Years ago, a sociology professor dedicated two weeks of my class to dismantling Christianity. All topics stood in the line of fire – The resurrection of Jesus, the problem of evil, contradictions of the Bible, and so on. A graying gentleman with an impressive mustache, the professor didn’t need bullet points or Power Point to attack with his views. Only a career of research, with insights and counter-points worthy of academia.* Still, even beyond his job duties, he seemed to take pleasure in steam-rolling the religious thoughts of anyone in the room. He wreaked havoc on our minds, and it was uncomfortable to be in his class during that stretch.

Students from my campus ministry also attended his classes, and most of us took offense to his aggression. Going out of his way to attack our personal beliefs, there was a feeling of persecution**, though my own feelings about him were mixed. The professor had shown care for his students, and so it was hard for me to vilify him. But it was intimidating to have someone in his authority lecture us as he did. If nothing else, it felt rude for him to use his class as a stage to tear apart the beliefs of people just leaving their teenage years. With this, I was sympathetic to my peers when they gossiped about the professor, and I never said anything to defend him.

Looking back now, I regret that choice. Not to say my views now align with his, but it’s easier to see that his goals weren’t sinister. Instead, he likely saw the time as needed to burst the cultural bubbles of his students. Not everyone in the room was Christian, but most had grown up in the Upper Midwest, with childhoods including the lessons of pastors and Sunday schools. This would create isolation from other views, and while it wasn’t the fault of the students, it was something for him to address. Higher education should offer students different ways of seeing the world, and so maybe the Bible-thumpers of his class were too sensitive to his lectures. Myself included.

Charlie Kirk’s debates with college students remind me of my time with the professor. Kirk, the conservative founder of Turning Point USA, pokes the bear of a different sort, sharing conservative views with students who loathe his opinions. From foreign policy to culture wars, he and others tour campuses to engage with students of all stripes. According to YouTube, Kirk “DESTROYS” and “DISMANTLES” students in open-forum chats. He brags that he didn’t go to college, but he makes it clear that he’s well-read and prepared for verbal spars. While polite and inviting, he takes joy from debunking liberal thoughts, just as my professor did of religious ones. How ironic. Different beliefs, but with the same aggression and tenacity, they had much in common.

Just as Kirk takes the same pleasure in DESTROYING students, it’s clear he has the same hope of bursting cultural bubbles. Just as towns in fly-over country create Christian cultures, liberal students can shelter themselves in the intellectual bubbles of higher education. The signs of liberal domination in universities are evident. The ratios of liberal to conservative teachers has spiked in recent decades, and institutions have created climates that suppress speech for conservatives.*** To break through the walls of this environment, Kirk brings a sledgehammer with a smile on his face. He aims to own the libs and attract students to conservatism, just as the professor did of his views when inviting us into his class.

If nothing else, those like Charlie Kirk and the professor should inspire us with their pursuit of knowledge. For the professor, the commitments needed to reach his position are obvious. Graduate and Ph.D. work, and years of research and writing brought him to become a force in the classroom. Add to this his age and experience, and there was good reason to admire his debate skills. Charlie Kirk, in contrast, is only 30 years old, but his level of study is evident. With his organization and online presence, he must know that he represents conservative ideology to the world. With this, he needs to study and prepare for any topic, and it’s clear he does this well. Students and laymen like me, no matter what our views of the world, should respect the dedication of people like them, raising debate as a democracy should.

Funny enough, it’s also possible their arguments will have the opposite effect on a student’s opinions. In the satire The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis writes of a demon, Screwtape, rebuking a junior demon for his strategy in keeping a child from becoming a Christian. The demon had shared pro-atheistic arguments with the child, but Screwtape explains that it’s best to not have him think about the topic at all. He will go through life not thinking about faith, and he will preserve his status as an unbeliever. But if the demon tells him about atheism, then the boy will think about counter-arguments, and perhaps convert because from them. One can never know how an idea will fester in the mind, and in time, someone’s teachings can create other beliefs in a person.

For myself, the lesson from The Screwtape Letters applies to my experience with the professor. At the time (and probably now), there was no way I could have won a debate with him about Christianity, even if I had the heart to try. We were intellectual rubes – not of our doing, but from our natural place as students. Still, his passion made the lectures memorable, and in time, I would find the arguments that countered his. There were various reasons why I became devoted to faith in college, and I would have to give a measure of credit to his class. If his aim was to make atheists of us, then he failed in my case. But I’d like to think he’d respect my views now, even as he disagrees. They come from a place reasonable reflection and review, escaping the bubble I may have once enjoyed.

Regardless of what each person takes away for their words, we should know that arguments from those like Charlie Kirk and the professor aren’t invulnerable. No argument is impenetrable, no matter the chrisma, flare and experience of the speaker. Even if we can’t think of a comeback in the heat of an argument, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Taking the time to reflect and research may bring up counter-thoughts, and I take comfort from this. As someone slow in thinking, I wouldn’t be able to hold my ground against either man. In a public forum, they would DESTROY me, but we shouldn’t take that to necessarily mean they’re right. It’s just their thoughts, and the counter-thoughts of the world are everywhere for us to find. No one has the final word.