Unpopular Opinions

The Courage to Speak What’s Hard to Hear

So it's been over a week, and I'm still thinking about this man that we lost, and I've really been exploring the reason as to why. As I mentioned last week, before his death, I would watch Charlie Kirk's debates, and even some of the longer-form debates online over the last couple of years, and though I would agree with him on some things, other things seemed too controversial for me to completely side with him - I always had a tendency to deem his position as one I shouldn't consider, as it usually wasn't the popular position in my own peer group. But since last week, I've revisited a couple of longer debates he's had, and I'd like to share them today. Because there are STILL people trying to paint him as this terrible, evil person - and so these longer debates, well over 2 hours combined - pretty much showcase the platform on which he stood on, his conviction in his faith and stances, and also his moments of weaknesses and holes in his reasoning.

In his wake, many have criticized Charlie Kirk for what he chose to do for work, traveling to schools and debating college students — saying he was picking fights with young, often ill-prepared kids while he, as an adult, had the upper hand. I even saw one comparison likening it to a professional boxer stepping into the ring with an amateur. But here’s the thing: this is, in many ways, what college and universities are meant to be about. In the days of Plato and Socrates, philosophers would go around engaging in public conversations to probe other thought leaders and discuss the issues of their time. While Charlie’s debates leaned more toward defending his own perspective than seeking open-ended truth, I still see a parallel in his intent.

There’s a big difference between debating high school kids and debating college students. Universities are supposed to be places where young adults are pushed to test their ideas, sharpen their reasoning, and learn to defend their beliefs in the real world. Otherwise, why even go? Why pour thousands of dollars into tuition just to sit in an echo chamber? If students can’t handle being challenged by a man who never had the same educational opportunities they did, then maybe the real question is: who’s actually getting the better education?

In keeping with the theme of sharing Jubilee Surrounded videos, I’d like to highlight the episode Charlie Kirk was in: 1 Conservative vs. 25 Liberal College Students. I remember watching it when it was first released, and what struck me most was how confidently Charlie held his ground. Many of the students approached him with heavy emotion, often speaking over him or trying to catch him in a “gotcha” moment. But when he responded with clear arguments, the conversations frequently broke down into name-calling, deflection, or frustration. It made me reflect on the current state of higher education in North America — where young adults, on the cusp of entering society and shaping its future, are often encouraged to debate with passion, but not necessarily to listen or engage with respect. This is the culture Charlie was challenging.

This episode also features the viral debate on abortion, where the most unhinged student cornered Charlie with a hypothetical scenario that would unsettle anyone. She asked what he would do if he had a daughter—which he immediately confirmed that he does. Then she escalated: what if his 10-year-old daughter were raped and became pregnant? Would he force her to carry the baby?

Charlie’s initial reaction was instant discomfort—he, like me, was jarred by the graphic mental image of his child in such a situation. The student pressed him relentlessly, repeating that these things “happen all the time,” until he finally answered: “yes, the baby would be born.” On its own, that soundbite seems harsh, but there was a deeper logic to his response.

Charlie Kirk doesn’t strike me as a father who would ever allow his child to face such harm—he seems like the kind of man who would fiercely protect her. But in this hypothetical, he stood by his faith and values, explaining that an evil act should not be remedied with another evil. Instead, he framed the outcome as an opportunity to create life and provide the best possible future for the child. It’s not a choice nor an answer I would personally make, but the reasoning behind it is profound—and he answered it knowing this scenario would never actually happen to his daughter.

His reasoning is undeniably beautiful, but the hypothetical itself is undeniably tragic. And I think the student that asked the question felt that as well, yet reacted poorly by getting even more mad, and continued to personally attack him by saying the most vile thing that hits harder now than when I first heard it: "I hope your daughter lives a very happy life and gets far away from you". That girl may have just gotten her wish granted, though I'm not sure how happy his daughter is right now.

This is the father that was taken away from that daughter way too soon in her life:

In a world where so many fathers are absent or abusive, we need more men like Charlie Kirk — fathers who are dedicated to their families, strong in their values, and protective of life. The student raised an extreme example involving a five-year-old who was raped and became pregnant. Charlie was surprised to hear a child that young could conceive, but Jubilee’s fact-check caption clarified that this tragic case involved a girl with precocious puberty — a condition that often develops after early sexual abuse or unwanted sexual contact, where a child's body goes into puberty prematurely.

Charlie Kirk didn’t fully consider these rare but devastating circumstances, because in his worldview, they simply wouldn’t happen — he envisions a world where children are safe and protected. But the harsh reality is that not all men are as honourable or protective as Charlie, and tragedies like this do occur. His ignorance to these sitauations are not a sign of his terrible character, but his blindness to the realities that some people live through.

When Charlie argued against abortion, he wasn’t only focused on legality—he was pointing to how the easy accessibility of abortion has shaped our culture to see life as disposable. As a woman, it was heartbreaking for me to watch girl after girl dismiss a fetus as “just a clump of cells,” or even, in some cases, as a “parasite.” That kind of language may help someone reconcile the act of abortion, but it also dehumanizes the potential life growing within us.

From Charlie’s perspective, the issue came down to responsibility. We all know what can happen when you have unprotected sex, yet many still take that risk, believing any “mistake” can simply be erased. And when his views are challenged, the counterarguments almost always circle around extreme cases—pregnancies that threaten the mother’s life or those resulting from rape. Those tragedies are real, but they aren’t the majority. In the U.S. alone, there are over a million abortions each year, and most aren’t the result of dire circumstances—they’re the result of carelessness.

To bring this up now is not to shame anyone who has made the difficult choice to end a pregnancy—I can’t pretend to know what that feels like, and I can only imagine how painful it must be. Rather, my intention is to open a conversation for future generations: to consider their choices, their sexuality, and who they choose to share it with. I would never push to make abortions illegal (I fully believe in adult bodily autonomy), but I think bringing sacredness back to our own sexuality and intimacy will not only create more satisfaction in the bedroom (when done properly and with intention), but it will prevent the many accidents from happening. I will write about this more in detail later.

Here is the Jubilee episode for your viewing. If you’ve already formed an opinion about Charlie Kirk without ever watching his debates, I urge you to approach this with an open mind. As I rewatched, I couldn’t help but feel unsettled by how many people were celebrating his death—because in so many ways, Charlie embodied qualities of the strong father-figure our society is deeply lacking right now.

There is so much in this episode, as with every episode, but I won't pick apart the entire thing for you. Instead, I'll just highlight the points that really stayed with me. First, the attitude of each student was very obvious, and they showed their maturity and age quite loudly. The amount of eye rolls, loud sighs, and just glaring looks - it was obvious that they were not really trying to listen to what Charlie was saying, but already judged what he was saying as just completely wrong.

There was a moment during the “Trans women are not women” exchange that really stood out to me. At around 42:00, a young woman stepped to the mic and described women as one would describe cars, as they “come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colours.” I believe her intention was to show that women are not defined solely by their biology, but it was funny to listen to. What struck me most was that, like every other person in that discussion, she still (as a woman herself) wasn’t able to clearly define what a woman is.

She then added that her friend, a trans woman, was “more of a woman than she was.” You could see Charlie have a slight reaction in his face when she said that, almost startled by the statement, before offering his rebuttal: if her friend was “more of a woman,” then she must be giving the word some definition — and yet she couldn’t explain it further.

As a woman, this makes me pause and reflect. I want to be clear: I have no issue with adults making their own choices about their bodies and identities. What concerns me is how this broader cultural movement has made people afraid to even define what a woman is. And if young women themselves can’t articulate what it means, how can they fully grow into the women they were born to be?

And then there was Parker, who came up to the mic buzzing with some type of caffeine-high and an eagerness to dismantle Charlie’s religious faith at every turn. He launched into his definition of a woman — rattled off so quickly it was hard to catch every word — but essentially, he reduced womanhood to a set of cultural standards someone chooses to follow. That take was met with an approving snap from another male panelist.

Honestly, nothing irritates me more than men trying to define what a woman is — and missing the mark so badly. Instead of pausing to let Charlie respond, Parker immediately pivoted to theology, arguing that Charlie’s whole framework was invalid because he referred to God as “He,” even though God doesn’t have XY chromosomes. Parker was using a lot of words, but I can confidently say (as a woman), none of those words still successfully defined what a woman is - which is really what Charlie was trying to get at.

From the entire debate, one student stood out most, earning Charlie’s commendation for his argument on abortion. Many younger viewers thought Dean had truly stumped Charlie, especially when he brought up IUDs. But after revisiting Dean’s point, I don’t think it was strong enough to counter what Charlie was defending, even though it was one of the more impressive debates of the group. Dean argued that if Charlie supports making abortion illegal because it violates the rights of an unborn child, then by that logic, IUDs should also be illegal—since there’s a chance a sperm could fertilize an egg, and the IUD would prevent that potential life.

Charlie made it clear that he didn’t want to take away that form of birth control from women, so he disagreed that IUDs and abortion were the same. His rebuttal was that with an IUD, a woman may never know if an egg has been fertilized, whereas with an abortion, she is fully aware there is a fetus and is actively choosing to terminate it.

Dean was voted out before they could go deeper into the discussion, but because Charlie had complimented him for presenting the best argument, many people online held Dean up as the one who could really challenge him. In the comment sections, Dean was seen as a fair match, and there seemed to be a strong desire for someone — anyone — to take Charlie down.

That’s why, in the Cambridge Debate that followed, the very first question asked was why Charlie appeared to be avoiding Dean. Here is that entire debate:

I wanted to share this debate because it was one of the more recent ones (May 2025), and it took place at Cambridge University in the UK. What stood out to me immediately was the stark contrast between the debates Charlie had on American campuses versus this one. The Cambridge students came prepared—they engaged thoughtfully, presented their points with clarity, and managed to challenge Charlie without spiraling into emotional outbursts. Personal attacks were minimal (though some still tried to chip away at his faith, framing it as a weakness), and the arguments felt sharper and more deliberate. This was the kind of intellectual back-and-forth you’d expect from a real debate. It wasn’t the familiar environment Charlie was used to in the US, where he often debated students who were clearly out of their depth. By the end, you could see his frustration rising as he realized he couldn’t simply dominate the stage in the same way.

I chose this debate because, right from the start, the moderator pressed Charlie with questions aimed at clearing up controversies surrounding his past statements and actions. Within the first 28 minutes, they touched on everything from Turning Point’s professor watchlist—which names American professors accused of pushing Leftist ideology—to his stance on transgenderism in minors, his skepticism toward the Covid vaccine, his critique of the Civil Rights Act, his take on MLK, his involvement in January 6th, his views on same-sex relationships, and the criticism that Turning Point has fueled right-wing extremist groups.

I also chose this debate because it revealed a weakness in Charlie—specifically in how he defended his president, whose conduct doesn’t always align with traditional Christian values. And at the very end, when a student pressed him on U.S. involvement in the Israel/Palestine conflict, you could see the weight in his expression. The student pointed out that thousands of babies and children were being killed, and asked how, as a Christian, he could defend that. In that moment, Charlie didn’t look like the confident Master Debater he usually was—he looked burdened, as if the question struck deeper than he expected.

The tone and vibe of this one was different, but in both debates, he was respectful (for the most part), and stood his ground. It's interesting to note that shortly after this debate, he started to host more open conversations about the Isreal/Palestine conflict (both on his podcast and at Turning Point events) which shows that his mind could actually be changed.

---

Why have I been so obsessed with this since his death? I had to sit with that question and reflect deeply, even as other priorities were calling for my attention. For a while, I convinced myself that maybe this was just a distraction from what I was really supposed to be doing. But the truth is, Charlie’s death pushed me to listen closely to his words—and in doing so, I was forced to look within myself and confront my own truth. In the end, it all ties back to Opulence Vision.

I’ve been hesitant to write about these topics because they’re often unpopular when you go against the grain. But the reality is, these issues are shaping our culture and even our individual identities more rapidly than ever. If we’re serious about sustainability—not just in the environment but in how we live, work, and relate—we have to address what’s happening within us as individuals and how we show up in society. Big corporations and government corruption matter, but the roots always come back to us.

So, in honour of Charlie Kirk and the courage he showed day after day, I’m borrowing some of that bravery to use this space to voice the truth within me. Tomorrow's post will be dedicated to the views I share with him—the points we should be talking about honestly, because they are reshaping our culture, our identity, and the way we are raising the next generation.

Thank you for staying on this journey with me this far. Writing about these topics isn’t always easy, but knowing you’re here reading and reflecting alongside me gives me the courage to keep going. My hope is that together we can have honest conversations about the things that truly matter—not just the surface-level noise, but the deeper truths that shape our lives, our culture, and the future we’re building.

Tomorrow, I’ll be sharing the points where I found myself nodding in agreement with Charlie Kirk—the views that, whether you agree or disagree, deserve to be part of the conversation. I believe these are the ideas we need to look at with clear eyes, because they impact not only who we are today, but the generations that come after us.

Until then, I just want to say thank you again for being here. Your presence matters more than you know.