Charlie Kirk Defends Trump, Debates Abortion and Feminism at Cambridge Union in Heated Exchange

Okay, thank you. Can we settle down, please? We're going to move on to our questions. Our first question is from Zina Zubar from Sydney, Sussex. Come up and ask a question. Remember, you have the right of response. Um, I have quite a simple question for you. Now, I know you've debated Dean Withers on Jubilee before. I was wondering why you now refuse to engage with further debate with him. Wait, hold on. F first of all, he's coming on my show this summer. And let me get this straight. I flew 5,000 miles across the world to have you ask why I'm not going to debate a left-wing YouTuber. Well, I mean, he continuously tries to get your attention at your campus. Again, you just ignore him. I've debated him twice in the last calendar year. He's coming on my show this summer. Let me be clear. I came to Cambridge to have you ask me that. I mean, you talk about freedom. I'm just using my freedom of speech to ask you a simple question. You seem to be dodging it for some reason. No, I I've debated him twice in the last year and he's coming on this summer for a long form discussion, but is is this what I can expect? Yeah, he's making videos about you avoiding him on your campus debates. Right. So, let me let me tell you how this works. I do a campus event like at Texas A&M University. I rent it out. I'm there for three hours. He shows up demanding to come up to the mic immediately. Cutting in line of other students. It's not Joe Biden's America anymore. We can just cut in line and get whatever you want. So therefore, I say, "Excuse me, Dean. We'll talk at another time." He makes this YouTube video as if I'm scared to debate him, even though I debated him twice in the last year. Does that sufficiently answer your question? Yes, it does. Thank you very much. Thank you. Right. So, thank you for coming, Charlie. My question to you, I mean, I'm a medical student and so I'm going to throw out the big a word. I know you get asked about it a lot, but I want to hear from you. Your opinion is on abortion. Life begins at conception. Uh, but about abortion specifically, why why do you think abortion is wrong specifically? Well, you agree murder is wrong. I agree. Okay. So this this is where we get to the question, right? Because what what is it about murder you say is wrong? Like why is murder wrong? Well, because it's a human being. Not just because it has consciousness or because it's of a certain age. Because it's a human. Because it's a And what is it that gives human being this moral worth? Not its consciousness necessarily. I didn't I didn't say it's consciousness. I know. I'm I can imagine it's because it is a human being because that is a soul. And what what is this soul? Where does this come from? This idea that it's exactly I mean again the Greeks postulated that it is the entirety of your being. Okay, you guys can laugh. I mean, it's true. I mean, every civilization has had a different belief, but agreed upon ethical monotheism, which is the creed of the west and what the birth certificate of my country articulates that every human being is more than just matter. It's more than just a clump of cells, but it also has an invisible element to you that will live beyond you. Fine. So, I mean, can you say that comes from the Bible or where else do you get that? Ethical monotheism, which is the creed of the West. And again, the Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. the the founders were explicitly believed not in a secular moral morality but a divinely given one of at least this idea that there is a god and you are not him and let me ask you what is the first stage of human development so the f I mean this is the thing right we can take it from the sperm being generated in the father and the usite being generated in the mother right they fuse at birth uh conception sorry the only thing that happens at conception is these two cells fuse right no DNA is created a zyg is not created DNA no that's not true the DNA The DNA coding at the Hold on. Time out. Does a zygote have a unique marker? Charlie. DNA. Does a zygote have a unique marker? You have to let me speak. You have answer it. Yes or no. Does a zygote have a unique marker? Define a unique marker. Meaning can you differentiate the DNA coding between the mother and the zygote? If you examine it under a deoxy ribboucleic acid analysis, can you only purely because the addition comes from the father. Oh, so it is something different. Charlie, DNA is not created. DNA is not created. You have the father has his own genome. The mother has her own genome. They fuse. This is why you have the same characteristics. Similar ones to your mother, similar ones to your father. That's why you have similar characteristics to your siblings. DNA is not created. Right? So when you ask me where does a human being come from? I can say to you it starts at conception. But all conception is these two cells joining. Right? But these two cells were created the mother cells were created long before she they were created when she was a fetus. So there's there's none of this DNA being produced, right? So we can't we can't establish at conception is these two se these two cells fuse. Now this idea that that means that for some reason suddenly that moral worth comes in but it wasn't there before when you had these two cells who had half the G the DNA but suddenly there's there's correct something magical happens at that it's not magical Charlie we know about this well hold on hold on Charlie time out hold onie I promise you I'm not trying to score points I'm not trying to score points on you this is we call it the miracle of life for a reason we've not been able to yet replicate human life development outside of the womb. We call it the miracle of life because yes, it's something beautiful. The ability to magical it's not you say magical is it? Oh, it's beautiful. It's a incredible thing that happens. Of course, it's not incredible in the sense we don't know what's going on. There's no new DNA being coming out of nowhere. Hold on. But time out is isn't there a separate DNA though than the mother? Like Yes. From the father. Okay. Yes, but then yes, but it's not the father's DNA either. A new coding is created. You are a blend of the two. And that your so when did your life begin? Okay. So so when did your life I mean again this is this comes from what you define as where life started. You can say life starts at conception but I'm telling you I believe that's just an arbitrary point right that's just the moment these two cells fuse. Now you say about this mother thing. So the way the way DNA is arranged in a cell is it's arranged in chromosomes. Chromosomes are paired up. So you have one from the mother one from the father typically in a healthy individual. Right now you can take those maternal chromosomes out and you can find that th this is who the person's mother is and you can do the same with the father. Now the reason you are different to your mother and father is because some of those chromosomes express genes that are different from each other. And so those genes interact and that's what gives rise to you. Right? There's no there's no there's no space for any kind of moral framework to come into that until you consider that a human being is capable of consciousness and of suffering. But unless you if you take that out of the equation, the fact that these two DNA, you know, whatever they call molecules, right? These two DNA molecules are fusing, that does not suddenly flip a switch that attributes moral worth to that individual. I mean, I'm just saying I I'm not trying to score points. By what moral standard do you believe that? I believe that if a if an individual is capable of suffering then it's wrong. Now, can I can I explain my opinion on abortion? Just so you can understand, I I would agree as many reasonable people would that at 9 months it like it's unreasonable to expect someone to get an abortion, right? Unless you have some extreme circumstances, but for an elective abortion seems a bit radical to me. But it also seems radical to say that a woman who has just, you know, the cells have just fused to deny her of an abortion also seems wrong to me because that that, you know, that zygote is not capable of suffering as far as we know. So you're by again by what moral standard is that just your opinion? Where did you get that moral standard from? Because suffering is a bad thing. We all know suffering is a bad thing. That's an objective fact, right? Hold on. So okay, so you do believe in objective morality? I believe that suffering is an objectively negative. So if you if you can't feel it, is it okay? What do you mean if you can't you can't feel the pain? Is it okay to inflict the pain? In in the sense that if no one's suffering from it, if you have a scenario where nobody is suffering from something, then yes, of course. There's no there's no a moral something is only a moral question if it affects someone's well-being. So let me just make sure I understand this correctly that if it doesn't affect their well-being. So dementia patients that don't know who they are or where they're from. Can we can we execute dementia patients because they're confused about their wellbeing? C can you can you imagine a scenario or Alzheimer's patient Alzheimer's patients don't really know much about anything. Can we schedule them for execution because they can't technically suffer? Now respond. So can you imagine a scenario where we lived in a society where we killed people when they they you know they underwent they suffered from dementia were unccapable of suffering and we killed them right that would not that does not is not a scenario that involves an absence of suffering there's still suffering involved people's imagine you grow up thinking my dad could be killed at any moment because he's going to get dementia imagine living your life thinking I could get dementia and suddenly I'd be killed by my state imagine a world where you slaughter a million babies every year in America But Charlie, Charlie, it's not slaughter. That's the problem. What? Hold on. If it's a forcible removal from the umbilical cord of an another human life, again, we we have clarity but not agreement. Biologically, you know that your entire coding began at conception. Your coding or uniqueness I'm denying. I disagree with that. Okay. When those two cells fused together to yours to use your terminology, that is where the process accepted terminology. In the interest of time, can we bring this question to a close? process of human development objectively begins at that moment. Therefore, those human beings are deserving of human rights. We keep going or do you want to No, thank you. That's finish. Yeah, you can finish. The process of development begins from the moment the sperm is being generated in the father, the moment the eggs are being generated in the mother. To say that suddenly the moral worth switches on when they fuse doesn't make any sense. That's just a a point. It makes perfect sense because that that is when your journey as a human being when the sperm and egg were separate, you were not yet a fused human being. You were not created uniquely. DNA existed in an image. Your DNA existed. I thought Well, no. The No, the parts of your DNA existed. Your DNA did not exist. It's like saying that we have a full car just because we have all the parts. It was not yet put together until conception happens and the zygote was formed. Thank you. I think we move on to the next question, please. Thank you. You know about Patriot Mobile and what they stand for. I've talked to you about their commitment to family, faith, and freedom. But have you made the switch yet? You'll get exceptional nationwide coverage on America's best networks without sacrificing your values. Get unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, and even a backup line on your phone. Patriot can do it all. Switching is easy. Keep your number your phone, or get a new one. Go to patriotmobile.com/kirk25 or call 972 Patriot. Use promo code kirk25 for a free month of service. Um so first of all my first question or my only question is um you've advocated and applauded the reducing and removing of public funding for universities on the grounds they promote ideological biases. Given that universities play a critical role in driving national innovation, research and upward mobility, especially through federally funded grants. How do you reconcile this position with the broader societal value that higher education institutes offer? Well, they can, but in Harvard's case, for example, who's getting their funding pulled, they have a $50 billion endowment. Just so we are clear, in pounds, that would be like what 42 billion 45 billion. I mean, I'm trying to learn the conversion rate here. I mean, it's an extraordinary amount of money. They can either e use their endowments to fund it. And if you have certain behavior and certain practices, then you should not get federal funding. Harvard is in direct violation of the United States Supreme Court fair admissions case which says you cannot discriminate people based on the the color of their skin. Go ahead. But isn't the whole point of you can't use endowments like that. The point of they can the point of an endowment is to manage a fund through perpetuity. Cambridge has an endowment and that endowment allows uh professorships to be funded to allow for research into sciences. That's the whole point of you just said Hold on. You just said it funds research into the sciences. That's what they should do with their monstrosity of an endowment. Yeah. But the endowment is you the interest alone on their endowment could fund the entire research and development budget of most Ivy League schools. They have a $50 billion endowment. Even like a podunk money manager in America can earn a 7 to 10% investment in the markets the last couple years. That's $5 billion of returns that that endowment could then reinvest in whatever they want. Instead, Harvard has become a hedge fund with a radical school attached. And I think that's very wrong for US taxpayers to continue to subsidize. But is not just Harvard. You've called on colleges being a scam. You've constantly attacked higher education institutes. Um, you've attacked liberal arts as a scam. For example, like a lot of conservatives, uh, Peter Thiel studied philosophy at Stanford. Um Ronald Reagan studied sociology. A lot of them did study liberal arts. And you keep undermining these august institutions which have provided a lot for society. Like society's backbones have been universities and higher learning institutes and yet you keep attacking them. Well, they used to be largely but again I don't want to speak too much about this country but in America they don't represent fundamental American values. You know, Peter Teal after he wrote graduated uh Stanford wrote an entire book criticizing college and then paying people not to go to college. So, Peter Teal who spoke at this very school and you guys had a great conversation with him. Do you know that he believes college is such a scam he would pay people $100,000 a year for 20 years straight not to go to college. So, not exactly a good argument in your favor. Peter Teal, who got a philosophy degree, made billions of dollars, and has now forked over tens of millions of dollars for people not to go to US universities and colleges. Yeah. But, but it's not just Peter Teal. I know. You mentioned him. I didn't. But there's to complete the point is that Thomas went to did liberal arts. Look, there in America, there are far too many people going to college. We need people to become welders, electricians, people that work with their hands. There is a major trade deficit problem in the United States. We have 11 million well-paying jobs that we cannot find enough labor for. And instead, we have a lot of people going to university to go study North African lesbian poetry. might sound good, but it doesn't necessarily a either development of the content, the character, or the development of the soul, and b it does not necessarily also give you the skills necessary. Some college is good for you. I'm a big proponent of Hillsdale College. Can you please be quiet? I believe Hillsdale College is America's greatest college and I'm a big proponent of that. But I would ask a question in your own words, what do you believe the purpose of college is? It's critical engagement. But but coming back to your point on lesbian poetry or whatever, North African lesbian poetry, North African lesbian poetry. So in the morning I actually had a lecture on development policy and one of the key authors on sort of development economics is Nusbang who talks about how liberal arts sort of engages you critically. And one could argue even North African lesbian poetry. I don't think that's a degree. I think that's just a module within a degree. Um uh uh is maybe yeah that that makes you fact you don't know shows how rotten to the core universities have become. You're taking one example and telling conservatives and hordes of young people that college is a scam. College isn't a scam. I mean, I took my mom down to a pub just down the road where Watson and Crick announced DNA. If college, guys, can we Okay, wait one second. If college is a scam, then DNA wouldn't have been discovered. Cancer research. Hold on a second. Yes, you're right. At this Pacific University, you guys split the atom. You had Sir Isaac Newton. You had some of the greatest minds of the West. I don't know about what's happening here and I'm not going to criticize it. But at most colleges in the west, they've gone away from places of inquiry and appreciation of what is good and what is beautiful and into this incessant oppression Olympics of trying to deconstruct the core cannon that is our birth certificate. I don't know if that's happening here. It's certainly that's not true though. In America, it is objectively true. Okay. That isn't true. Okay. I Yeah. No. First of all, they removed Western civilization as a core course in Stanford in the 1990s. They got they tried to bring it back with petitions and the university said no teaching western civilization is racist. Shakespeare is not taught at m let me finish Shakespeare is not taught at major universities across America because it's deemed as racist. I talked to some students earlier in the in the English department and they said hey I'm studying Shakespeare. I said that's refreshing because in a lot of US schools they don't teach Shakespeare because he's called racist. You would be surprised at how wretched to the core some of these colleges have become in America. If you look at the global innovation index, America, which is predominantly a lot of their majors are in humanities and liberal arts, they're number two on the global innovation index. China is somewhere near 13. If you look at every metric, a 14,000 C, 14,000 CEOs, 40% did humanities and liberal arts. There is a value in liberal arts. Yet you're criticizing and I'm going to keep on criticizing it. Also, the vast majority of liberal arts graduates do not respect freedom of speech. That is an empirical poll. They increasingly do not have reverence or gratitude for the United States of America. They don't care about the core values of the US Constitution. If you want to go to college, that's fine. But in our country, 40% of kids that enter college do not graduate. The kids that do graduate, half of them end up getting jobs that do not require any sort of college degree. There are all these madeup degrees. In America, I know it's different than the experience you might be having here. Your tutoring system here is objectively great. I'm glad you guys have it. The class sizes in America are four to 500 students sometimes per introductory course to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt study things that don't matter to find jobs that do not exist. And so let me just make one final point is that of course some people should be going to college. But generally in the United States of America it has become a racket of debt. It has become a burden and a place where we're actually not putting our best and brightest into the job field itself to be equipped for the jobs of the future. instead um we we have a lot of baristas at Starbucks with philosophy degrees. You also mentioned indoctrination as per the Oxford dictionaries definition of indoctrination. It means that you you take a belief and you can't critically observe that belief. Turning Point USA has over 30,000 chapters uh 3,000 3,000 chapters across US universities. So are you arguing that students including conservatives lack the critical thinking skills to sort of decide political ideologies, political beliefs that they're so dumbfounded that they can't decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong. And that your whole premise is on the fact that students like us, we lack critical thought in deciding what is taught in schools. Again, I'm not using Cambridge as the school that I think of, but in America, we have millions of people that go to these massive state schools that have humanities departments that are not reading the great books, that do not have a tutoring system, that are unfortunately laced with the most anti-western thought imaginable. I don't really quite following what one thing has to do with the other, why 3,000 chapters has something to do with your indictment. Maybe you can clarify, but I think we're out of time. You can clarify a bit that in general should be a place that lift you up to what is good, true, and beautiful to study the great things that have been to develop your soul and develop your character. Character in Greek literally means like tattoo to etch you etched within you. Far too often colleges create ungrateful, pessimistic and nihilistic revolutionaries that want to tear down what was before and instead have no alternative to build the future and the West is suffering because of it. Thank you very much. Thank you. But I disagree. But thank you very much. Thank you. It's good to meet you, Charlie. I hope you can understand first rule. I'm a little nervous. There's a very real chance I can wake up tomorrow front page of YouTube. Charlie Kirk owns man idiot with facts and logic. So destroys. It destroys. Okay. So my question is um I agree that stable monogous relationships often produce the best outcomes for society. But if that structure really works for everyone, why do we consistently see societies once they become safer and more prosperous move away from traditional monogamy? And why do so many marriages still end in divorce even among people who generally try to make it work? And just one final framing there. If you believe in free markets because they are decentralized and they adapt to reality without top- down control and given the individual ability to form healthy long-term pair bonds vary significantly with factors like genetics and ecologically calibrated attachment styles, why do you reject top- down control and economics but not extend that same rejection to human behavior in terms of marriage? Okay, so the f the first one uh the second law of thermodynamics answers your question is that is the law of decay. Societies tend to decay against the roots that created them. For example, as a side note, here in this country, you guys invented the idea of free speech. You brought it to the world. You guys do not have free speech in this country anymore. 30 people a day are arrested in the UK for inflammatory social media posts. Someone by the name of Lucy Connelly is currently facing prison time for a Facebook post that was critical of migrants. It is normal unfortunately for civilizations to get away from how they once operated and how they once were. Now to your question, does that answer the first part of your question? You you were saying why do they get away from monogamy? I I I want I want to make sure I'm answering your question. I I would say I don't feel that that's a full answer. Okay. So So the you're answer you're asking why do they get away from what works? That's is that correct? Yes. Yes. Well, why do societies make this change once they become more prosperous? Oh yeah. Okay. I mean because prosperity leads to degeneracy for sure. That would be the answer. And so once you are prosperous, you tend to no longer have the moral guard rails or the limitations that the let's just say you no longer have delayed gratification because you have instant gratification because you have a surplus of goods and then you have a decline of a transcendent moral order. This the second part of the question, can you remind me please what the second question was? Um yeah about markets. Yeah. Oh yeah. Okay. Well I for example you have to I believe an intervention in markets if there is something that is improper morally. So for example, I do not believe that you should be able to scam your neighbor or have misleading advertising because I believe in a transcendent moral standard. And the same goes for my my personal views on marriage. Okay. So I think we largely agree on the foundation. I would like to propose something that you might like to think about. So firstly, I absolutely acknowledge that again if everyone in society was able to maintain healthy long-term pair bonds, that would be best. Again, there's strong data showing that independent of soio economic factors, broken homes are some of the strongest predictors of poor life outcomes. We totally agree. Yes. And even I'm not sure if many people are aware of this, but if you track, you know, as countries become more socially egalitarian, somewhat surprisingly, rates of female depression and anxiety also spike disproportionately. So I think one of the problems here is that when you try and impose moral absolutism inevitably again due to variance in attachment issues um you know due to industrialized culture absent parents screens you know raising kids around 50% of adults in the west develop attachment disorders which make it very difficult to maintain long-term pair bonds and then additionally you have things like variation occin receptors in density and shape also invasive prein there are going to be even you know even if there's 5% of people who feel that these rules really do not fit them they will push back and this will create ideologies that then grow into more wider appealing ideologies which then you know lead I think this is what happened in the sexual revolution it started with a push for female autonomy and then it was almost morphed into a really exaggerated expression of pushing for maximizing individual freedom and I think that when you try and impose moral absolutism this way it just inevitably causes push back and I think if you were you as someone with a platform instead say hey monogamy is great it works best for most people but I also understand there are some people doesn't work so well for more people would hear the message that you want to push okay thank you for that that's an interesting I've actually never gotten that question before it's very thoughtful would you say you're against moral absolutism then yes I would are you against that absolutely no I'm very open to having my mind changed and um so it's it's not an absolute thing well I'm against moral absolutism. Do you Are you against moral absolutism? Absolutely. No. Okay. So then you're consistent. So it's all just kind of and it's preference, not it's it's about preference then. You could just basically do whatever you prefer. There is no transcendent moral order. Well, I think what you're doing there is slightly unfairly putting me into a loop because I'm very open to having my mind changed. What I'm saying though is that by definitionally, and this is something that will keep on coming back, you must choose what moral standard we live by. I'm very clear as to what moral standard. The lie of the west of modernity the last 30 years is that we're going to let have you live and let live and there will be no moral standard. That itself is a moral standard and it's a really bad one. And to your point that yes, it creates more suffering. It creates more despair. And no, I disagree with what you say and I respect the heart of which you're saying it. I will say that I have a moral obligation not to accommodate when people fall short, but instead try to lift them up towards the standard that is true and that I know I know that works. So, where I'd push this is I'd ask you, you describe people falling short when they fail to engage in long-term monogamy. Why what do you think causes that? Why do you think some people struggle? Many reasons. Economic is one of them, but the biggest is the the death of religion and the death of Christianity in the west. As America, I'll just talk about America. I don't the UK is unfortunately far less churched than America, but as America has become less churched, so many of these social ills rise. So one thing I'd say I study the evolution of behavior in particular sexual romantic behavior. Um if you track all the different huntergatherer cultures that we can study and we track how agriculture shapes things you see the ecological conditions really reliably predict the prevalence of monogamy certain marriage systems and what I think is what we refer to as attachment issues. They seem to be an ecological calibration to an environment. In environments that are more unstable it's less optimal for an individual to grow up a tendency to rely on long-term pair bonds. And I think there's a mismatch with the modern world. Again, coming back to industrialization. There are so many people raise kids, you know, as absent parents. Daycare is massively linked to attachment issues. This then causes people to struggle the bond long term. And then again, coming back to the genetic part, there's again real research showing that especially vasopressin mutations and oxytocin mutations, some people really just do not have the proclivity for this. What brings stability? Because you say stability is a good thing. and what what would bring stability? So, first of all, I would say we had what you might consider stability in the previous century and then it became unstable and then things why I'm saying because moral absolutism was imposed if moral absolutism was lost. You see, modernity rose. We started to teach our kids moral relativism and we got rid of moral absolutes. So, it's the opposite. So, why was it lost? Was it lost because people stopped pushing this question to a close. Why was it lost? That's a question for far smarter minds. I can only tell you that it was in America. It's honestly one of the worst decisions, not just worst ideas ever, which is modern feminism. Uh largely from Betty Fredan's feminist critique, feminist mystique, I'm sorry, feminist mystique, which acted as if every woman who's in a monogous um marriage in the states is in some sort of tyrannical environment. And it has led to the women of the West being the most miserable, most depressed, most suicidal, most prescription drugaddicted cohort on the planet. And I think we need to appropriately challenge feminism and tell young women that it's okay. In fact, it's courageous to get married and have children again. I think it would solve a lot of our problems. So, I'm a feminist. Um my question uh is about the role of women though. What should women's role in public and private life look like and what are the material benefits of that? Well, thank you uh for that. Can can I take it I I don't even want to take this detour, but can we both agree on what a woman is? Yes. Um an adult human female is a biological state of being that is also socially experienced. Can I please elucidate just one example of that social experience? Yeah, I was going to answer your question, but sure. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, let's say you're a member of a tribe and that in that tribe to uh you have the biological female anatomy and in order to become a woman in that tribe, you have to also get a tattoo. That's a social experience that's mapped on to biological reality. So, can can a woman have a prostate? Can a woman have a prostate? Biologically speaking, a woman is an adult human female that has a biological reality, but it's also social experience, right? So, I like I don't It's super easy. Like, can a woman have a prostate? So, as per my definition of woman, I would say that people who have a prostate are biologically male, but they can sometimes be socially treated as women. Okay. Got it. So, so, so, so women can have prostates. Got it. Okay. Um, that's So, you're a feminist that actually isn't just fighting for women, you're also fighting for men. So, yes. Yeah. Men also experience harms from uh patriarchy, but I argue we're talking about the same feminism though, just make sure. Yeah. Sure. Go ahead. So men also experience harm from some patriarchal domination. But I would argue that those harms come from that system of domination itself. In the same way, for example, this isn't a threat, but if I reached across and punched you in the face, then my hand might hurt. Right. So are we understanding that there are do like patterns of power? So I would also fight for the rights of men as a feminist just as I would fight for the rights of women. Sure. Um you think women are happier than they were 40 years ago? Um I think I would have a few responses to that. Um, I think that women report more stress and dissatisfaction today because uh not because they have more rights or because of feminism, but because they're under dual pressure to both excel professionally and also because of the domestic labor in homes that is structured around outdated expectations. So for example, studies like the OECD's better life index show that women's life expectancy, education levels, professional achievements have risen in countries with higher gender inequality. So I would argue that what you're calling unhappiness is actually visibility because now we hear women expressing dissatisfaction whereas in the 50s we prescribed them valium and we lo I didn't know women not to complain 50 years ago. That's funny. Um so we've always hold on a second. Why are suicide rates going up more for women? I think that encourage complaining materially women are killing themselves more. Why is that? I think that even if both men both men and women have become unhappier, men's suicide rates have risen as well and that's also been exponential. Can you at least concede that feminism offers only one potential explanation? There could be also other explanations. obviously, but feminism is the the glaring thing in front of us where we have fertility rates down, we have marriage rates down, we have unhappiness up, and we did something in the 1960s out of the universities of Betty Fredane and Gloria Steinum and all these feminists that basically said, "You're trapped in a home. Go get a job, freeze your eggs, take birth control." And all of a sudden, women are way unhappier than they were 40 years ago. And I just have to ask the question, why is that? Is it working? And maybe there are biological differences between men and women that we should respect. and that deep down a lot of women want to get married and have children. In fact, we should applaud it and we should support it and we should say it means nothing if you're going to go be a CEO of some shoe company or be some banker in London. What matters if you raise children and you have something to pass down long after you're gone. I think I would bring two points to that. The first one is just really simple, which is that you can ascribe liberalism all you want as the cause of the unhappiness. I would argue something else. I would say that it's certain economic policy that has very little to do with the social acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I would say that we can recognize that income inequality of across a vast swave of western countries has increased which causes all kinds of social ills. A lack of social cohesion. Housing price growth doesn't correspond with wage growth. Monopolies increasingly become kind of emboldened to interfere with politics and monopolies don't prioritize social health either. I think that those offer more compelling reasons for a decline in happiness than an increase in freedoms because just one more thing on an intuitive basis generally speaking people want more freedom not less. Okay. So if that's true, why is it do you do you agree that the happiest women of the West are married with kids? Um I would have to look into it, but I think there are certain there are certain and objectively we know that, right? The the women with kids are not the ones tearing down statues, right? They're they're the ones that actually have obligations. Tearing down statues correspond to some kind of smiles per capita data set that I wasn't aware of. Again, it's like it's a little bit of a oneliner. The the happy and the grateful the happy and the grateful usually don't go burn down Wendy's in their spare time of which we saw in our country all throughout a single summer. But as a side note, you would agree objectively study after study, survey after survey, that the women of the West that are married and have children, especially a lot of children, are far happier than even the ones that earn more money correlated at the same age. So I also don't think that happiness is a very good metric and neither do you because you think gay people shouldn't just pursue happiness by being gay. They have other moralistic considerations to be making. So I don't think smiles per capita is a particularly convincing way to measure whether or not we should encourage women to be autonomous. I think we should maximize agency within a fair system that has reasonable parameters because it's expedient, it's good for the economy, it's logical, it's the moral thing because if we can't prove the material harms, we shouldn't discourage it. And also, self-reported studies is a really flawed way to do psychology. It's the week before my university exams uh right now and I'm standing here explaining the basic basic methodology be behind survey collection in sociology, which you don't even think is a real subject, to Charlie Kirk. If I took one of those surveys right now, I'd check extremely miserable. But so would a Palestinian child who's been taunted to smithetherines. How are we going to say extremely miserable? No, I'm I'm kind of making a joke. No, I mean, but ser like as a but hold on. I mean like that's an important point though is that the women in the west have it the best in the world and yet they're way unhappier than women of subsaharan Africa. There's something fundamentally wrong here because the women of subsaharan Africa have something that a lot of women in the west do not have. The women in the west have cats and they have good jobs. And the women of subsaharan Africa, they have a belief in the divine and they have kids. And maybe there's a biological undercurrent that is keeping a lot of women from realizing their full potential. And so without reading your phone and just like, you know, connecting, I'm not really reading my phone. Well, you you it's fine. Sure. Then you can answer without it. Fair enough. Would you agree that it's a good thing that more women get married and have children in the West? I would ask you, would you say that a subsahara African woman who's experienced female genital mutilation and checks extremely happy in a survey? And I also would check extremely happy in a survey. Who do you think would be objectively more happy even if they both check the same answer? No. Again, so I I fully if you want to talk about how Islam mistreats women, we could talk all day long. Like I'm I'm all for that. We do. Okay, good. So, we agree that we actually many things and we should shut off Muslim immigration to the UK, right? We totally agree. I think that all religious fundamentalism is bad. And if you take that logic, we should also not allow evangelical Christians into Hold on. So, hold on a second. Hold on. That's funny. Hold on. Can you show me a single show me what would your example cuz I have 50 of a single Christian country that you would say mistreats women right America. Oh really? Yes. We mistreat we had a female woman vice president. We had a female vice president a female speaker of the house. Women earn more than men in America. Rwanda in Rwanda female representation in government out out seeds like supersedes the UK by quite a lot. Do women get treated better in Rwanda? Okay. Is I might be super off this like is Rwanda Islamic? Like I'm not totally sure. I don't think it is. Like is it like I don't know actually. I don't it's not. So again, we were talking about Islam. It's a little bit of side note, but you must be morally clear because you brought up female gender mutilation, which is a teaching of the Islamic faith. But as a side note, like again, this is very important, which is I'm not here to require you to do anything or not. I'm making a simple observation which is which is objectively true regardless. The women of the West are miserable and they're miserable for a reason because we've told them to suppress how they are made by God and pursue something else and get a bunch of trinkets and get a bunch of promotions and they end up at 38 years old with a big flat in London and they're miserable and we should tell them to stop freezing their eggs and start finding their partner earlier and have lots of babies. Yeah. Okay. I think I'd bring two just final points to this. First one is just really intuitive, right? Which is that if you actually care about women's happiness, then the solution is to structurally support them. That means universal child care, shared legally enforceable parental leave. Um, and in Nordic countries where women have high workforce participation, and also some state support, they report higher life satisfaction than in more conservative countries including America. So if your metric is high, just do satisfaction surveys. You just told me they're BS. So are satisfaction or not? Because you told me do you acknowledge satisfaction surveys or not? You just told me that they're BS. Do you think they're object that we can use that as data? I don't think that is the only sole data set, but it is the data set. You told me there's a flaw and you self-report. Okay. By by the macro self self-satisfaction data, I am correct. And you are right. When you have paid family leave, you are happier. I'm actually a proponent of that. At Turning Point USA, we pay for six months when somebody has a child. I think there's a lot of agreement we can have on that. We need to encourage having more children. I think the Hungarian child policy is phenomenal. We should look at that because the greatest thing that is plaguing the West is we're not having enough kids. And it's not just bad because we won't have a future. It's also bad because the present is awfully miserable for too many women as well. Okay. In which case I think we get do I start bring this to a close please. Okay. I think just one final thing which is in which case we get to a really interesting argument about what kind of what parts of womanhood can be demarcated to the social and what kinds of womanhood can be demarcated to biological. So for example my anatomy is demarcated to the biological. But the fact that I might potentially be a better nurturer than a man. I would demarcate that to the social. You might demarcate that to the biological. In which case we have differing moral scales of value. I would ask why we should necessarily prioritize your moral scale of value which prioritizes things like the birth rate when in actual fact there are various other moral scales of value and if you yourself are a free market American why is it the case that you would not like the previous speaker noted extend personal freedoms towards all spheres including a private sphere I believe in absolute truth claims and it's absolutely wrong and bad when a society stops having kids to replace their own population and then you have to import the third world and you become the third world it's bad I disagree but thank you okay thank Mr. Kirk, you you have supported Donald Trump. Is this is this fair to say? M you you have supported Donald Trump and have been quite vocal about this. Supportive of Donald Trump. Yes, sir. That's right. One of his main domestic policy agendas has been Doge trying to cut the get drain the swamp, get rid of the grift, ensure that we have a more functioning, more efficient federal budget. According to the Financial Times yesterday, Donald Ronald Trump and Elon Musk among others have cut roughly $37 billion from the federal government budget. This is a contested figure. Of course, some of these have already been paid out, etc. It's likely lower, but they they've assumed about 37 billion. On the top of this, he has engaged in and tried to push tax cuts for the ultra wealthy that would amount to several hundred billion dollars in terms of tax breaks for the wealthy. Along with this, he has cut money-making institutions such as the Department of uh natural reserves and all this kind of thing that bring in about $40 billion. It cost about 5 billion and the IRS which brings in a huge amount of money relative to the amount of money it spends. With all this in mind, is it not fair to say Donald Trump has engaged in a smash and grab for the ultra witch, for the billionaires that stock his cabinet for all these people against the modern Americans that you claim to represent? Okay. How much do you know about his suggested tax plan? Pardon? His suggested tax plan? some I wouldn't say I am the world's he has suggested to raise taxes on the wealthy 37% to 40%. What about federal? No, federal income tax. Capital gains. He's the first capital gains will stay where it is, but he's the first Republican president that we have in since George HW Bush that's recommending to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy. Number two, a lot of those cuts, I wish it would be even more than 37 billion have yet not yet been full realized in America. Again, I don't know how applicable this will be, but the people watching online, he's advocating for no tax on tips. So, when you get tipped, we have a big tipping culture in America. He's advocating for no tax. I I I can understand where you're coming from here, Charlie. Can you see why it's popular on on the face of it? Donald Trump and and Republicans of his claim that the federal budget is something we should be very considered about and the debt and the cost of maintenance on that debt. Even if we don't regard any sense of tax increases or tax reduce on the ultra wealthy, the fact that he is engaging in and defunding money-making institutions such as the IRS exacerbate and increase this problem of debt dependency that the United States has. It is now the largest single problem in the federal budget. Why would you support a man that is exacerbating this issue he claims to care about so much? Right. I was answering the question. I mean, first of all, his suggested budget cuts $1.5 trillion. I wish it should be even more just Not true. No, it is it's it's okay. You could look it up. This is $1.5 trillion would be the equivalent of cutting the entire American military budget and a half. Where is he getting this is number essentially pulled out again? Again, the way that we do budgeting in America in a reconciliation process is over multiple budget cycles. So, we're doing three budgets this year. I don't know how interested people will be in this, but it's again, it's wonky, but again, it literally has $1.5 trillion through this reconciliation process with the largest middle class tax cut in history. I wish the cuts would be even more. Also to say he's just doing the pandering of the ultra wealthy. He's advocating for raising taxes on the ultra wealthy. We'll see if that materializes. That is an income tax. The ultra wealthy generally do not take a large portion of their income from an income tax and take it instead from capital gains. Well, fundamentally increasing an 8% tax on Elon Musk who takes a was it like $10,000 as a salary or something stupid will not make any material difference. This is a straw man argument and it is obfuscating from the fundamental issue. This is a government for and run by oligarchs. It's funny you say that. You do know the richest people in America vote Democrat. Almost 85% is fundamentally not true. The richest most educ Okay. Okay. Again, nine out of 10 of the wealthiest counties in America vote Democrat. If you earn more than 300,000 US a year, you have like you vote Democrat at a 75% clip. I mean, it is so overwhelmingly the Democrat party is the party of the rich. Secondly though, he's going out of his way to cut taxes for working people. No tax on tips, no tax on overtimes, the extension of the middle class tax uh relief. Again, I don't know how interesting this is for a UK audience, but more broadly, I will President Trump is doing the impossible, something I hope your government does. He is trying to cut taxes for middle class people while also trying to balance the budget. I wish he would cut taxes even more. It's an ambitious project and I support him completely in that endeavor. The extent to which he's attempting to balance the budget is not necessarily true given that the budget is currently at a higher deficit this time this current year as it was at any point under Biden or I think any other president in history. I would also point to the fact that suggesting that Democrats overwhelmingly vote Dem wealthy people overwhelmingly vote Democrats is true to a point after a certain income they overwhelmingly vote Republican because the tax breaks kind of business interest and all this that Republicans offer them. Given he is attempting in your own words to balance the budget again coming back to the root issue why is he defunding the IRS which brings in money why is he defunding national parks which makes money why is he engaging in all of this if he is trying to balance the first of all some of them is it can I just finish my statement is it perhaps because when you defund the IRS the wealthiest people the people that fund his super PACs people that buy his Trump coins people that are in fact in his cabinet generally pay a lower de facto rate of tax because the IRS can no longer fund to actually investigate and audit Okay. So, by defunding, again, the IRS is our tax collection agency. If you guys don't know, it's the Internal Revenue Service. I don't know what it's called here in the UK. HMRC. Yeah. Sure. So, the um favorite the the the equivalent is number two that you're not totally wrong about one portion of this, which is that more agents do equal more revenue. You have to have a tension though of do you want to grow the IRS by 87,000 extra agents, which Joe Biden did. He's trying to peel that back. Do you believe in or do you know the LER curve? Are you familiar with it? I I can't say it. It's a belief that when you lower taxes, you can actually increase revenues because compliance goes up and economic growth goes up. We saw this in the United States during Ronald Reagan during a massive tax cut. Again, it's called the LER curve. Um, and so that's actually debated just because you cut taxes. You're going to run a deficit. But you're not totally incorrect. You are correct. And I will I will admit this point that when you have less IRS agents, you are going to have less revenue. And I think that it's a good thing generally to have less IRS agents looking into the particulars of Americans. And we have a history over the last 10 years right now, especially the richest Americans. Well, well, not necessarily. That's the thing is that the richest Americans actually are able to hire the tax attorneys and the accountants to get through IRS issues and get to settlement. What we see in the data is it actually ends up with middle class Americans because they do not have the same infrastructure to deal with a very intense IRS agent. All right, I'm going to say one last thing too much of your of your time. I think it is interesting to suggest that Donald Trump is the only president that is going to raise taxes on the arch. I've already pointed out the potential flaws the potential flaws in that. I would also draw the audience's attention to the fact that Donald Trump is overwhelmingly backed by supported by funded by and in fact sisters cabinet as I have mentioned by billionaires and you yourself and turning point USA relies relatively heavily on the ultra wealthy to give their donations for example foster freeze although you know sadly departed. Yeah, I know. But we also have when you were founding you were over overtly reliant on this. So I I would just like to point out that that inconsistency and I thank you for your Thank you. Yeah. Great. Thanks. [Applause] Marvelous. Thank you. A very, very short question. Israel versus Hamas. Good guy versus bad guy. Russia versus Ukraine. Who's the good guy and who's the bad guy? Both are bad. One is worse. Which way round? Russia is worse than Ukraine. Okay. So, why haven't we pursued that? What do you mean? Well, it seems to me that in the whole of the current US proposition that Ukraine is being the bad guy in what way? We funded Ukraine upwards to $200 billion. Absolutely. But we just signed a mineral deal with Ukraine, not Russia. Yeah, but you are expecting Ukraine to give up 20% of its territory someone who invaded it. Well, is Crimea part of Russia or Ukraine? Ukraine. That's where we don't agree. Well, I'm afraid that's part of international treaty. That's not up for grabs. Well, it's interesting. I mean, that's that's the point. I mean, even Zilinski has said he's willing to give up Ukraine. No, no, no. Who's Erica signed the agreement that gave Ukraine Crimea, right? when the Soviet Union ended, right? It was it was done. It first of all, it never should have been done. It was largely ceremony. However, it was annexed under Obama. Yes. And it was a mistake and it should be given back to Russia as a sign of good gesture to end this conflict. Who's currently controlling Crimea? Where was the Russian Navy headquartered in World War II? Where where was the the end of World War II? This is very important. I'm not doubting that. I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying that if we're being logical on what has happened that you are now arguing against that flow and I don't understand it because actually why is Ukraine the bad guy? No, I said they're bad. They're not the bad guy. Yeah. Well, you said they were both bad, but one was more bad. Yes. So, why is Ukraine bad? Well, there's a lot wrong with Ukraine. First of all, they're not a democracy. Zilinski refuses to hold an election. Well, no, he can't hold an election. Wait, did Churchill hold an election during the war? Because under his constitution, Hold on. Lincoln held election during the war. He can That's not true. He can call an election. He can call a snap election. He's full dictator of the country. No. Cuz he knows that the people of Ukraine would kick him out immediately because he's deeply unpopular. In fact, if he wanted to show a statement to the world, he would call an election and win by 80% and say, "See, I'm super popular." So, that's number one. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with a person being propped up as a government we're sending $200 billion to that refuses even to face his voters. Um, okay. I I can't agree with you factually on that at all. Constitutionally, Ukraine is not able to hold an election because it's under military law at the moment. And that's just a matter of fact. Again, he can as a prime minister or president. He can he can do whatever he wants. He can't sign an executive order and change their constitution. Neither can the American president either. So hopefully there's a better he he could even do a ceremonial election to see where he actually stands with the people. I think we call those opinion polls. Yes. And they're very negative. Firmly ahead in the opinion. Again, but you would agree that a person that holds on to power without the election of the sovereign is pretty questionable. Um no, not in those circumstances. Okay, then we disagree. No. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. But give me another reason why you They are the most corrupt country in Europe that never even met the most remote standards of joining NATO. Do you not know where a lot of this money is going? I don't disagree that there is a problem with corruption, but the most corrupt country in Europe. Are you sure about that? I'd have to think. I'd have to double or triple think about that. But they're very corrupt. Um, okay. So that's a little bit doubtful. It's not absolutely I mean well corruption. I mean, you know, let's face it, we are talking about comparison with some of the states you're doing business with in the Gulf. Oh, of course. But we're not giving them money. They're giving us money. That's a difference, right? Saudi Arabia. Oh, so it's fine. Well, hold on a second. It's morally acceptable to take money from corrupt people. Well, hold on. First of all, as far as morally acceptable, you do what's best in the benefit of your country. And so, for example, we we were allied with Russia during the Second World War, and I'm glad we were. And I would ask you how much, don't forget, how much money is too much money to send to Ukraine? We're at 200 billion right now. I I I don't think you have to send any more money to Ukraine. We agree. I think you have to agree to support them as a free country uh and perhaps sell them weapons like you're very happy to sell weapons to less free countries. Um and I think Europe will pick up the slack uh as we ought to. And I don't disagree with some of the comments about Europe not looking after its own security. I just don't get this approach which was supposedly to end the war quickly which now seems to be elongating it and in doing so it's throwing up a smoke screen of very variable facts if they are facts at all about how things occurred which actually isn't helping things and if people can't see that Putin is stalling I'm just I agree with you I think I think he might be stalling And therefore, and I think even your president has acknowledged the fact that he thinks he might be stolen. That's correct. So, we don't have a disagreement there. No, no, we don't. No, we just have a disagreement about the efficacy of tactics. And we don't know and and I I'm willing to say we could be wrong. No. Oh, well, of course you could be wrong in life. I mean, no. I mean, we we could all be wrong, but actually bringing that war to an end consistently actually isn't going very well. And I would just suggest to you that whatever tactics have been used are perhaps not the best. and they are certainly inconsistent with what's going on in the Middle East and how America has been treating parties in the Middle East. But I don't I've had enough of your time. No, that's that's a fair contention. Thank you very much. Very much indeed. Thank you. And the final question that we've got time for today is from Sammy McDonald from St. John's College. Um, good evening, Mr. Kirk. Um, you've obviously devoted a lot of your life to electing, keeping in power Donald Trump, and you did so partly because you said Trump would put Americans first and take them out of foreign conflicts. Should we see how uh that is going at the moment? Currently, Trump has just accepted a $400 million debt from Qatar, which we're assured is perfectly above board. Billions in arms are going to Saudi Arabia, which they're using to bomb and starve Yemeni children. Not sure how that's in the interest of the United States, but it might be in the interests of the 5.5 billion dollar deal his failed sons are receiving. At the same time, this great president of peace has green lit mass killings, not just in Yemen, but in Gaza, where he green lit an invasion called Operation Gideon's Chariot with the express aim of wiping out the Gazan population. You promised to put America first. Haven't you and your ilk sold America out? [Applause] No. Well, I'm glad you have great intellectual substance and can answer because it's all the culture wars for you, isn't it? The second someone actually tells you what you're doing, would you just Can you calm down a little bit? Like just a little bit pounding the table. You're all over the place. Uh, no. You want me to go peace by piece or would you like me to talk slower? I think you can. Number one, Donald Trump is convening a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Joe Biden gave them Going well, isn't it? Can It's going well. Can you not interrupt me? I allowed you to talk uninterrupted. You're famous for not interrupting. I Yeah, I haven't interrupted a single person here today. Can I Can I speak uninterrupted? Actually, okay. He is convening a peace deal between Russia, Ukraine. I believe we will see an end to that war. Number two, he's actually talking to Iran and discouraging Israel to strike the interior of Iran and has stopped many other international um countries to do the same. Number three, can you give him credit for ending the Indian Pakistan war? Both of them said he didn't do that. Well, hold on a second. Let's let's go back. No, no, no. That's Russia Ukraine. That's important. Is the Can I Can I speak now? Yes, but the Indian Pakistan thing, you got to go deeper than that. Can let's go with Let's go in order. is a peace summit where the main person in question, Russia, doesn't show up, is that a success, Mr. Kirk? I'm not even sure. I'm not I'm not even sure that a success. Well, again, these are ongoing negotiations, and it's a lot better than when your prime minister Boris Johnson went alongside our Secretary of State Tony Blinken to Istanbul and unnecessarily blew up a potential Russian peace deal, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians. One of the great unnecessary wars of the modern era. Donald Trump believes in conversation and police boot through strength. He has been president for well over 120 to 130 days and he has already ended a war between two nuclear conflicts of India Pakistan. He has secured our own US southern border while we were being invaded by foreign powers. And thirdly, he is brokering a potential settlement with Iran that will prevent a major escalation in the Middle East. And finally, it is very difficult, but I believe they'll get it done that we'll finally see an end to the Russian Ukrainian war. Um, I'm just going to disregard the enormous lies you just put out there about Russia and Ukraine. But do you really think leverage negotiations work if you cut off all your leverage and scream at one party in the Oval Office? Don't you think that has just emboldened Russia? Because look at the approach. Putin thinks so much of your glorious president, he can't even be asked to show up. You have elected or help elect somebody who is at best an idiot and at worst is deeply corrupt. Okay. Again, so Trump and Putin had a two-hour phone call today. You'll acknowledge that's a good thing. The pursuit of peace can sometimes be a winding road and it's a lot better than sending hundreds of billions of dollars further into the killing fields of eastern Ukraine. Something that tragically both the UK government and the US government has been unnecessarily supporting for a couple of years. President Trump wants to see a brokerage, an ending of this settlement. I pray we can get it. It's very complicated because of the mess that Joe Biden left, which was an active kinetic war with a nuclear power sending Americanmade missiles into the interior of Russia. So, President Trump has already ended a war. He's ended an invasion. He's only 130 days into this. And I believe, we do not know at this point, we are merely speculating, which I think we should not spend our time doing that because eventually one of us will be right. I believe we will be right. And I believe we'll see an end to this war. Can we just talk about 100 billions worth of weapons? Because you dodged my question on what was going on in the Middle East where Trump has just sent signed enormous arms contracts with Saudi Arabia and with Qatar. And you I noticed you ignored the fact that this might have had anything to do with the blatant corruption going on through the Trump coin and going on through giving the very competent sons of Donald Trump billions of investment from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is something that is directly embroiling Americans into conflict but is importantly killing many innocent people. Those nations have been known to terrorize innocent civilian populations. So if you're if you're coming to me and you're objecting to America selling weaponry, why are you um defending shilling for the Saudis? Well, hold on. One is sending weaponry, one is purchasing. Secondly, you do know that the biggest purchase that was announced was commercial airliner 737 hundred billion. You've heard of Qatar Airways. They purchased a hundred billion of commercial airw