Comment by immibis
Why did Charlie Kirk only ever win debates against 19-year-old college students studying things other than politics? Have you actually watched any of these debates? He "wins" the debates not by being right, but by being the loudest and most prepared with his incorrectness. This doesn't prove anything except that humans are influenced by factors other than truth. When he accidentally debates someone who is on the side of truth and knows how to debate, he gets thoroughly trounced.
My previous comment was not a setup then conclusion. It was a response to two different things in the same comment.
I'd strongly encourage actually checking out his debates. There often is no real 'winner' or 'loser', but mostly just an exchange of views and perspectives. Sometimes people change their views, most often they don't. Often times one or both parties walks away with a bit more knowledge.
Here [1] is a debate between him and a professor (amongst 3 that showed up during just that event) that's on almost on our exact topic. The professor's argument was weak and his behavior quite undignified. The professor "lost" but it's not really the point or purpose of the debate. For instance here's another [2] (from the same campus tour) where not only was the crowd was much more for the professor, but the professor also formulated a far more viable argument, got Charlie flustered and made him say some things that certainly made his argument look foolish. Charlie "lost" that one, but again it's not really the point or purpose. I'd also add that Charlie still posted it, unedited.
This is how an Open Society, the sort Karl Popper spoke of, should work.
[1] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644
[2] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448