Can debate truly heal divides? 

The opening paragraph of the article “Where does Charlie Kirk’s movement go from here?” from the Sept. 29 issue of the Weekly quotes a conservative college student as saying, “[Charlie Kirk] was the guy who would sit down and just debate everyone.” Many commentators have noted with approval the same: Mr. Kirk was out there debating, doing politics the right way. But is this

really the “right way” to heal

political divisions? 

Debate is an adversarial process: The objective is to win an argument by scoring points – sometimes with clever rhetorical tricks – against your opponent. When your opponent is unable to parry your thrust, you have won. And neither of you has changed your mind about the issue at hand.

It would have been far better had Mr. Kirk (and other political actors) sat down to have genuine discussions about issues with those who disagreed with them. A discussion is a two-way street where each person is sincerely interested in understanding the other’s perspective, acknowledging nuance and complexity, and accepting the possibility that they might be wrong.

A debate is about dominating; a discussion requires humility. What the United States needs is a lot more of the latter.

Steven Brierley
Westford, Massachusetts

Charlie Kirk’s beliefs

I wish that your article “Where does Charlie Kirk’s movement go from here?” had included quotes by Mr. Kirk to elucidate exactly what he stood for, such as his statements that a few gun deaths are a price worth paying for the Second Amendment, or that Black women who benefited from affirmative action, such as Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, did not have the “brain power” to succeed on their own. The article clearly conveys the fact that a lot of young and conservative people were excited by him and his organization. It would be good to detail what exactly he and his organization promoted.

Jeff Simpson
Ukiah, California

The importance of civility

The article “‘The American spirit will choose light’: Why civility matters even more now” from the Sept. 29 Weekly not only gave me hope, but also reminded me of something I’ve always believed: A person is reasonable, but people are often easily led into unreasonableness. The contrast between the forgiveness expressed by Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, and President Donald Trump’s rhetoric demonstrates this. She was appealing to people on a personal level, while the president was appealing to a mob mentality.

Many politicians attempt to maintain power by dividing the people and making them afraid. We need to reject these tactics and come together through understanding, empathy, and a realization that petty politics and name-calling must be eliminated from the civic conversation.

Rick Soule
Surprise, Arizona

Defending a faith

I’d like to comment on the editorial “Best response to Charlie Kirk’s killing” from the Sept. 12 Daily. Beyond Mr. Kirk’s ability to defend his politics, he was a committed Christian who engaged in apologetics, or the defense of faith. Historic Christianity addresses the universal need for love. It also provides the answers to basic philosophical questions and corresponds with reality.

The younger generation that Mr. Kirk spoke to craves authentic relationships and community, which the church offers. These young people need the church for mentoring,

to teach sound biblical doctrine and Christian apologetics like Charlie Kirk did.

Mark A. Peter
Hemet, California