A Public Justification for Kirk's Murder

 

The venerable Guardian has weighed in on Charlie Kirk’s murder, under the odd headline:

The students who debated with Charlie Kirk: ‘His goal was to verbally defeat us’ | Charlie Kirk shooting | The Guardian

Apparently, the fact that Kirk debated with people was at least partial justification for his murder. The left now openly objects to debate itself.

The piece quotes Trent Webb, a professor of writing studies and rhetoric and director of the speech and debate team at Hofstra University, to say “In a good faith debate, the final goal is to reach consensus. If that doesn’t happen, then a lot of academics would consider it to be an exercise in futility.”

The intention of a good faith debate is not to reach consensus. It is to reach truth. Consensus is the opposite of debate. “Consent” is the opposite of “dissent.” “Consensus” generally means that all present are required to agree with whoever is in charge. No dissent is allowed.

Which perhaps indeed describes the typical current university or high school classroom.

“Dr Charles Woods, a professor of rhetoric and composition at East Texas A&M University, and the host of The Big Rhetorical Podcast, said Kirk distilled nuanced topics into stifling, good v bad arguments.”

“Charlie turned myriad opportunities for meaningful dialogic transactions rooted in civility and turned them into confrontational interactions by amplifying binaries in his argumentative structure,” Woods wrote in an email. “What we know is that there is a spectrum of ideologies and worldviews, not just two: Charlie’s and whoever is on the other side of the microphone.”

In other words, Kirk committed the crime of disagreeing with those who stepped up to the microphone. Who, of course, stepped up to the microphone because they disagreed with Kirk. Why is it he, and not they, who are being reductive, binary, and adversarial?

Debate is by it nature adversarial and binary. A proposition is advanced; one side argues pro, the other con. If either side simply agrees with the other, they are not debating. This is an important concept to grasp. Our parliamentary system is founded on it. Bills are debated in parliament.

As someone who teaches rhetoric, it is shocking to me that our educational system has deteriorated to the point that professors of rhetoric are opposed to debate. But then, professors of history are opposed to teaching history, professors of literature are opposed to the concept of literature, and ministers of religion are opposed to the Christian religion, so it is of a piece. 

However, if one side in the debate is refusing to accept the basic rules and premises of debate, they are a danger to civil society. As Kirk’s murder clearly demonstrates.