Should we have reparations for black Americans? Was Jesus Christ a refugee? Does the Bible actually approve of abortion? Charlie was fending off a whole bevy of combative questions from the students of UC-Riverside. If you like tough questions where Charlie has to be tough in response this is the campus visit to listen to. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com! Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hey everybody, my debate straight from a college campus brought to you this Saturday.
I think you'll really enjoy this back and forth with the students.
Okay everybody, it is the event of the summer.
Coming up in Tampa, Florida.
It's an event unlike any other.
It is our Student Action Summit.
All ages are welcome.
It's SAS2025.com.
We have Pete Hegseth coming, Christine Ohm, Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon, Greg Duttfeld, Laura Ingram, Ross Ulbricht, Byron Donalds, Tom Homan, Ben Carson, Brett Cooper, Michael Mowles, Brandon Tatum, Benny Johnson, Jack Pesobic, Riley Gaines, James O'Keefe, and more.
That is SAS2025.com.
You can find your future wife, your future husband, your future soulmate, a future job, and a career.
Go to SAS2025.com.
That is SAS2025.com for this game-changing, life-changing event.
So take a look at it right now at SAS2025.com.
SAS2025.com.
And as always, email me, freedom at charliekirk.com.
That is freedom at charliekirk.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
What's up, Charlie?
Hey, dude.
So first out, welcome to California, Riverside.
What's up, Riverside?
How's everyone doing so far?
Yeah?
All right, cool.
So I'm going to get started.
Typically, I agree on a lot of stuff that you state.
So literally in everything.
The only reason I came up to debate was about abortions and rape abortions.
And so recently I was kind of for abortions, pro-choice.
I recently had a daughter.
She's seven weeks old.
And I can't imagine living without her.
So I appreciate it.
And my only concern as I was thinking about it, it's just hard for girls that do happen to get raped, you know, whether they're unconscious and drugged or just whatever happens, incest or whatever.
Would you be able to just defend just any abortion or non-abortions on rape?
And if I could just hear your point of view on that.
Yeah, for sure.
Thank you for the good faith question.
And praise God that you welcome the daughter into this world.
That's the best thing you said.
Look, needless to say, rape is a tragic thing, and it's terrible.
We believe that abortion is the taking of a life, which would be murder.
Can I do a thought exercise with you?
Is that okay?
Yeah, of course.
Okay, so I actually have a picture.
I brought it here because I do this so many times.
So I have two ultrasounds here.
You know what ultrasound is.
Yeah, this isn't the dolphin, is it?
No, these are two human beings.
Okay.
No.
One of these two ultrasounds is a baby conceived in rape.
Which one is it?
I'm assuming the one on the left.
No.
No, okay.
Oh, you know what?
I don't know.
You get the point?
Yes.
Yes.
They're both human beings.
Okay.
Regardless of the method of conception, they're both human beings.
Awesome.
Okay.
And it's not a gotcha.
I just want you to think about it because these are both human beings made in the image of God.
The process of conception does not give you more or less rights.
Of course.
And so we also do not believe that an evil action after an evil action is the right course.
And so we believe that a human being must be protected.
We must be consistent in that.
And I've met thousands of people now across the country, hundreds I'll say, of people that were conceived in rape.
And the mom was courageous enough to bring that baby to term.
And now they're able to live amazing lives.
And so we must be consistent that human beings are made in the image of God.
They have a soul.
And that just because of the method of your conception, you don't get to have your life taken away from you.
Yes, sir.
Now, what about the trauma that it may or may not bring the mother?
Just kind of living on like her own self, maybe can't defend having the baby just because she wasn't ready in the first place.
And now her whole life just got switched around.
If you can explain that for me, please.
Yeah, so it's a little bit of a false choice because an abortion can also be very traumatic as well.
To say that abortion is just like getting a haircut, that's nonsensical.
It's not just a cosmetic procedure.
Yeah, I agree.
And so we acknowledge, of course, that there can be trauma, but trauma is never an excuse for taking a life.
If you say, I have a mental health issue, are you allowed to take somebody else's life?
Of course not.
That's never morally defensible.
Under no moral framework are we able to say that that is true or correct.
Cool.
I appreciate it.
Also, I have a second question real fast.
Really quick.
I'm sorry.
So we're five months into the President Trump's presidency, and a lot of Democrats will state, you know, like, oh, he's doing this wrong and this, this, this.
The gas prices are still up.
The food is still up.
When do you think we will see change?
Well, gas prices in California are up.
Actually, across the country, they're going down dramatically.
One of the reasons is that Gavin Newsom and Democrats have intentionally done this.
The way that, again, it's a little wonky, but it's a refinery issue.
You guys have made a decision here in this state to have intentionally high gas prices.
And because of that, your leaders here in California, they basically almost wanted to make it impossible to own a petroleum-based petroleum-fired vehicle.
And we want to try to bring gas prices down for all Americans.
One of the reasons why I hope that you guys get a new governor in 2026.
Bianco, baby!
Awesome.
Would you mind?
Thank you.
Can I come shake your hat?
Yeah, sure, of course.
You would like a hat, too.
Yeah.
God bless you, man.
Thank you.
Here's your hat.
Thank you.
Next question.
Great.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, good afternoon.
I've been a long time fan.
Thank you.
Just talk right into the mic if you can, please.
Okay.
The topic I want to discuss with you today is it's on reparations, but more so why there's a bias towards black Americans when it comes to reparations.
Now, I understand that no black American alive has ever been a slave.
I acknowledge that.
However, sorry.
The point I wanted to make is that reparations have been given to other ethnic groups, Asian Americans for their incarceration during World War II, Native Hawaiians.
Sorry, I wrote it all down, but even former slave owners, specifically the ones in the North that had to give up their slaves, they were compensated for former slaves.
However, why is it that when it comes to black people receiving reparations, there seems to be a lot of pushback to the point where now, you know, there's, you know, now it's almost laughable to even think about black people getting reparations for something in the past.
Well, for any of those examples, was there intergenerational reparations given?
No.
So they're not necessarily applicable, right?
So those were the actual people that received it because a wrong was done to them.
Correct.
We're talking about something 150 years removed.
And also, not every black person is a descendant of slaves.
Some are, some are mixed race, some are able to prove that.
But I think more importantly, we should ask the question, have we spent a lot of money on the black community the last 50 years?
And if so, has it worked?
It's a good question because, I mean, obviously there are certain communities in black America that are not so great.
You know, some of them, some of the traumas and problems they have are of their own making.
I acknowledge that.
Thankfully, I was raised away from all that, two loving parents.
That is a ticket to success.
Please continue.
But the example I wanted to use was the two Tulsa survivors.
They tried to, you know, they're aged, you know, over 100 years old.
They've tried to sue the Oklahoma government for reparations for their lost property.
And they were actually denied reparations.
And to me, when I read about that, because to me, that was kind of the test to see, like, okay, they say reparations shouldn't go to people who weren't directly affected.
Well, here we have two people who were directly affected, who were there, and they were still denied reparations.
So to me, that kind of confirmed that it was never about who was directly affected or not.
To me, it just sounds like there's a bias towards black Americans.
Okay, I don't know about that incidence.
I'll look into it.
But more broadly, I do want to just repeat the point and something to think about.
You don't have to answer it, that we've spent trillions of dollars on trying to improve the well-being of black Americans since the 1960s.
And actually, black America is poorer per capita and on average in relation to other groups than it was in the 1960s.
So I would argue it's actually not a resource or a money thing.
It's a values thing.
And the values, unfortunately, that are predominantly in the black community right now are quasi-suicidal.
Fair point.
But yeah, basically, I just wanted you to, I didn't know if I was going to change your mind, but it's something I wanted you to think about.
I'll research the example that you gave.
And thank you for watching our content and being a supporter.
Making America Great Again starts with making America healthy again.
Charlie Kirk here, I lost 40 pounds with the PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition Program.
And two years later, I haven't gained a pound back.
I started the PhD weight loss program because I need to be healthy to keep up with my crazy schedule.
Most people start a weight loss program to get healthier.
So why is big pharma spending millions to convince you to use their weight loss injections that do just the opposite?
They have harmful side effects and lifelong dependency.
Take a natural approach that isn't connected to a big pharma bottom line.
PhD changes the way you think about food.
They custom design a plan that is simple and works with your schedule.
You'll learn to quiet cravings and finally release the unhealthy belly fat.
You won't be hungry and you'll never take medication.
Call 864-644-1900 to schedule your one-on-one consultation or visit myphdweightloss.com.
That is myphdweightloss.com.
864-644-1900.
Hi, good afternoon.
So my sense today is honestly on immigration.
So I think...
Okay.
I think that immigration contributes a lot to America.
So my parents did come here legally, and they right now are in the process again.
And it takes a long time.
No, they came here legally.
Like they came with their visa and now they're renewing it and it's a different process right now.
But so I'm really religious.
I'm Catholic.
My parents grew me up that way.
And in Matthew 2, 13 through 15, it talks about how Jesus had to flee Nazareth or no, Bethlehem, sorry.
He had to flee because someone was going to die.
And they were looking to kill him.
And he had to flee his own country and leave everything behind because the angel spoke to Mary and Joseph that they should leave.
So a lot of people do that.
That's why they immigrate to the United States.
A lot of people have to leave everything behind because not everyone just wants to pack up all their things and leave.
Right now, I personally would hate if I had to sell my car, my house, leave my parents, leave my friends, and leave everyone.
So I just want to know what your stance is on that, just because in the Bible it talks about that.
Right.
So first of all, Jesus actually didn't emigrate.
He stayed within the confines of the Roman Empire because Egypt was actually under Roman jurisdiction.
That's a separate point.
But there are plenty of verses that says you should welcome the stranger.
And so I will grant you that.
I guess the first point I would have to ask is, should immigration always benefit the home country?
I think so, yes.
And that is one thing that I looked into.
So there are immigrants right now working here, correct?
And they get some of their paycheck cut off, right, because of Social Security and all those benefits.
But they don't get those benefits because they're illegal immigrants.
So do you mean legal or illegal immigrants?
That distinction is very important.
Illegal.
They don't get those benefits.
So let's just be clear.
If they have a Social Security number, how'd they get that?
The right way.
They stole it.
You don't get a Social Security number as an illegal, period.
It does not happen.
They stole it.
So that's an act of theft.
So they stole an American Social Security number to be able to work here, which drives down wages, which drives down opportunity costs.
But even beyond that, we just have to look at their action.
They were not invited to come to this country.
They broke in line.
They cut in line.
And we should not reward line cutters or border jumpers.
We should reward people like your parents that actually came here legally to this country.
Yeah, I understand that point.
I really do.
But sometimes people generally need to leave their country.
Because in like my mother's case, for instance, there was like a terrorist attack on my family.
And that's the reason my mom had to come.
And thankfully, she did get it immediately.
But now I've heard of so many stories where people have to wait like 10 years, 20 years, even 30 years.
Like my grandma right now is trying to get the process.
And thankfully she is now.
But it's taken her about 10 years now.
And she makes enough money in her country.
And she just wants to come here as a tourist.
That's the main reason.
And I do understand that.
I think that my main point is that how we should implement more money into the immigration system.
Because Trump's zero tolerance policy, that just felt cruel because there's a lot of people here that are doing well and zero tolerance.
They just have to leave the country.
I feel like that was inhumane of him.
Yeah, but it's not their country, though.
And that's the, so let me just, here's a, if I went to Mexico without being invited or allowed and I took a job and the Mexican government found out, what would the Mexican government do to me?
I'm not sure.
They would send me back to America.
And why was there a reason you left the U.S. first?
Well, again, so the, okay, as far as the audio guys, we're going as loud as the university allows us.
There's a decibel count, so we're going to keep pushing the amount as much as we can, okay?
So if we get in trouble, I'll blame all of you.
So reason, that's an interesting thing.
Is there ever a legitimate reason, in your opinion, to commit a crime?
No.
Well, then the reason doesn't matter.
Because under that say, so let's look, can you rob a bank because you wish you had more money?
No, you work harder.
Then why doesn't that moral standard apply to immigration?
Because the system isn't doing its job.
That's why I think we should implement more money.
Because there is some people, like I do get it, you know, some people come here and then I do admit some of them commit crime, but not all of them.
No, no, but they're all criminals if they came illegally.
That's the distinction.
By definition, they're breaking federal law, 8 USC 1312.
Just their presence here is against the law.
And let's say you're here in the U.S., okay?
You have, from what I think I've heard, I think you have two daughters, correct?
A daughter and a son.
Daughter and a son.
Okay.
You have a daughter and a son.
Let's say someone is attacking your family, like targeting you guys.
You love your children.
I'm a son.
Hold on.
I actually, someone, every day we get death threats, so this is not an abstraction.
And I'm not leaving America.
That makes sense, but because the United States, the co.
I mean, so it's actually very real.
Every day someone says they want to murder me and kill my family.
I'm staying.
But has anyone genuinely ever driven to your house, done like a driveway?
I'm not going to get into the details, but plenty of people have been arrested trying to kill me.
So, I mean, but here's the idea.
And by the way, if we apply this, if we apply that logic that if somebody is in danger, they're allowed to come to America, would you be okay welcoming 500 million people into America?
That's why we should implement the system to understand each other.
No, no, you got to answer.
Do you think 500 million people would be too many people?
500 million?
I don't even think that would fit the United States.
I agree.
And that's the point, is that if everyone all of a sudden declared that their life was in danger, we'd have to let in like all of Nicaragua, all of Honduras, almost all of Venezuela.
The standard all of a sudden starts falling apart.
And we find that people lie about this, they deceive it.
Here's my perspective.
Why don't we try to empower those people to make the countries they're coming from greater and stronger, else this problem will actually never be fixed at the root level?
That makes?
It does make sense.
And I wish it was that easy.
So for instance, I am part Peruvian and in Peru.
So they were having a presidential election.
And the president who was going to win was better for the country and would help out a lot more.
But since it's corrupt, they made the other president win.
They sent him death threats, nearly almost killed him.
He had to fake his death and leave and they jailed her.
They jailed her completely and they let the guy win.
That is why it's corrupt.
It's hard to fix a country when there's no help towards it.
So Peru was, they were rooting for the good president.
They were rooting to build their system back up.
But the other president, it was rigged.
It was completely rigged.
So does it make it better or worse if millions of people leave that country?
For Peru.
Can you, like, what do you mean by this?
If 3 million people left Peru, does Peru get greater or weaker?
Stronger or weaker?
Neither.
I mean, it's in a weak state right now.
I mean, it's pretty obvious.
I'm trying to even say that mass immigration is bad for everybody.
It's bad for America, and it's bad for the country that people are leaving from.
The only difference is that they send back American money through remittances that actually subsidize this entire thing.
Let me ask one final question.
If somebody comes into America without invitation and they are illegal, what do you think the penalty should be?
I think it's humane to look at their case and why they had to leave everything they've ever known.
We believe that we should send them back to their country of origin.
I just want to make one more final point.
So I do understand that, but my final point is that do you agree that we should implement more money to the immigration system?
No, I think we should have no immigrants in the country for the next 10 years.
We have way too many people in this country, and I'll prove it to you here in California.
Your hospitals are overrun.
Your schools are overrun.
Do you guys agree that you have a crowded state right now?
California is a cluttered state with social services that are being strained.
And we need a pause on all immigration, in my opinion, to metaphorically digest the major meal that we just ate, or else we are going to have a major, major assimilation problem, cultural problem, Cohesion problem, all sorts of issues.
And I know this is a provocative thing to say, but immigration is something that you use as a way to benefit the homeland.
You don't have to have immigration.
But just as an example, my parents came here, like I said, legally, zero dollars, and they have benefited so much the country.
They have made so much, like hundreds and thousands of dollars.
Praise God, that's the American dream.
It is, and it's just like a hard thing to do.
And I want American-born young people from UC Riverside to also have that American dream and not have to compete against foreigners for that.
Thank you for your time.
Can I say one point?
We have a long line.
Thank you.
Really quick, though.
Okay, again, what is it?
Sorry.
Okay.
I understand.
The American dream is hard.
My parents, my mom was pregnant, working two jobs one day, and she sacrificed everything, and now she has more money than the average American.
Praise God, that is the American dream.
Thank you very much.
It's hard work.
Thank you.
And I'm glad she came here legally.
That deserves to be applauded.
Very much so.
Thank you.
Private student loan debt in America totals over $300 billion.
About $45 billion of that is labeled as distressed.
WhyReFi refinances distressed or defaulted private student loans that others will not touch.
YReFi can reduce your monthly payment and guarantees interest rates under 6%, ensuring affordability and financial relief.
Go to YReFi.com.
That is YREFY.com.
And if you have a co-borrower, YReFi can get them released from the loan, and you can give mom or dad a break.
Just call 888-YREFI34.
That is 888-YREFI34 and may not be available in all 50 states.
Can you imagine being debt-free and not living under this burden anymore?
So go to YReFi.com.
That is YREFY.com.
That is YReFi.com.
Dad credit is accepted.
And if you have a co-borrower or YReFi can get them released from the loan, that is YReFi.com.
Hey, Charlie.
Hey, everyone.
How are you?
So, today, I'll be honest, good to meet you.
I'm not a very political person.
I'm here for the love of the game only.
And I want to see your views, you know?
So, my topic of discussion is going to be that college is not a scam.
And please hear me out till the end before I ask my question.
So it kind of makes sense.
So I understand everything you say.
You said college is a scam.
And the issue is because there is a lot of student loans.
There is people who drop out of college every year.
There is a lot of people who can't find jobs.
Government's funding it.
And why should taxpayers pay for it?
I understand.
It's a concern.
It's valid.
But at the same time, scam means fraud.
And fraud is not what college is.
Because colleges don't promise guaranteed success.
Colleges promise access to resources which they do deliver.
And it's up to the people to actually be accountable and use those resources correctly.
But what happens a lot of times is that a lot of people don't use it correctly and fail.
I do agree that there needs to be reforms.
I think especially the funding of colleges should be reformed, how the government funds may be limited, maybe more structured and with more oversight.
But at the end of the day, colleges do provide a lot of value to the society.
And also, people who do go to colleges, on average, statistically, earn higher income on average, have half the unemployment rate, and they have more opportunities.
So my question to you is, are you denying the data?
Okay, so let's define a scam.
What is a scam?
Well, I just defined it.
Fraud, right?
Yes.
So would you agree in a scam, you force a customer to buy something against their will?
Here's the thing.
Yes or no?
I let you talk.
Yes or no?
Yes, but here's the question.
Okay, how many of you have to take classes against your will that are wasting your time?
Look around.
Hold on.
Hold on, look around.
I let you talk.
Look around.
You haven't looked around yet?
I have taken classes myself.
Every hand is up.
Hold on.
You just agreed a scam would make people buy something against their will, and every hand went up in the audience saying they have to take classes against their will.
You just now agreed, using Aristotelian logic, that that's a scam.
Hold on.
Don't people choose to go to college?
Not always.
Well, of course they have the agency.
A lot are pressured by parents.
Time out.
Of course they have the agency to do that.
But there's a cultural expectation to get that piece of paper.
Secondly, to your point about earning more money, do you know half of the kids in this audience, if they get a job, they'll get a job that does not require a college degree?
I've actually fact-checked your data.
It's from the Department of Education.
Yeah, that's true.
The reality is that's true only for entry-level roles.
Later in the career, that's not the case.
Average college graduate earns 80% higher income compared to high school graduates.
If they graduate.
See, that's a deceiving statistic.
I wrote a whole book on this.
It's very deceiving.
Let me tell you why.
Because you're taking the top income earners of doctors and lawyers and engineers, and it brings the average up even more.
When in reality, you look at people who study the humanities.
You have a big humanities school at UC Riverside.
They will, on average, earn maybe $50,000 or $60,000 a year.
Secondly.
Even liberal arts graduates earn $15,000 to $40,000 more than high school graduates.
Incorrect.
That's old data.
That's correct.
That's correct.
How many people here would be thrilled earning $70,000 a year right now?
That's higher than the average.
Wrong.
According to the Wall Street Journal, hundreds of thousands of high school juniors, high school juniors getting $70,000 a year job offers for not going to college to become plumbers, welders, and electricians.
They don't have to go to college.
They don't have to get student loan debt.
I let you talk, let me talk.
So they don't have to go into debt.
They don't have to get any degree.
I'm sure almost everyone in this audience would be like, boy, I would kill to earn 70 grand a year.
And yet how many people in this audience were told a fair hearing, hey, you don't need to go to four-year college.
You could earn $70,000 as a high school junior to become a welder.
That is not a truth that is.
Labor statistics says that on average, the college graduates earn about 30% higher than trade school graduates.
And I agree, there are alternatives.
College is not for everyone.
I totally agree with you.
People could go to trade school.
They could start a business.
But everything comes with risk.
We got to look at what is college promising the students.
College is promising access to resources and it provides them.
Incorrect.
Colleges, implicitly and explicitly, through their website and their promotional material, tell parents that if you come here, you will have a better life.
That is the sales pitch.
Can you show me that?
I guarantee you if someone does that.
I've looked all over the place.
I haven't seen a single university that guarantees success or happiness.
Hold on a second.
They promise resources.
I just said implicitly and explicitly, almost every single college has on their website preparing leaders for a better tomorrow.
Preparing leaders for an ever-changing world.
And if you go through that, they have all these deceiving statistics that if you come to this college for four years, allow me to finish talking, okay?
Again.
For four years.
Yep, someone.
We're going to keep going.
Don't stare.
We tried to warn about that.
Get them some water, too.
Yeah, and you get a signed hat.
Don't faint just for the signed hat.
Of course, I acknowledge that some college graduates do better.
That window is increasingly closing.
Now, let me ask you another argument that you might not be prepared for.
Almost everybody in this audience is studying something that will be irrelevant because of artificial intelligence.
Do you think at this school, every single course and every degree is really prepared for the AI revolution that is coming next?
Now, let me ask you a question.
You have to answer mine.
What are your alternatives?
Oh, I have plenty.
So actually, you know, there's 11 million job openings right now that pay you more than $75,000 a year that don't require a college degree.
Right now.
But did you not?
11 million.
Over 95% of U.S. employers still require a college degree from mid to high roles.
And about 40% requirements.
Again, you didn't even answer my question.
You're dodging it.
But again, that number's coming down.
Secondly, 11 million jobs that pay more than $75,000 a year that don't require a college degree.
My alternative also is this.
If you want to get something specialized, of course go to college.
The vast majority of kids that go to college are studying the humanities, soft social sciences, psychology, or communications.
They're not studying to become engineers or doctors or nurses, all of which I totally understand.
And what you're basically saying, your argument, which is true, but it's fraudulent, come here to get a piece of paper because once you get the piece of paper, then you'll get a job.
That's not true.
No one is promising that.
College promises access to resources.
Access to preparation, to leadership doesn't mean guarantee.
It only gives access.
You are the one responsible.
I think it should be merit-based and people should take accountability for their actions.
If they come to college and be like, oh, they don't have classes, they are going to have nothing.
Do they have job preparedness at the school?
Yes, there is a career preparedness center.
I've went to it.
Hold on, wait, they have a whole center about career preparedness, so they're selling career preparedness.
Yes, and you got to go to the next one.
You're just making my point.
Wait, hold on.
So they're selling preparedness.
I'm out.
You keep interrupting me, man.
Again, do they teach you to interrupt in college this much?
It's like you ought to let the other person talk, okay?
Let me be honest, I respect you, but no one interrupts more than you.
And career preparedness centers.
Career preparedness centers are implicitly and explicitly telling you you're getting something of value.
And again, half the people in this audience, if they get a job, they'll get a job that doesn't require a college degree.
They'll be burdened with debt.
It's four years of wasted time, talent, and treasure.
And finally, and most importantly, almost every one of your careers will be rendered obsolete by AI in the next 10 years.
Hold on, are you denying the data that $1.2 million higher earnings in median for college graduates?
I've already explained that.
That's not the mean.
You were talking about the average.
What about the median?
I've already explained it's not degree specific.
Also, one other stat.
Do you know that four out of 10 kids that go to college do not graduate?
Four out of 10 kids that go to college do not graduate.
That's not true.
It is.
59% is the national graduation rate.
Okay, again, I can't have a conversation if you deal in different factions.
I'm just trying to say the same degree.
If you're talking about dropout rates, I totally agree with you.
There is a lot of people dropping out.
That's an issue.
We should find ways to fix that.
Hello.
Hello.
I just want to say first, thank you for debating and coming to UCR.
And my main question is, all of us, I don't want to speak for everybody, but most of us here believe in the American dream.
And one of the core aspects of the American dream is a meritocracy.
Am I right in saying that?
And so one of the true fundamental points of a true meritocracy is equal opportunity for people.
Is there aspects of...
Why do you say that?
Well, because that will never be achieved.
It could be a goal, but it will never be reality.
For example, do you and I have equal opportunity to play in the NBA's LeBron James?
No.
Okay, so that's what I'm saying.
It's never going to happen.
I'm talking about some people who have the abilities.
Like, for example, I'm going to use the SAT as an example.
Like, let's say two people took the SAT at the same, a practice SAT at the same day.
One person scored 100 points higher than the other person.
But that same person who scored 100 points higher doesn't have the same resources to maintain studying while the other person has the resources.
Is there any way you propose that both people have the equal opportunity?
Because in theoretical, a meritocracy says that person with 100 points higher at the start will eventually be at a higher position?
The only solution would be an IQ test, and the left hates IQ tests.
IQ tests are a great way to bring back true meritocracy because IQ tests are study and preparation agnostic.
Are you familiar with an intelligent quotient test?
Yeah, yeah.
but they don't like it because the left says they're racist because, I mean, you can read Charles Murray's bell curve why they don't like it.
I believe in the IQ tests have validity, but I don't think it should be the defining factor.
Okay.
I mean, then you don't believe in a meritocracy.
But the thing is, an IQ test has specific types of intelligence which is being tested.
People have different types of intelligence which are more suited for different professions.
Yes, I agree.
And certain companies should, again, companies got away from IQ tests like 20 years ago because they were all called racist, but fair enough.
I think IQ tests are a great way to cut through preparation.
And I will even acknowledge that if you could pay for a really good tutor and get it higher, we took the ACT where I'm from, the Midwest.
We didn't take the SCT, but you could get a higher ACT score with proper preparation and if you spend money on it.
I totally acknowledge that.
Yeah, so the thing is, I've always been brought up with the idea that a meritocracy will bring me my American dream.
And outside of an IQ test, if the left is so against it, would you propose or would you suggest any other ways that we can theoretically do it without still being true to the meritocracy that brings the American dream what it is?
I can't think of one.
I'm looking for it, but I mean, again, I think an IQ test is a great colorblind preparation-agnostic way to find out people that have the acumen to be able to do the task.
And when we go to the IQ test, would you suggest that there's different types of IQ tests for different sure?
I mean, of course, there's variety, but the generally agreed upon IQ test that was developed in the late 80s is pretty good.
Okay, that was a great question.
Great question.
Thank you very much.
Yes, thank you.
Yeah, I'll sign it.
Hello.
Hello.
Great to see you, Charlie.
So maybe I really am just Uncle Tom's favorite nephew, but I do have a quick question.
What is so wrong with mass incarceration if the only way to be incarcerated is to commit a crime?
There's nothing wrong with mass incarceration.
In fact, we need more prisoners in this country, not less prisoners, and we let prisoners out of jail way too quickly in America.
But isn't it racist to have mass incarceration?
You know what?
I don't think it's racist because I've been black for 28 years and I've yet to go to jail or prison.
But come on, the justice system is rigged against black people.
You're a white supremacist.
You know what?
I still don't know how white supremacy would benefit me, but I love it here in America.
Amen.
God bless you, man.
Thank you.
Charlie Kirk here, crime is skyrocketing.
You may already own a firearm, but before you face the financial and emotional weight of pulling the trigger, consider Burna.
Burna's less lethal launchers fire tear gas and kinetic rounds designed to incapacitate attackers for up to 40 minutes, giving you time to escape and call for help without deadly consequences.
I use Burna.
My family all has them, and now meet the new compact launcher, an amazing product.
Sleek, slim, and hits like a sledgehammer, but the size of a smartphone, it's perfect for concealed carry.
Comfortable, discreet, and confidence-building.
It fires at 400 feet per second with 41 joules per square inch of stopping power.
That's enough force to halt a threat cold, but the legal and moral complexities of lethal force.
What I love about Burna is they're proudly American.
Over 80% of their compact launchers components are sourced in America, and each unit is hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Best of all, Burna is legal in all 50 states.
No background checks ships directly to your doors.
Trusted by hundreds of police departments and government agencies around the world.
Visit Burna to learn more.
That is BYRNA.com.
Hello, so I want to talk about the debate of abortion.
So I know that it's something very controversial.
Some people are pro-choice, some people are pro-life.
Before I start, I want to make sure that I understand your opinion fully so I don't take what I've heard online.
What is your stance on abortion?
Life begins at conception.
Okay, so where do you, Is that during sperm?
When new DNA is formed.
Okay, when new DNA is formed.
So the egg by itself, you don't think, is anything?
Sorry?
The egg of a woman by itself, do you think it's anything?
It's something, but it's not a life, correct?
Okay, that's, okay.
So my question is, when you talk about abortion and why you think you said, why you support it, why you don't support it, sorry.
Why you don't support it, what do you use as your evidence?
You use scientific evidence?
Do you talk about the Bible?
Do you use both?
Mainly scientific and self-evident reason.
Okay.
So are you someone who's a follower of the Bible?
I am, but that's not relevant to this discussion, but we could talk about it if you'd like.
I find it relevant because when I'm going to talk about abortion, there's quotes in the Bible that I think support pro-choice, in my opinion.
Bible, Exodus.
Exodus 21, 22 through 25, when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her child come out, so miscarriage, but there is no harm to the woman, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if there is harm to the woman, you shall pay life for life, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
So I know that that can be interpreted different ways.
The Bible is interpreted many ways.
There's different types, different interpretations.
But this says if a person causes a miscarriage through a woman, that they will pay for the abortion.
So they will pay.
Another one will punish them.
That is not what this law says, but let me just ask, are you a Christian?
Yes.
Okay, then continue.
Do you believe in the inerrant word of God?
Yes.
Okay, good.
Yes.
So it says that, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
So the judges determine, and it's talking about the husband, so therefore it's talking about a person, not God himself, not his judgment.
So it's saying if someone has an abortion, we have the right to choose what to do to them.
Can you say it was a miscarriage, not an abortion?
It says when man strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that's causing her to lose the baby.
That's outside cause.
Outside cause.
Therefore it could mean abortion.
Because some people find that abrasive abortion is through violence, such as hitting, because not everyone has access to medical.
Was it the intent for them to kill the baby?
It's unclarified, so that I cannot tell you.
It's unclarified.
However, what I will say is that it says that it's the judges determine, the husband determines.
So God's not making the choice for us what to do with the person who does that to someone's child, does that to their own child.
But it does say that if the woman is harmed, her herself, not the child, then they are liable by God, their life for her life, their foot for her foot.
So what I'm saying is, if somebody needs an abortion for health care, let's say a woman, baby's not going to make it, and if the baby stays in her womb, she will die.
And they refuse her an abortion, they refuse her that health care and she dies, should the doctor be liable under God?
First of all, those instances don't happen.
So let's just be clear.
No, see, you guys are so propagandized by this.
That only happens in a very rare case of the breaking of the uterine.
So it does happen.
But no, but where the baby is already dead.
And that's what the point is that the baby is already dead.
That's a removal of a carcass of a baby.
Is it really still medically?
No, it's not.
That's incorrect.
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
A removal of a carcass of a baby is not an abortion.
Those are two technically different things.
It is not a DNE.
It is not.
A DNE is something completely different.
But then, if you want to talk about scripture, do you think we are bound to all 613 Levitical laws?
Yes, if you're a follower of the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow.
Oh, so do you eat kosher?
You cannot pick and choose.
Do you eat kosher?
No.
Well, I thought you were bound to all 613 laws.
I'm not perfect.
I'm a sinner.
Everyone here is a sinner, but if you...
Do you think Christians should eat kosher?
If you cannot choose to follow the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow.
Of course, but we do believe in a new covenant, an old covenant.
So there's three types of Old Testament laws, right?
There's ceremonial, there's civil, and moral.
So ceremonial laws we do not honor.
Civil we consider, moral, we actually do.
Why do humans decide what to follow in God's word?
Because Christ actually it's not us, it's not humans.
So Paul actually authored in the book of Colossians.
That's a human.
Right.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, which wrote the Bible, the ordinances of Moses are nailed to the cross.
Secondly, Christ our Lord repeated nine out of ten of the Ten Commandments.
And he said, all the laws of the prophet hang upon the two teachings of Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 6.
But now I equally have to challenge you with scripture.
In Luke 1, when Elizabeth came in contact with Mary and both were babies, what did it say that John the Baptist did?
I cannot tell you that.
He leapt.
Okay.
Do non-babies leap?
I don't understand the question.
I'm going to be honest.
Isn't it a baby then worthy of protection if they're leaping?
I suppose?
Yes.
And it was the Greek word brephos, which literally means baby, intentionally used throughout.
Hold on.
In Jeremiah, it says, I knew you before you were in the womb.
In Psalm, I think 139, it's one of the most intricate verses about the detail of our formation process as human beings.
And finally, because of science, because of biology, we know that human life begins at that spark of new DNA.
And God says, do not murder.
And it's incumbent on Christians to therefore protect that life.
Okay.
So my biggest question is, I'm not saying that all abortion is valid.
I feel like that's up for everyone to decide.
But in the most, even if it's very small percentage, in the very small percentage that a baby is alive, but it has to be aborted for the sake of the mother, what do you think?
C-section.
What is a C-section?
A C-section is when you cut a mother's.
Why don't they do that instead of the abortion?
Because it could be equally as dangerous.
Wrong.
It's much safer than an abortion and quicker.
Do you have evidence?
I mean, yes, it's self-evident.
Can you tell me?
I mean, again, there's plenty of people.
He has evidence.
Plenty of people that are in medicine can tell you, but like, to be very clear, think about it.
Every hospital is equipped to do C-sections.
You have to go to a specific place for an abortion.
And a C-section, one-third out of everyone in this audience was born by C-section.
C-sections save lives.
They do not terminate lives.
And so when they say, we must abort the baby, thanks to modern technology, that's actually a false choice.
You could take the baby out of the environment and try to save its life as a cesarean section.
What if when the C-section happens, the baby's not able to survive on its own no matter what?
Okay, well then that's a separate circumstance.
It's like saying if the baby has a heart attack after the C-section, that's not a reason not to terminate it.
What do you mean?
You have to give everybody a chance at life.
You don't kill the baby in the womb just because you think that it's going to, well, it could hurt the mother.
You take it out of that environment.
Okay, but what I'm saying is if they take the baby out and they know it's not going to survive regardless.
How do they know that post-22 weeks?
You don't know that.
There's miracles that happen every day in the neonatal.
That's true.
Hold on.
In the neonatal intensive care unit, there's miracles that happen every day in NICUs.
And I agree, there's definitely, they don't know 100% for sure, but there's definitely probability through science, through biology, that they know, hey, this is more likely going to happen.
We don't do morals on probability.
I'm not saying it's morality.
I'm saying probability of a baby's going to survive or not.
It doesn't matter.
You don't terminate a life based on a probability of survival.
Oh, you do?
Interesting.
You guys murder people based on probability of survival?
Interesting.
So somebody on a ventilator should just be murdered?
I mean, it's such incredible morality.
Would you keep someone on a ventilator for the entire of everything else then?
It depends.
There's two different things.
There's no more and not yet.
Once you reach the level of no more human interventions can improve this person's life or bring them back to a full life, that is a separate moral decision than not yet.
When a human being is at not yet, which they are in the womb, you must do everything you can to make sure they get life.
When a human being is at no more, it's a completely separate moral dimension and decision to make.
No more and not yet are the ways to look at pro-life decisions.
