We should not reward line cutters or border jumpers.” (02:46)

• Empathy vs. Policy:
  Pushes back against emotional arguments, posing analogies:

  “Is there ever a legitimate reason…to commit a crime?” (04:35)

• National Interest:
  Opposes expanding immigration bureaucracies and suggests a 10-year immigration moratorium to allow assimilation and relieve strain on social services:

  “California is a cluttered state with social services that are being strained. And we need a pause on all immigration, in my opinion, to metaphorically digest the major meal that we just ate.” (07:36)

Memorable Exchange

• On morality and law:

  “They're all criminals if they came illegally. That's the distinction. By definition, they're breaking federal law…” (05:05 – Charlie Kirk)

• On the American dream:

  “Praise God. That is the American dream.” (09:01 – Charlie Kirk)

---

2. Abortion, the Bible, and Medical Ethics

Timestamps: 10:22 – 19:32

Debate with Pro-choice Christian Student

• Student references Exodus 21:22-25, interpreting it as support for pro-choice views if a miscarriage occurs through external violence.
• Raises hypothetical scenarios where a mother’s life is endangered by pregnancy.

Charlie's Response

• Scriptural Counterpoints:

  “Do you think we are bound to all 613 levitical laws?”
  Discusses Old vs. New Covenant, ceremonial, civil, and moral laws. Argues that Christians are bound to moral, not ceremonial/civil laws.
  “Paul authored in the book of Colossians...The ordinances of Moses are nailed to the cross.” (15:17)

• Sanctity of Life:
  Draws on Luke 1 (“John the Baptist leapt in the womb”), Jeremiah (“I knew you before you were in the womb”), and Psalm 139:

  "Isn't it a baby, then, worthy of protection if they're leaping?” (16:08)

• Medical Rarity:
  Denies that abortions to save the mother’s life are common. Proposes C-sections as safer alternatives:

  “It's much safer than an abortion and quicker.” (17:08)

• Morality and Probability:
  Refuses to base life-or-death decisions on probabilities:

  “You don't terminate a life based on a probability of survival.” (18:42)

• Philosophical Framework:
  Introduces "no more and not yet" as categories for end-of-life and abortion debates.

Notable Quotes

• “Do you eat kosher?” (Challenge on Old Testament law) (14:46)
• “We don't do morals on probability.” (18:35)
• “No more and not yet…When a human being is at not yet, which they are in the womb, you must do everything you can to make sure they get life.” (19:04)

---

3. Morality Without God: Can Atheists Be Conservative Allies?

Timestamps: 20:35 – 28:20

Atheist Questioner’s Challenge

• Asks if atheists are welcome in conservative activism.
• Declares himself a “moral subjectivist,” challenges Charlie on objective morality and historical atrocities.

Charlie’s Core Arguments

• Objective vs. Subjective Morality:

  “You cannot be an atheist and believe in objective morality. It is an impossibility.” (20:58) “When you butcher 6 million people, that is objectively wrong no matter what.” (22:58)

• Atheists as Allies:
  Willing to partner with atheists for common goals, but insists secular morality is ultimately preference, not truth.
• Founders and Faith:
  Rejects notion that America is a secular nation:

  “55 out of 56 of the signers of the Declaration were Bible believing church attending Christians…God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence.” (25:56)

• Historical Precedent:
  Contrasts U.S. founding (Christian underpinnings) with French Revolution (explicitly atheist, disastrous outcome).

Notable Quotes

• “If you do not have truth, then power will reign…”
• “I will never acknowledge that atheists can tell me what is objectively good. They can only give me a preference.” (25:22)

---

4. Truth, Evidence, and the Existence of God

Timestamps: 29:27 – 36:09

Atheist/Philosophy Student Engagements

• Debaters challenge Charlie on the existence and nature of absolute truth.
• Suggest truth can be pragmatic or instrumental, not objective.
• Requests evidence for objective morality; challenges Kalam Cosmological Argument and the evidence for biblical accounts.

Charlie’s Counterpoints

• Self-evidence and Reason:
  Repeatedly appeals to “self-evident” truths and the natural law tradition as evidence for God and objective morality:

  “It's in your reason that God gave you. And the consciousness proves that God gave it to me.” (33:02)

• Morality is Revealed and Reasoned:

  “Morality is both reason and revelation. And it's built within to us that murder is wrong.” (31:42)

• Burden of Proof:
  Attempts reversals—if atheists believe in consciousness and abstract concepts, why dismiss God’s existence?
• Historical Jesus:
  Pushes the historicity of Jesus and martyrdom of the disciples as supporting evidence for the resurrection’s truth.

  “Why would the disciples lie about the resurrection of Christ?” (35:09)

Highlighted Exchanges

• On objective wrongs:

  “I come from a worldview that when you butcher 6 million people, that is objectively wrong no matter what.” (22:58)

• On disciples’ martyrdom:

  “So they would be mistakenly wrong up to the point where they get martyred?” (35:19)

  “I just want to make sure I understand your position…all of them together as a conspiracy?” (35:30)

Memorable Back-and-Forths

• “Notice who here is relying on feelings and not facts?” (31:28 – Atheist Debater)
• “Interrupting does not make you right.” (33:18 – Charlie Kirk)
• “I can tell by your behavior…I hope you give your life to Jesus Christ.” (34:29 – Charlie Kirk)
• “You know what's interesting? There is evidence. There is evidence that Jesus…” (34:48 – Charlie Kirk)

---

Selected Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|---------| | 01:09 – 09:04 | Immigration debate: legality, morality, and the American dream| | 10:22 – 19:32 | Abortion, scripture, medical ethics, and moral philosophy| | 20:35 – 28:20 | Can atheists be part of the conservative movement? Objective vs. subjective morality, U.S. founding| | 29:27 – 36:09 | Atheist debates: truth, nature of morality, arguments for God, historical Jesus|

---

Final Thoughts

Throughout the episode, Charlie Kirk fiercely defends a worldview grounded in traditional Christian morality and the primacy of biblical truth, challenging both secular progressives and religious liberals. His tone is combative but calculated, weaving scripture, philosophy, and American history into his arguments—frequently directing listeners to “seek truth” and encouraging activism aligned with conservative and Christian causes.

---

For listeners new to the episode:

• Expect high-energy, rapid-fire debates tackling the intersection of faith and politics.
• Charlie Kirk’s view: America must remain anchored in Christian morality—without it, society is adrift.
• Memorable exchanges put essential questions about law, justice, and morality under the microscope, with Kirk consistently steering discussion back to biblical authority and traditional values.

Transcript

[Charlie Kirk]

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord. Use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. The Charlie Kirk show is probably proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers.

[Immigration Supporter]

So my stance today is on immigration. I think that immigration contributes a lot to America. So my parents did come here legally, and they right now are in the process again, and it takes a long time. No, they came here legally. Like they came with their visa and now they're renewing it. And it's a different process, process right now.

[Abortion Debater]

But.

[Immigration Supporter]

So I'm really religious. I'm Catholic. My parents grew me up that way. And in Matthew 2, 13:15, it talks about how Jesus had to flee Nazareth or, no, Bethlehem, sorry. He had to flee because someone was going to die and they were looking to kill him and he had to flee his own country and leave everything behind because an angel spoke to Mary and Joseph that they should leave. So a lot of people do that. That's why they immigrate to the United States. A lot of people have to leave everything behind because not everyone just wants to pack up all the things and leave right now. I personally would hate if I had to sell my car, my house, leave my parents, leave my friends, and leave everyone. So I just want to know what your stance is on that. Just because in the Bible it talks about that.

[Charlie Kirk]

Right? So first of all, Jesus actually didn't emigrate. He stayed within the confines of the Roman Empire because Egypt was actually under Roman jurisdiction. That's a separate point. But there are plenty of verses that says, you should welcome the stranger. And so I will grant you that. I guess the first point, the first point I would have to ask is, should immigration always benefit the home country?

[Immigration Supporter]

I think so, yes. And that is One thing that I looked into. So there are immigrants right now working here. Correct. And they get some of their paycheck cut off. Right. Because of Social Security and all those benefits, but they don't get those benefits because they're illegal immigrants.

[Charlie Kirk]

Legal or illegal immigrants. That distinction is very important.

[Immigration Supporter]

Illegal. You don't get those benefits.

[Charlie Kirk]

So let's just be clear. If they have a Social Security number, how'd they get that the right way? They stole it. You don't get a. You don't get a Social Security number as an illegal, period. It does not happen. They stole it, so that's an act of theft. So they stole an American Social Security number to be able to work here, which drives down wages, which drives down opportunity costs. But even beyond that, we just have to look at their action. They were not invited to come to this country. They broke in line. They caught in line. And we should not reward line cutters or border jumpers. We should reward people like your parents that actually came here legally to this country.

[Immigration Supporter]

Yeah, I understand that point. I really do. But sometimes people generally need to leave their country because in, like, my mother's case, for instance, there was like a terrorist attack on my family. And that's the reason my mom had to come. And thankfully she did get it immediately. But now I've heard of so many stories where people have to wait, like 10 years, 20 years, even 30 years. Like, my grandma right now is trying to get the process, and thankfully she is now, but it's taken her about 10 years now, and she makes enough money in her country and she just wants to come here as a tourist. That's the main reason. And I do understand that. I think that my main point is that how we should implement more money into the immigration system, because Trump's zero tolerance policy, that just felt cruel because there's a lot of people here that are doing well, and zero tolerance, they just have to leave the country. I feel like that was inhumane of him.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, but it's not their country, though. And that's the. So let me just. Here's. If I went to Mexico without being invited or allowed, and I took a job and the Mexican government found out, what would the Mexican government do to me? I'm not sure they would send me back to America.

[Immigration Supporter]

And why was the reason you left the US First?

[Charlie Kirk]

So reason. That's an interesting thing. Is there ever a legitimate reason, in your opinion, to commit a crime?

[Immigration Supporter]

No.

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, then the reason doesn't matter, because under that say, so, let's. Can you Rob a bank because you wish you had more money?

[Immigration Supporter]

No, you work harder.

[Charlie Kirk]

Then why doesn't that moral standard apply to immigration?

[Immigration Supporter]

Because the system isn't doing its job. That's why I think we should implement more money. Because there is some people like. I do get it, you know, some people come here and then I do admit. So some of them commit crime, but not all of them.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, no, but they're all criminals if they came illegally. That's the distinction. By definition, they're breaking federal law. 8 USC 1312. Just their presence here is against the law. Would you be okay welcoming in 500 million people into America?

[Immigration Supporter]

That's why we should implement the system to understand each case.

[Charlie Kirk]

Do you think 500 million people would be too many people?

[Immigration Supporter]

500 million. I don't even think that would fit the United States.

[Charlie Kirk]

I agree. And that's the point, is that if everyone all of a sudden declared that their life was in danger, we'd have to let in, like, all, all of Nicaragua, all of Honduras, almost all of Venezuela. The standard all of a sudden starts falling apart and we find that people lie about this, they deceive it. Here's my perspective. Why don't we try to empower those people to make the countries they're coming from greater and stronger, else this problem will actually never be fixed at the root level. Does that make sense?

[Immigration Supporter]

It does make sense, and I wish it was that easy. So, for instance, I am part Peruvian, and in Peru, so they were having a presidential election, and the president who was going to win was better for the country and would help out a lot more. But since it's corrupt, they made the other president win. They sent him death threats, nearly almost killed him. He had to fake his death and leave. And they jailed her. They jailed her completely. And they let the guy win. That is why it's corrupt. It's hard to fix a country when there's no help towards it. So Peru was. They were rooting for the good president. They were rooting to build their system back up. But the other president, it was rigged. It was completely rigged.

[Charlie Kirk]

So does it make it better or worse if millions of people leave that country for Peru?

[Immigration Supporter]

Can you, like, what do you mean

[Charlie Kirk]

by if 3 million people left Peru? Does Peru get greater or weaker? Stronger or weaker?

[Immigration Supporter]

Neither. I mean, it's in a weak state right now.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, it's pretty obvious. I'm trying to even say that mass immigration is bad for everybody. It's bad for America, and it's bad for the country that people are Leaving from. The only difference is that they send back American money through remittances that actually subsidize this entire thing. Let me ask one final question. If somebody comes into America without invitation and they are illegal, what do you think the penalty should be?

[Immigration Supporter]

I think it's humane to look at their case and why they had to leave everything they've ever known.

[Charlie Kirk]

We believe that we should send them back to their country of origin.

[Immigration Supporter]

I just want to make one more final point. So I do understand that. But my final point is that do you agree that we should implement more money to the immigration system?

[Charlie Kirk]

No. I think we should have no immigrants in the country for the next 10 years. We have way too many people in this country. And I'll prove it to you here in California. Your hospitals are overrun, your schools are overrun. Do you guys agree that you have a crowded state right now? We are a. California is a cluttered state with social services that are being strained. And we need a pause on all immigration, in my opinion, to metaphorically digest the major meal that we just ate. Or else we are going to have a major, major assimilation problem, cultural problem, cohesion problem, all sorts of issues. And I know this is a provocative thing to say, but immigration is something that you use as a way to benefit the homeland. You don't have to have immigration.

[Immigration Supporter]

But just as an example, my parents came here, like I said, legally zero dollars. And they have benefited so much the country, they have made so much like hundreds and thousands dollars.

[Charlie Kirk]

Praise God. That's the American dream.

[Immigration Supporter]

It is. And it's just like a hard thing to do.

[Charlie Kirk]

And I want American born young people from UC Riverside to also have that American dream and not have to compete against foreigners for that. Thank you for your time.

[Immigration Supporter]

Can I say one point?

[Charlie Kirk]

We have a long line. Thank you.

[Immigration Supporter]

Really quick though.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay. Again, what is it? Yeah, sorry.

[Immigration Supporter]

Okay. I understand the American dream is hard. My parents, My mom was pregnant, working two jobs one day and she sacrificed everything and now she has more money than the average American.

[Charlie Kirk]

Praise God. That is the American dream. Thank you very much.

[Immigration Supporter]

It's hard work.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Imagine being a young woman, just finding out that you're pregnant, not knowing where to go or what to do. Not even knowing exactly what is going on in your body while the whole world tells her it's just a clump of cells. You and I, we both know the truth. We know it is a baby. And once she has an ultrasound that you provide and she sees the truth of the baby growing inside of her, you help her choose life. When you join us in providing ultrasounds with preborn and she sees her baby and hears her baby's heartbeat, you will double the likelihood that she will choose life. And 100% of what you give goes to providing ultrasounds. 100% preborn separately. Fundraises for administrative costs. $280 can save 10 babies. $28 a month can save a baby a month all year long. And a $15,000 gift. I know there's some of you out there that can afford this $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come. Call 833-850-2229 or click on the Preborn Banner at charliekirk.com today. Again, that's 833-850-2229 or click on the Preborn Banner at CharlieKirk.com

[Abortion Debater]

I want to talk about the debate of abortion. So I know that it's something very controversial. Some people are pro choice, some people are pro life. Before I start, I want to make sure that I understand your opinion fully. So I don't take, you know, what I've heard online. What is your stance on abortion?

[Charlie Kirk]

Life begins at conception.

[Abortion Debater]

Okay, so where do you so conception? So is that when sperm enters the egg? Is that during.

[Charlie Kirk]

When new DNA is formed?

[Abortion Debater]

Okay, when new DNA is formed. So the egg by itself you don't think is anything, Sorry, the egg of a woman by itself, do you think it's egg?

[Charlie Kirk]

It's something, but it's not a life.

[Abortion Debater]

Correct. Okay, that's okay. So my question is when you talk about abortion and why you think you so why you support it? Why you don't support it? Sorry, why you don't support it, what do you use as your evidence? You use scientific evidence? Do you talk about the Bible?

[Charlie Kirk]

Do you use both mainly self scientific and self evident reason?

[Abortion Debater]

Okay, so are you someone who's a follower of the Bible?

[Charlie Kirk]

I am, but that's not relevant to this discussion. But we could talk about it if you'd like to.

[Abortion Debater]

I find irrelevant because when I'm going to talk about abortion, there's, there's quotes in the Bible that I think support pro choice in my opinion. Bible, Exodus, Exodus 21, 22, 25 when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her child come out so miscarriage, but there is no harm to the woman, the one who hit her shall surely be fined as the woman's husband shall impose on him and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if There is harm to the woman. You shall pay life for life, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So I know that that can be interpreted different ways. The Bible is interpreted many ways. Different. There's different types, different interpretations. But this says if a person causes a miscarriage through a woman, that they will pay for the abortion. So they. They will pay. Another one will punish them.

[Charlie Kirk]

That is not what this law says. But let me just ask, are you a Christian?

[Abortion Debater]

Yes.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, then continue. So. So do you believe in the inerrant word of God?

[Abortion Debater]

Yes.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, good.

[Abortion Debater]

Yes. So it says that as the woman's husband shall impose on him and he shall pay as the judges determine. So the judge is determined and it's talking about the husband. So therefore it's talking about a person, not God himself, not his judgment. So it's saying if someone has an abortion, we have the right to choose what to do to them. Right?

[Charlie Kirk]

Didn't you say it was a miscarriage, not an abortion?

[Abortion Debater]

It says when man strive together and hit a pregnant woman. So that's causing her to lose the baby. That's outside cause. Outside cause. Therefore it could mean abortion. Because some people find that aggressive abortion is through violence, some such as hitting, because not everyone has access to medical.

[Charlie Kirk]

Was it the intent for them to kill the baby?

[Abortion Debater]

It's unclarified, so that I cannot tell you. However, what I will say is that it says that it's. The judges determine, the husband determines. So God's not making the choice for us what to do with the person who does that to someone's child, does that to their own child. But it does say that if the woman is harmed, her herself, not the child, then they are liable by God, their life for her life, their foot for her foot. So what I'm saying is if somebody needs an abortion for health care, let's say a woman's baby's not going to make it. And if the baby stays in her womb, she will die. And they refuse her an abortion. They refuse her that health care and she dies. Should the doctor be liable under God,

[Charlie Kirk]

first of all, this. Those instances don't happen. So let's just be clear. No, see, you guys are so propagandized by this. That only happens in a very rare case of the breaking of the uterus.

[Abortion Debater]

So it does happen, but.

[Charlie Kirk]

No but where the baby is already dead. And that's what the point is, that the baby is already dead. That's a removal of a carcass of a baby. No abortion. That's Incorrect. No, it's not. No, it's not. A removal of a carcass of a baby is not an abortion. Those are two. Two technically different things. It is not a D and E. It is not a D. And E is something completely different. But then, if you want to talk about Scripture, do you think we are bound to all 613 levitical laws?

[Abortion Debater]

Yes. If you're a follower of the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow.

[Charlie Kirk]

Oh, so do you eat kosher?

[Abortion Debater]

You cannot.

[Charlie Kirk]

Do you eat kosher?

[Abortion Debater]

No.

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, I thought you were bound to all 613 laws.

[Abortion Debater]

I'm not perfect. I'm sinner. Everyone here is a sinner.

[Charlie Kirk]

But if are we bound to it, do you think Christians should eat kosher

[Abortion Debater]

to follow the Bible? You cannot pick and choose what you.

[Charlie Kirk]

Of course, but we do believe in a new covenant, Old covenant. So there's three types of Old Testament laws, right? There's ceremonial. They're civil and moral. So ceremonial laws, we do not honor civil, we consider moral. We absolutely.

[Abortion Debater]

Why do humans decide what to follow in God's Word?

[Charlie Kirk]

Because Christ actually, it's not us, it's not humans. So Paul actually authored in the book of Colossians.

[Abortion Debater]

That's a human right.

[Charlie Kirk]

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, which wrote the Bible. The ordinances of Moses are nailed to the cross. Secondly, Christ our Lord repeated nine out of ten of the nine out of ten of the ten Commandments. And he said, all the laws of the prophet hang upon the two teachings of Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 6. But now I equally have to challenge you with scripture. In Luke 1, when Elizabeth came in contact with Mary and both were babies, what did it say that John the Baptist did?

[Abortion Debater]

I cannot tell you that he leapt. Okay.

[Charlie Kirk]

Do non babies leap?

[Abortion Debater]

I don't understand the question. I'm gonna be honest.

[Charlie Kirk]

Isn't it a baby, then, worthy of protection if they're leaping?

[Abortion Debater]

I suppose, yes.

[Charlie Kirk]

And it was the Greek word breast, which literally means baby, intentionally used throughout. Hold on. In Jeremiah, it says, I knew you before you were in the womb. In Psalm, I think, 139, it's one of the most intricate verses about the detail of our formation process as human beings. And finally, because of science, because of biology, we know that human life begins at that spark of new DNA. And God says, do not murder. And it's incumbent on Christians to therefore protect that life.

[Abortion Debater]

Okay, so my. My biggest question is, I'm not saying that all abortion is valid. I feel like that's up for everyone to do. Decide. But in the most, even if it's very small percentage, in the very small percentage that a baby is alive, but it has to be aborted for the sake of the mother. What do you think?

[Charlie Kirk]

C section. What is a C section?

[Abortion Debater]

A C section is when you cut a mother's.

[Charlie Kirk]

Why don't they do that instead of the abortion?

[Abortion Debater]

Because it could be equally as dangerous.

[Charlie Kirk]

Wrong. It's much safer than an abortion and quicker.

[Abortion Debater]

Do you have evidence?

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, yes, it's, it's, it's self evident.

[Abortion Debater]

Can you tell me?

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, again, I. There's plenty of people, he has plenty of people that are in medicine can tell you. But like to be very clear, think about it. Every hospital is equipped to do C sections. You have to go to a specific place for an abortion and a C section, one third out of everyone in this audience was born by C section. C sections save lives. They do not terminate lives. And so when they say we must abort the baby, thanks to modern technology, that's actually a false term. You could take the baby out of the environment and try to save its life as a cesarean section.

[Abortion Debater]

What if when the C section happens, the baby's not able to survive on its own no matter what?

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, well then that's a separate circumstance. It's like saying if the baby has a heart attack after the C section, that's not a reason not to terminate it.

[Abortion Debater]

What do you mean?

[Charlie Kirk]

If you have to give everybody a chance at life, you don't kill the baby in the womb just because you think that it's going to. Well, it could hurt the mother. You take it out of that environment.

[Abortion Debater]

Okay, but what I'm saying is if they take the baby out and they know it's not going to survive regardless.

[Charlie Kirk]

How do I know that? Post 22 weeks, you don't know that. There's miracles that happen every day in the neonatal. In the neo. Hold on. In the neonatal intensive care unit. There's miracles that happen every day in NICU's.

[Abortion Debater]

And I agree, there's definitely. They don't know 100% for sure, but there's definitely probability through science, through biology that they know, hey, this is not more likely going to happen.

[Charlie Kirk]

We don't do morals on probability.

[Abortion Debater]

I'm not saying it's morality. I'm saying probability of a baby is

[Charlie Kirk]

going to survive or doesn't matter. You don't terminate a life based on a probability of survival. Oh, you do. Interesting. You guys, you guys murder people based on probability of survival. Interesting. So Somebody on a ventilator should just be murdered. I mean, it's such incredible morality.

[Abortion Debater]

Would you keep someone on a ventilator for the next tired of everything else then?

[Charlie Kirk]

It depends. There's two different things. There's no more and not yet. Once you reach the level of no more human, human interventions can improve this person's life or bring them back to a full life. That is a separate moral decision. Then not yet. When a human being is at not yet which they are in the womb, you must do everything you can to make sure they get life. When a human being is at no more, it's a completely separate moral dimension and decision to make. No more and not yet are the ways to look at pro life decision. That makes sense.

[Abortion Debater]

Yes, that makes sense. Well, thank you for debating with me.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you very much.

[Abortion Debater]

Agree to disagree.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Hi folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Yrefi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why Refi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

[Atheist Questioner]

I have a friend named Thomas Sheedy. He is the founder of an organization called Atheists for Liberty. He is openly conservative, but he's mostly interested in atheist activism and normalizing atheism in all sex, including the conservative movement. He seems to be under the impression that a lot of conservatives, including you, are more hesitant to work with atheist organizations. Is there any truth to that?

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes and no. I mean, if you're an atheist and you want to be part of the conservative movement, go ahead. But you must be an honest atheist and acknowledge that morality is definitionally subjective without a belief in God. You cannot be an atheist and believe in objective morality. It is an impossibility. And true atheists will acknowledge this at some point. You have an ought claim. Well, things ought to be a certain way. We as Christians or we that believe in the divine, we have is claims that murder is wrong. Whereas an atheist will say, well, murder ought to be wrong because you can't have an objective definition if there is not a divine eternal power over you. So look, if an atheist wants to fight alongside of us to end abortion or to try and end the massacring of our kids, that's called gender affirming care. If an atheist wants to march alongside of us to say no men in female sports, they're more than welcome to be able to do that. But atheists for liberty is an interesting phrase because I don't believe you can have liberty without God, because liberty is not man's idea, it is God's idea. That's just my own personal belief and it's also the belief of everything that built this nation. But yes, I know a lot of good atheists. The question though is how do you know they're good? It's because you're appealing to a moral authority above just the secular material realm, one that is transcendent, we would believe, given by God.

[Atheist Questioner]

Well, I don't believe in objective morality. I do know there are plenty of atheists who are moral objectivists.

[Charlie Kirk]

Are you an atheist? Sorry to interrupt, but.

[Atheist Questioner]

Oh, yeah, yeah.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, cool. So let me just. Can I ask you a question? And I don't mean I know this is your first time at the mic, so I'm just gonna try to be tender in doing this. So you don't believe in objective morality, right?

[Atheist Questioner]

I personally don't.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay. Was the Holocaust objectively wrong?

[Atheist Questioner]

Objectively, no. But it had been better if it didn't happen because most people wouldn't want that to happen.

[Charlie Kirk]

So that's, that's where we. That's where we are on different planets. And that's. Okay. I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm trying to be graceful in the way that we're going about this. Do you think Hitler was objectively evil?

[Atheist Questioner]

No, because it's subjective.

[Charlie Kirk]

But I just hope all of you guys understand he's being an honest atheist to your credit, because as an atheist, you're not allowed to say anything is objectively right or wrong. I come from a worldview that when you butcher 6 million people, that is objectively wrong no matter what. And, and it's very important. It's a very important truth claim because when you do not have objective truth anchoring your society, then it becomes a power struggle. If you do not have truth, then power will reign. Whoever can get the most amount of power then ends up having the most amount of say over society. We believe what is objectively right, true, good and beautiful should be transcendent over society. Your thoughts.

[Atheist Questioner]

So do you believe objective morality specifically comes from the Bible?

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes and no. It's also, it's in nature and the Bible explains nature. So objective morality can be discovered in many different cultures and societies, pointing towards what we believe is the ultimate objective truth, Jesus Christ. C.S. lewis explained this the best in his book Abolition of Man, which is that almost every religion talks about a certain way to live, a dao or a path that we should be on. And so more simply than just the Bible, we believe in what the founders believed, which is an ethical monotheism, that there is one God. He has a general way that he wants you to live. For example, murdering is bad, kidnapping is wrong. Defense of the innocent. And we should do our best to try to live alongside of that path.

[Atheist Questioner]

Okay, well I think those are very interesting examples. You bring up the founders, you bring up Hitler, but Hitler was a self proclaimed Catholic and he called Nazism a Christian movement.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, I would be careful saying that. He was. He was not. That's okay.

[Atheist Questioner]

He called himself a Catholic. He said, he specifically said in 1927, Our movement as Christian, they had on the belt buckles, got on our side, yet they swear to the almighty God. Atheists were not trusted to be in the ss.

[Charlie Kirk]

Even if I grant you that despite the fact that he killed a lot of pastors and priests and there, of course you can pervert things in the name of God. No one denounces that. Just as a side note though, far more people died under the banner of atheism than Christianity in the 20th century. Mao was an atheist, Stalin was an atheist, Pol Pot was an atheist. Believing in no God actually led to the destruction and the murder of well over 100 million people. And that's fine. So again, if atheists want to come alongside us as conservatives and fight for what is good, that is great. But I will never acknowledge that atheists can tell me what is objectively good. They can only give me a preference. They cannot tell me what is right and preferences eventually will lead you towards moral and societal decline.

[Atheist Questioner]

Okay, so I think you just listed a bunch of communists. And it's worth acknowledging the vast majority of atheists are not communists, just like the vast majority of Christians are not theocrats who don't support the divine right. It's also worth acknowledging that the Founders were actually inspired by Enlightenment values, not by the Bible. America was founded as a secular nation. We were the first, quote unquote, godless Constitution.

[Charlie Kirk]

Again, I've done this so many times, so I don't know if we want to waste our time doing this, but 55 out of 56 of the signers of the Declaration were Bible believing church attending Christians. 9 out of 13 of the states at the time of ratification require a Declaration of Faith in order for you to serve in the States. We were. Our birth certificate, which is the Mayflower Compact said explicitly we are here to spread Christianity throughout the land. It was the first great revival that led to to the American Revolution of Jonathan Edwards and Jonathan Mayhew and George Whitfield that preached all across the eastern seaboard. John Adams famously said, the Constitution is written solely for a moral and religious people. It's wholly inadequate for the people of any other. We were a Christian nation that was able to embrace the idea of a free society. God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence. Not only that, Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence where it says we appeal to the divine judge of the universe, which of course is a direct appeal to Jesus. In the Book of Revelation. He yes, there were rationalist Enlightenment values that informed some of the founders, but it irrefutably was a Christian nation. Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania was Quaker. Almost every state had their own specific type of Christian preference. The idea of an atheist or not believing in any God was an idea that was so foreign to the Founders. Even Thomas Jefferson, the great deist, he revered the Bible, albeit with some significant edits. However, the idea of believing in no cosmological or no axiological or no teleological or no ontological being would be a concept that our founding fathers and not just find foreign. They would find it extraordinarily dangerous. Why? Because the French Revolution was happening simultaneously as the American Revolution which was explicitly atheist. They, they actually recreated their own gods. And had they said we are going to appeal to what? The God of Reason. And this is my final contention is that when I talk to atheists, the French Revolution is a great example. They literally tried to change the Gregorian calendar to a 10 day week. They went and imprisoned people of faith, they put priests in jail, all these different sorts of things. They said we are going to appeal to the God of reason. Well, how did that work out? It worked out with the guillotine and the slaughter of tens of thousands of People, the French Revolution was one of the greatest disasters in human recorded history. Contrast that with the American Revolution. Why did the American Revolution create the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world? And the French Revolution resulted in a lot of blood and even the killing of their own once leader, Maximilian Robespierre. Air it's because we were anchored on Christian ideas. If you are not anchored on Christian ideas, then don't be surprised. And all of a sudden there is no fruit to the harvest that you're trying to create.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. Leadership begins with learning. He didn't chase a diploma or a title. He chased truth through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He studied the great works of the classics, the principles of the American founding, and the life changing truths of the Bible. Those ideas didn't just inform him. They shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead. One of the courses he took was the Genesis Story. Taught by Hillsdale professor Dr. Justin Jackson. This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation. It's a real college course, rigorous, thoughtful and accessible to anyone willing to learn. You can take the very same course completely free. Grow stronger in your faith. Gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world. Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll today. That's charlieforhillsdale.Com Learn deeply. Lead boldly. Carry.

[Atheist Debater]

I'm an atheist, so I disagree with your religious claims.

[Charlie Kirk]

Do you believe in absolute truth?

[Atheist Debater]

I'm not sure. You can provide me just positive evidence that there is absolute truth. So the answer would be, I'm not sure.

[Charlie Kirk]

Are you? Are you absolutely not sure?

[Atheist Debater]

I'm not sure if I'm absolutely not sure. See, this works if you say no, but it doesn't work if you bottom out in the I'm not, I don't know question, right?

[Charlie Kirk]

No, but saying you're not sure, you are not even sure if you're not sure. So at some point you just always have to make a truth claim.

[Atheist Debater]

Yeah, no, you can just be not sure about everything all the way down. I don't see why you can't. And my answer would be, I think truth is instrumentalist in theory. I think it's a thing we choose pragmatically for the purposes of discussion, I think you can say, yeah, I think truth exists pragmatically. Regardless of that, I don't see how you get to God.

[Charlie Kirk]

Are you Alive.

[Abortion Debater]

Huh?

[Charlie Kirk]

Are you alive?

[Atheist Debater]

I think I'm alive, yeah.

[Charlie Kirk]

Think you're alive, yeah. Is the sun. Is the sun shining?

[Atheist Debater]

I think it's shining, yeah. From my frame of reference, it is shining. Notice how none of this.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, so.

[Atheist Debater]

Notice how you've gotten no steps closer to proving God.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, I'm asking questions, man.

[Atheist Debater]

Okay.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, but are you sure we did it?

[Atheist Debater]

Yeah.

[Charlie Kirk]

Are you sure we.

[Atheist Debater]

I'm sure in the practice of God. I'm pray, I'm sure. In the pragmatic instrument.

[Charlie Kirk]

How sure are you that we did it?

[Atheist Debater]

In the pragmatic instrumentalist sense? Absolutely sure. I see truth as a utility. So there is a truth that's absolute. No, it's. It's instrumentally. You just said it was absolute. No, absolutely sure. In the instrumentalist sense of the word truth. This is a philosophical tradition that dates back hundreds of years. Instrumentalism.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah. Which of course, we don't subscribe to, obviously. So do you believe that murder is objectively wrong?

[Atheist Debater]

Epistemologically objective or ontologically objective?

[Charlie Kirk]

Morally.

[Atheist Debater]

See, you didn't answer the question. But both.

[Charlie Kirk]

Both epistemologically and ontologically, but for the purpose of discussion.

[Atheist Debater]

Okay, so by what you mean. No, I don't think it's objective.

[Charlie Kirk]

Was Hitler a bad person? Objectively, no.

[Atheist Debater]

If you mean by. By the way. By the way.

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, no, but he's being honest at its core. Atheists cannot.

[Atheist Debater]

Wait, can I make the claim now? Notice who here is relying on feelings and not facts? Your argument is I feel that Hitler was objective.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, I know.

[Atheist Debater]

No, no, you feel that way. Can you provide me evidence of how you know? Can you provide me evidence that morality is objective?

[Charlie Kirk]

No, of course I can, because. Well, first of all, morality is both reason and revelation. And it's built within to us that murder is wrong. Yeah.

[Atheist Debater]

Okay, where's the evidence of that? Wait, wait, I'm so sorry, Is that. That's a claim, not evidence. That's a claim.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay. We could. We could spend multiple hours, but in the western tradition, so notice how you're

[Atheist Debater]

saying by tradition, by standards. I just want all claims of non truth value.

[Charlie Kirk]

Hold on. Yes, they are. We believe that truth was revealed to us. We believe claim by God. Hold on, but let me, Let me. We can get there. You can keep on interrupting us. Okay, but let me prove to you how silly your viewpoint is.

[Atheist Debater]

Okay.

[Charlie Kirk]

And how self evidently wrong.

[Atheist Debater]

Okay.

[Charlie Kirk]

Is it objectively wrong to kids when you say objective?

[Atheist Debater]

What I mean by objective? Once again. Once again.

[Charlie Kirk]

Dude, can I ask you something?

[Atheist Debater]

No, no.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Notice How?

[Atheist Debater]

You still haven't given me dispositive evidence and Morales, Objective. You're merely saying. My answer is I feel that way. Sure, I feel that way.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's all. I can object, it's objectively wrong to the laws of nature.

[Atheist Debater]

What law of nature?

[Charlie Kirk]

What? The self evident nature of existence.

[Atheist Debater]

Where is your proof that itself. Show me the logical proof that it's self evident.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay. It's in your reason that God gave you. And the consciousness proves that God gave it to me.

[Atheist Debater]

Prove that God gave it to me.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, but again, your existence is proof of that. You. You're you again. We can get back down to the first principles of this, but.

[Atheist Debater]

We can. But you don't want to because, you know, it doesn't look good.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, it looks actually really good because

[Atheist Debater]

there's evidence for it built within.

[Charlie Kirk]

Again, interrupting does not make you right.

[Atheist Debater]

So you keep repeating your point. I get your.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, I don't. So let me ask you a question in closing. Since you can't objectively say that Hitler was bad or that child is wrong, so how did the universe come into existence?

[Atheist Debater]

I don't know.

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, but science says that it was a big bang or a beginning point, right? Okay, so using logic, which you believe

[Atheist Debater]

in, is the kalam cosmological argument.

[Charlie Kirk]

Hold on again, you keep interrupting. Using. Using logic. If space, time and matter had a starting point, then logically shouldn't something outside of space, time and matter have started those things?

[Atheist Debater]

How do you know that cause is personal? How do you know that cause is worth praying to?

[Charlie Kirk]

How do you. That's not the question.

[Atheist Debater]

Wait, wait. Okay, sure, there is a cause.

[Charlie Kirk]

Oh, that caus cause is God because it's outside of space.

[Atheist Debater]

Wait, no, no, no. But by definition you believe in different things about God. You think that God is personal.

[Charlie Kirk]

Ah, that's not. That's not. We're debating.

[Atheist Debater]

No, we are arguing about God. We're arguing about Christianity. Yeah, religion.

[Charlie Kirk]

Hold on. No, we're not debating it. We're debating whether or not there's a God or not.

[Atheist Debater]

No, the Christian God. I said religion. That you're a religious person, you're a Christian in nature, you follow religious tradition.

[Charlie Kirk]

Calm down. You said you're an atheist.

[Atheist Debater]

Wait, no, God. God, historically, Aquinas even defines it this way, is a personal God. You still haven't gotten to me to prove that it's personal.

[Charlie Kirk]

I'm happy to get to that.

[Atheist Debater]

Okay, then get to it.

[Charlie Kirk]

Look, here's. Here's what I find with atheists. They don't want to Worship or acknowledge God because many atheists think they are God. And you embody that really well.

[Atheist Debater]

I didn't know you were a mind reader, Charlie. This is news to me.

[Charlie Kirk]

It's not a mind reader. I can tell by your behavior. I will say this. I hope that you give your life to Jesus Christ. I. I hope you do.

[Atheist Debater]

I hope you can find evidence. I hope you can find.

[Charlie Kirk]

You know what's interesting? There is evidence. There is evidence that Jesus. Hold on. Last thing. Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real historical figure?

[Atheist Debater]

Yes.

[Charlie Kirk]

Do you believe that the Gospels are historically accurate and we can prove them with archaeological evidence?

[Atheist Debater]

Some parts are. Some parts are. Some parts are metaphors. Some parts are allegories. Some parts are literal. It depends. Some parts are attempts at history.

[Charlie Kirk]

Which book or gospel using rational analysis. Why would the disciples lie about the resurrection of Christ?

[Atheist Debater]

Okay, we can talk about this. People, they can be mistaken, mistakenly wrong about it.

[Charlie Kirk]

So they would be mistakenly wrong up to the point where they get martyred.

[Atheist Debater]

The whole point of being crucified, the whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something is you believe it's true all

[Charlie Kirk]

the way up until the point of death.

[Atheist Debater]

The whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something is you believe.

[Charlie Kirk]

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Your position is that the 12 disciples who knew Christ best saw him die and then they all believed a mistaken conspiracy for the rest of their life. Yes. All of them together as a conspiracy?

[Narrator/Announcer]

Yes.

[Atheist Debater]

Yeah.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Yes.

[Atheist Debater]

There is no firsthand account from the 500. The Gospels are all written by these people. People have died for crazy claims in the past that we know aren't true. These are all facts about history.

[Charlie Kirk]

Not correct. Okay. One of the Gospels was written by one of his closest associates. Matthew the tax collector. Luke was a fact fighter that was hired.

[Atheist Debater]

No, I didn't say the Gospels weren't written by them. I said there's no evidence from the 500 that he appeared to. There's no first hand accounts.

[Charlie Kirk]

Again, that's not correct. Thank you for your time.

[Atheist Debater]

We'll get to the next question you cannot answer.

[Charlie Kirk]

We will pray for you. Thank you.

[Atheist Debater]

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Com.