I've watched Charlie Kirk debate. He's an absolutely awful debater.
First off, he chooses his opponents. He's going up against college students, often unprepared ones. He never goes up against people with experience.
Secondly, he's the absolute KING of gish galloping [0]. If someone ever actually starts getting an upper-hand, he just resorts to spewing a non-stop tirade of bullshit. He'll ask 10 questions and then interrupt them after they've only answered one, just to go off on more bullshit. The problem is, people who don't know shit about debate thinks that's winning.
I admit I found him unwatchable, and did not watch any of his content.
But I also don't know why most people consume the content they do. For whatever reason, his format got traction with certain people, and it wouldn't have if they got nothing out of it.
Quite comical it is to act as a judge of what helps or hinders the "national conversation", whatever that is. I assume it's something one shakes one's jowels during.
First off, he chooses his opponents. He's going up against college students, often unprepared ones. He never goes up against people with experience.
Secondly, he's the absolute KING of gish galloping [0]. If someone ever actually starts getting an upper-hand, he just resorts to spewing a non-stop tirade of bullshit. He'll ask 10 questions and then interrupt them after they've only answered one, just to go off on more bullshit. The problem is, people who don't know shit about debate thinks that's winning.
So yes, his style hurts the national dialogue.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop