Charlie Kirk's Cedibility Crisis: How One Biblical Scholar Systematically Exposed His Lies/Deception

[MG 2.0]

By the way, one liners in a debate do not an argument make. It doesn't demonstrate any depth of understanding.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I know the Bible quite well, though I have got a little out of practice in instant text citation.

However, I have looked at all those links, (actually I think I missed the one about the government), and they do indeed show how "Dan McClellan thoroughly and repeatedly refutes Charlie's public claims".

By the way, I think I know how Kirk ended up affirming that the Latin word 'fetus' means 'a little human being' (it doesn't today, and it never did mean that). It is because he is mixing that word up with 'homunculus', a diminutive form of Latin 'homo' for 'man'. It was once (wrongly) claimed that each sperm contained a complete miniature human being (homunculus), which grew into a baby in the mother's woman, making the father into the only real parent. Kirk would I think have liked that. But it isn't true.

Oh, and I don't think he should have been shot. Refutation is a much better way of dealing with such people, and it really isn't very difficult to do if you know what you are talking about.

Interesting point about the homunculus idea.

...they do indeed show how "Dan McClellan thoroughly and repeatedly refutes Charlie's public claims".

Dan McClellan is a treasure.

[I Have Questions]

Here's one of Charlie Kirk debating, that isn't a Charlie Kirk produced video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6-NjMmr4hc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A

You're right. It's produced by what appears to be a progressive leftist. It is highly edited. It is the producer of this video that thinks Charlie was defeated in this debate. I watched the unedited debate not that long ago. Kirk took most of these progressives to the cleaners. I think you quickly found this video without really looking at it.

Can you point out five or six instances during this debate where Kirk is legitimately taken down by leftist ideology? I didn't. And I watch it uncut.

Put up or shut up this time around, IHQ. You don't answer questions and now you're putting up videos that honestly don't help your arguments. You will avoid making the list and find a way to do a 'work around'.

Regards,
MG

You recently refused to even name a poster who you thought would think you were an honest and truthful poster. Even when the list you insisted upon was given. You always insist others do the research to prove your point. So right back at ya pal! Do your own research on the subject, you can start with the links in the OP. More information is always better, ami I right?

[MG 2.0]

You're right. It's produced by what appears to be a progressive leftist. It is highly edited. It is the producer of this video that thinks Charlie was defeated in this debate. I watched the unedited debate not that long ago. Kirk took most of these progressives to the cleaners. I think you quickly found this video without really looking at it.

Can you point out five or six instances during this debate where Kirk is legitimately taken down by leftist ideology? I didn't. And I watch it uncut.

Put up or shut up this time around, IHQ. You don't answer questions and now you're putting up videos that honestly don't help your arguments. You will avoid making the list and find a way to do a 'work around'.

Regards,
MG

You recently refused to even name a poster who you thought would think you were an honest and truthful poster. Even when the list you insisted upon was given. You always insist others do the research to prove your point. So right back at ya pal! Do your own research on the subject, you can start with the links in the OP. More information is always better, ami I right?

What I thought...

Progressive liberals like you really don't stand for anything.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You're right. It's produced by what appears to be a progressive leftist. It is highly edited. It is the producer of this video that thinks Charlie was defeated in this debate. I watched the unedited debate not that long ago. Kirk took most of these progressives to the cleaners. I think you quickly found this video without really looking at it.

Can you point out five or six instances during this debate where Kirk is legitimately taken down by leftist ideology? I didn't. And I watch it uncut.

Put up or shut up this time around, IHQ. You don't answer questions and now you're putting up videos that honestly don't help your arguments. You will avoid making the list and find a way to do a 'work around'.

Regards,
MG

You always insist others do the research to prove your point.

I'm asking you to actually look at the complete debate you referenced and come up with a few instances where Charlie was taken down by progressive/liberal ideology.

That shouldn't be so hard. Afterall, progressive liberalism is the answer to everything, right? Almost a religion of sorts?

You bailed buddy. You shouldn't have put up that video with the young lady that talked too fast and kept getting interrupted by super liberal dude.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You recently refused to even name a poster who you thought would think you were an honest and truthful poster. Even when the list you insisted upon was given. You always insist others do the research to prove your point. So right back at ya pal! Do your own research on the subject, you can start with the links in the OP. More information is always better, ami I right?

What I thought...

Progressive liberals like you really don't stand for anything.

Regards,
MG

Have you been through the links in the OP yet?

[MG 2.0]

What I thought...

Progressive liberals like you really don't stand for anything.

Regards,
MG

Have you been through the links in the OP yet?

Do you even read other people's posts? Why do you not answer questions? (I've already responded to why I don't take McClellan's videos too seriously when it comes to what Charlie Kirk says in regard to scripture.

Now, it's your turn. (Looks the other way...)

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Have you been through the links in the OP yet?

Do you even read other people's posts? Why do you not answer questions? (I've already responded to why I don't take McClellan's videos too seriously when it comes to what Charlie Kirk says in regard to scripture.

Now, it's your turn. (Looks the other way...)

Regards,
MG

Have you been through the links in the OP yet? Yes or No?

[Marcus]

Here's one of Charlie Kirk debating, that isn't a Charlie Kirk produced video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6-NjMmr4hc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A

You're right. It's produced by what appears to be a progressive leftist. It is highly edited. It is the producer of this video that thinks Charlie was defeated in this debate. I watched the unedited debate not that long ago. Kirk took most of these progressives to the cleaners. I think you quickly found this video without really looking at it.

Can you point out five or six instances during this debate where Kirk is legitimately taken down by leftist ideology? I didn't. And I watch it uncut.

Put up or shut up this time around, IHQ. You don't answer questions and now you're putting up videos that honestly don't help your arguments. You will avoid making the list and find a way to do a 'work around'.

Regards,
MG

Lol. The troll trolls. And he always wants 'five' examples.

[MG 2.0]

You're right. It's produced by what appears to be a progressive leftist. It is highly edited. It is the producer of this video that thinks Charlie was defeated in this debate. I watched the unedited debate not that long ago. Kirk took most of these progressives to the cleaners. I think you quickly found this video without really looking at it.

Can you point out five or six instances during this debate where Kirk is legitimately taken down by leftist ideology? I didn't. And I watch it uncut.

Put up or shut up this time around, IHQ. You don't answer questions and now you're putting up videos that honestly don't help your arguments. You will avoid making the list and find a way to do a 'work around'.

Regards,
MG

Lol. The troll trolls. And he always wants 'five' examples.

You guys honestly don't have anything. It's almost a waste of time having a conversation (if you can call it that) with you two. The dynamic duo...of, umm...nothing. Unless there is something worthwhile here on this thread from here on out, I'm done.

Surprise me.

Regards,
MG