Charlie Kirk Takes on California Students at UC Riverside Campus Debate on Abortion, Immigration, and College

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Charlie Kirk Dismantles Illegal Immigration Myths and Debates Abortion With UC San Diego Students

Charlie Kirk Dismantles Illegal Immigration Myths and Debates Abortion With UC San Diego Students

30:01

Charlie Kirk Confronts Student on Affirmative Action, Civil Rights Act, and Race-Based College Admissions Policy

Charlie Kirk Confronts Student on Affirmative Action, Civil Rights Act, and Race-Based College Admissions Policy

10:01

Charlie Kirk Defends Trump Administration, Debates DEI, Illegal Immigration, and Abortion at Texas A&M Event

Charlie Kirk Defends Trump Administration, Debates DEI, Illegal Immigration, and Abortion at Texas A&M Event

1:24:54

Charlie Kirk banner
2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018

Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.

Charlie Kirk Takes on California Students at UC Riverside Campus Debate on Abortion, Immigration, and College

Charlie Kirk faces UC Riverside students in a heated campus debate covering some of America's most contentious issues. From defending life at conception against a bio student who argued babies aren't worthy of protection until they can speak, to challenging the narrative that college guarantees success, Kirk confronts progressive ideology head-on. Students questioned him on rape exceptions for abortion, immigration policy, reparations for black Americans, military presence in Afghanistan, and DEI admissions practices. The event revealed the stark divide between conservative principles and campus progressivism, with Kirk arguing that merit should trump identity, borders must be enforced, and human life begins at conception regardless of the circumstances. The California crowd proved surprisingly receptive to Kirk's message about making America great again.

June 11, 2025

Welcome to California: A Republican Wave in a Blue State

The energy was undeniable as Charlie Kirk took the stage in Riverside, California, addressing a packed crowd eager to hear conservative perspectives on a liberal college campus. Kirk opened by acknowledging the hot weather and urging attendees to stay hydrated, joking that people shouldn't fake passing out just to get a signed hat. The atmosphere was electric as he asked the crowd if California was ready for a Republican governor, receiving enthusiastic cheers in response.

What followed was a series of intense exchanges between Kirk and UC Riverside students on topics ranging from abortion and immigration to college education and DEI policies. The debates revealed not just ideological differences, but fundamental disagreements about human nature, morality, and the purpose of American institutions.

The Abortion Debate: Life Begins at Conception

One of the most emotional exchanges came when a young father with a seven-week-old daughter asked about rape exceptions for abortion. Kirk responded by presenting two ultrasound images, asking the questioner to identify which baby was conceived in rape. The point was clear: the method of conception doesn't determine the humanity of the child.

Kirk explained that both images showed human beings made in the image of God, and that the circumstances of conception don't grant or remove rights. He mentioned meeting hundreds of people across the country who were conceived in rape, noting that their mothers showed courage in bringing them to term, allowing them to live meaningful lives.

When pressed about the trauma a rape victim might experience carrying a pregnancy to term, Kirk acknowledged that abortion itself can be traumatic. He firmly stated that trauma is never an excuse for taking a life, emphasizing that under no moral framework can we justify ending an innocent human life due to someone else's mental health struggles.

Perhaps the most shocking moment came when a biology student at UC Riverside argued that human life doesn't become worthy of protection until a child can speak, around 18 months to 2 years old. When Kirk asked if that meant it would be acceptable to kill a six-month-old baby, the student responded affirmatively. Kirk used this exchange to highlight what he called the "horrifying moral rot happening in higher education," calling for defunding of institutions that produce such moral reasoning.

Another student attempted to use biblical arguments to support abortion, citing Exodus 21:22-25 about a pregnant woman being struck and losing her baby. Kirk clarified the distinction between intentional abortion and accidental miscarriage, explaining the Christian understanding of "no more" versus "not yet" when it comes to medical intervention. He also pointed out that modern C-sections provide alternatives to abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

Immigration: Merit Over Sentiment

The immigration debate brought equally passionate exchanges. A Catholic student whose parents came to America legally argued that the Bible supports welcoming immigrants, referencing Matthew 2:13-15 about Jesus fleeing to Egypt. Kirk quickly corrected the premise, explaining that Jesus didn't actually immigrate since Egypt was under Roman jurisdiction at the time, meaning he stayed within the same empire.

Kirk acknowledged that scripture does teach welcoming the stranger, but emphasized a crucial principle: immigration should always benefit the home country. When the student focused on illegal immigrants paying into social security without receiving benefits, Kirk pointed out a fundamental flaw in the argument. Illegal immigrants don't legitimately have social security numbers; they've stolen them from Americans, which constitutes identity theft.

The exchange revealed the tension between compassion and law. The student shared her mother's story of fleeing a terrorist attack and eventually immigrating legally, contrasting it with people who wait 10, 20, or even 30 years for legal immigration. Kirk's response was direct: if someone enters a country without permission, regardless of their reasons, they've committed a crime. He asked why moral standards against bank robbery shouldn't apply equally to immigration law.

Kirk argued for a complete pause on immigration for the next 10 years, pointing to California's overcrowded hospitals and schools as evidence that the state needs time to "digest the major meal that we just ate." He emphasized that immigration is a tool meant to benefit the homeland, not an entitlement, and that American-born young people deserve the opportunity to achieve the American dream without competing against foreigners for jobs.

College: America's Most Expensive Scam

One of the longest debates centered on whether college is a scam. A student challenged Kirk's characterization, arguing that colleges deliver on their promises by providing access to resources, even if they don't guarantee success. The student cited statistics showing college graduates earn 80% more than high school graduates on average.

Kirk pushed back by defining what constitutes a scam: forcing customers to buy something against their will. When he asked the audience how many had to take classes against their will that wasted their time, every hand went up. Using what he called "Aristotelian logic," Kirk argued that this proved college meets the definition of a scam.

The debate grew heated as the student insisted colleges only promise "access to resources," not guaranteed outcomes. Kirk countered that colleges implicitly and explicitly market themselves as pathways to better lives through promotional materials claiming to "prepare leaders for a better tomorrow." He argued this constitutes a misleading sales pitch.

Kirk presented compelling alternatives to college, noting that 11 million jobs currently exist in America paying over $75,000 per year without requiring a college degree. He specifically mentioned high school juniors receiving $70,000 job offers to become plumbers, welders, and electricians. When the student cited data showing over 95% of US employers require college degrees for mid to high-level roles, Kirk noted that number is declining.

One of Kirk's most provocative arguments involved artificial intelligence. He suggested that most degrees being pursued by students in the audience would become irrelevant due to the AI revolution, questioning whether universities are truly preparing students for the future economy. He acknowledged that specialized fields like engineering, medicine, and nursing justify college education, but argued that the vast majority of students studying humanities, social sciences, psychology, or communications are wasting time, talent, and treasure.

Kirk also highlighted the 59% national graduation rate, meaning four out of 10 students who start college never finish, yet they're often burdened with debt. He emphasized that colleges operate as a racket for many people, though he acknowledged college makes sense for some.

Military and Afghanistan: Protecting Borders at Home

A military veteran who served during Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 argued that America should maintain a presence in Afghanistan. He shared firsthand experience dealing with Afghan refugees, many of whom were known or suspected terrorists. He also noted that during the Biden administration, people from the Middle East, including individuals on the FBI watch list, entered through the southern border.

Kirk thanked him for his service and acknowledged the argument as one he'd never heard before. However, he fundamentally disagreed with the premise that 9/11 was caused by not occupying enough countries. Instead, Kirk argued it was primarily an intelligence failure and, most importantly, an immigration problem. America allowed people into the country who weren't Americans and shouldn't have been here.

When asked whether Trump was elected on a platform of more or fewer foreign wars, both Kirk and the veteran agreed it was fewer. Kirk acknowledged that the Afghanistan withdrawal was disgraceful, with service members dying unnecessarily at Abbey Gate, but he maintained that the decision to leave was correct. The execution was the problem, not the principle.

Kirk made a clear moral argument: America needs to protect its own borders far more than the borders of foreign countries. He acknowledged that terrorists who entered during the Biden years need to be found and removed, but he firmly opposed sending American service members into another unclear, no-win war in a foreign country. He wanted veterans to live prosperous lives in America with strict immigration enforcement rather than risking their lives abroad.

Reparations: A Question of Intergenerational Justice

A thoughtful questioner raised the topic of reparations for black Americans, noting that reparations have been given to other groups, including Asian Americans for their World War II incarceration and even former slave owners in the North who were compensated when they freed their slaves. The student asked why there's pushback against reparations for black Americans.

Kirk drew a crucial distinction: in those other examples, reparations went directly to the people who were wronged, not to their descendants generations later. The question of slavery reparations involves something 150 years removed, and not every black person today is a descendant of slaves. Some are mixed race, some are recent immigrants.

More importantly, Kirk asked whether America has spent significant money on the black community over the last 50 years, and if so, whether it has worked. He pointed out that black America is actually poorer per capita relative to other groups than it was in the 1960s, despite trillions of dollars spent on programs intended to improve black well-being. Kirk argued this indicates the issue isn't about resources or money, but about values.

The student mentioned two Tulsa Race Massacre survivors over 100 years old who were denied reparations for lost property by the Oklahoma government. Kirk admitted he didn't know about that specific case but would research it. He reiterated his broader point that the problem facing black communities isn't financial but cultural, calling some prevalent values in black communities "quasi-suicidal."

DEI: Diversity or Didn't Earn It?

The debate on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) brought up questions of merit versus background. A student argued that DEI doesn't mean "didn't earn it" but rather opens doors for students from different starting points. The student cited statistics showing that students from the wealthiest 1% of families are 13 times more likely to score 1300+ on the SAT than students from the poorest families, attributing this to access to better schools, tutors, and test prep rather than intelligence.

The student also noted that legacy applicants, children of donors, and recruited athletes at elite schools like Harvard are significantly more likely to be admitted than other students with similar credentials. Roughly 43% of white students admitted to Harvard fell into these categories, with 75% of them not meeting admission standards based on academics alone.

Kirk steered the conversation to the Students for Fair Admissions Supreme Court case against Harvard, which revealed that Asian and white students effectively had 200 to 400 points knocked off their scores compared to black and Hispanic students. He asked directly: should test scores be weighted the same for all ethnic groups, or should certain groups receive preferential treatment based on race?

The student argued that admissions should acknowledge different starting points and consider factors beyond test scores. Kirk pressed for specifics: how many points should a black student receive over a white student? The student insisted it wasn't that "black and white," but Kirk maintained it absolutely was, which is why affirmative action was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Kirk provided another example of DEI in practice: microaggressions. He asked if saying "you people" to a group of Hispanic or black individuals constitutes a microaggression. When the student agreed it did, Kirk called this insane, arguing that it's not racist to use that phrase with any group. He cited the Dean on First Amendment case where professionals lost their careers over such perceived slights, demonstrating how DEI polices speech rather than focusing solely on merit.

Mass Incarceration: Not Racist, Just Consequences

In a lighter moment that drew applause, a black man who jokingly called himself "Uncle Tom's favorite nephew" asked what's wrong with mass incarceration if the only way to be incarcerated is to commit a crime. Kirk responded that there's nothing wrong with it and that America actually needs more prisoners, not fewer, because the country releases prisoners too quickly.

When the questioner sarcastically asked if mass incarceration is racist, he pointed out that he's been black for 28 years and has never been to jail or prison. This exchange highlighted Kirk's argument that the justice system isn't inherently biased against black Americans, but rather that consequences follow criminal behavior regardless of race.

The American Dream and Meritocracy

A student raised questions about meritocracy and equal opportunity, using the SAT as an example. If two people take a practice SAT on the same day and one scores 100 points higher but lacks resources to continue studying while the other has extensive resources, how can we ensure equal opportunity?

Kirk's answer surprised many: IQ tests. He argued that IQ tests are the best way to establish true meritocracy because they're study and preparation agnostic. However, he noted that the left opposes IQ tests, calling them racist, referencing Charles Murray's book "The Bell Curve." Kirk asked if the student supported bringing back IQ tests, and while the student acknowledged their validity, he didn't think they should be the sole defining factor.

Kirk pointed out that if you don't accept IQ tests as the standard, you don't truly believe in meritocracy. He acknowledged that wealthy families can afford better SAT tutors and preparation, giving their children advantages. But he argued that IQ tests cut through these preparation advantages to identify true cognitive ability in a colorblind manner.

A Disruption and Ideological Divide

Not all exchanges were respectful. One student accused Kirk of busing in older people from retirement homes to manufacture the appearance of popularity. Kirk calmly pointed out that boomers drive and have the freedom to attend events, and challenged the student to find older people in the crowd, which proved difficult given the predominantly young audience.

The student then launched into criticisms of Kirk's arguments throughout the event, claiming nothing he said was accurate. He brought up Trump's census decisions, environmental policies, and housing issues. Kirk tried to engage, but the student's profanity-laced approach made constructive dialogue difficult.

When they finally got to abortion, the student asked how a zygote could have moral significance compared to animals. Kirk explained that humans are the only beings capable of distinguishing good from evil, right from wrong, and just from unjust. Humans are made in the image of God, above animals but below angels.

The student rejected the concept of a soul entirely and argued that zygotes aren't capable of consciousness or reasoning. Kirk pointed out that human development is a process that begins at a specific moment, and protection should start at the earliest moment of that development. When Kirk asked when the student's life became worthy of protection, the answer was chilling: when he became conscious and able to speak.

This exchange encapsulated the fundamental divide on display throughout the event: one side viewing human dignity as intrinsic from conception, the other viewing it as contingent on developed capabilities.

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!