See How Charlie Kirk’s Debate Style Worked

One of Mr. Kirk’s favorite topics — and the title of one of his books — was “The College Scam,” which reflected his opinion that college was a waste of time and money. (Mr. Kirk himself dropped out of community college.)

Although he elsewhere had stated that the point of college is “to become a well-rounded citizen of what is good, true and beautiful,” in the clip below, he suggested the primary goal of higher education was to compete with China and that majors like women’s studies were “irrelevant.”

This line of argument was most likely to provoke emotional reactions from opponents — who after all were college students invested in their own education. And rhetoric experts agree that getting upset or defensive is a surefire way to end up on the losing side of a debate.

Part of Mr. Kirk’s advantage came from repetition. He debated hundreds of people and learned how to shape conversation — and where to drop in canned audience pleasers. This wisecrack about “North African lesbian poetry,” delivered at the University of Wyoming in April, was hardly spontaneous.

Even on the most progressive campuses, Mr. Kirk’s debates drew large and boisterous contingents of supporters, cheering him on in MAGA hats. But while he traded barbs with his adversaries, he often discouraged heckling. By making space for opposing viewpoints, he enhanced his image as a defender of free speech while centering his own argument.

Additionally, by restraining his audience from shouting down his opponents, Mr. Kirk insulated himself from seeming like a bully to many viewers of clips shared on social media.

During this debate at the University of Tennessee in March, a student asked Mr. Kirk whether he thought abortions should be allowed when a mother’s life is in danger.

Mr. Kirk, who opposed abortion, responded by proposing a cesarean section as a better alternative, and then asked the student if she knew what the procedure was. It was a tactic Mr. Kirk frequently used: asking opponents to define a term, so he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed if they could not.

In this case, the student knew what a C-section was, so Mr. Kirk quickly pivoted to another common strategy by addressing allies in the crowd — “this is for you guys” — with advice on how they should respond to the question if it ever came up in their own lives.

Mr. Kirk’s claim that C-sections are safer than abortions is widely disputed by medical professionals. The rate of medical complications during C-sections is more than four times that of abortions, according to research published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Later in this debate with the same student at the University of Tennessee, Mr. Kirk shifted to more extreme rhetoric, calling abortion “worse” than the Holocaust.

Ben Voth, a professor of rhetoric and director of debate and speech at Southern Methodist University, cited “discussing forbidden topics and upholding forbidden arguments” as a muscular and emotionally resonant strategy to which Mr. Kirk regularly returned.

(Mr. Kirk also mentioned “45 million babies,” presumably a reference to a number of abortions, without specifying where or over what period of time they took place.)

After more back-and-forth, Mr. Kirk laid a rhetorical trap. When the student replied “human” to his question about what species an embryo is, he claimed victory, saying that implied embryos deserve human rights.

Aaron Kall, who coached the University of Michigan to its first national championship as director of debate last year, called that kind of move a “turn” — using the other person’s own words to prove your point. “It has more impact when you turn your opponent’s argument to your advantage,” Mr. Kall said.

In this debate about critical race theory, Mr. Kirk borrowed from the Socratic method, using questions to steer his opponent into a disadvantage. Flustered, the young person conceded ground, and he leapt to occupy it. “This is great,” he said before asking another question designed to frame the opposing position.

It generated the response Mr. Kirk seems to have hoped for, and he pounced, accusing his opponent of insulting “the working poor” by suggesting there’s a correlation between poverty and violent crime. Bill Southworth, a professor of speech and debate at the University of Redlands, described this approach as trying to “trivialize” his opponent as an out-of-touch member of the elite, while “increasing his own ethos” as the defender of regular, working-class people.

There is in fact extensive research suggesting a strong correlative relationship between poverty and crime. Studies show that relationship holds across demographic lines, and also that systemic inequities in the judicial system contribute to racial disparities in homicide rates.

Mr. Kirk later tried another of his frequently used tactics, introducing a compelling statistic in order to demolish a claim about poverty and crime — in this case, that 80 percent of Black people in America “do not have a stable father around.” The problem is that the stat, which he often cited in debates, is not accurate.

“I’ll prove it to you,” Mr. Kirk frequently offered in debates. What followed did not always deliver on that promise. Here, he made some categorically unprovable assertions about the differences between women and men, including what women discuss when they have lunch.

By playing up stereotypes, Mr. Kirk was once again pushing emotional buttons. He also may have been trying to overwhelm his opponent with what Carl Trigilio, who has coached championship debaters at the high school and college levels, calls “sensory overload.” The tactic can be successful because it is challenging to rebut every point and forces opponents to passively concede points.