Like many non-Americans, I met Charlie Kirk online.

Well, I didn't “meet” him, in the way of an online video call or anything like that. I met him through his videos on YouTube, on Instagram, and on TikTok. And I immediately took a liking to him.

Charlie Kirk, you see, was a man who was not afraid of reason. He would, in many of his famous videos, visit a college or university in the US, sit in an open area and openly engage passers by in a conversation.

Yes, a conversation not a debate. Although Kirk was one of, if not the most logical debaters of the right wing movement in the US, he would often converse with whoever was willing to talk to him in a very calm and composed manner. It was through this exchange of ideas that he became famous.

At a time when people would rather air out their thoughts in the echo chambers of their social media circles, Kirk was encouraging dialogue—sharp most times, but open and encouraging nonetheless. Those who walked away from these exchanges feeling defeated or deflated did so because at the very onset, even before talking to Charlie Kirk, they were not open to having an exchange of ideas.

There was, contrary to what his detractors would say, nothing biased about the way Charlie Kirk engaged in these conversations. He often challenged those who had contrary ideas to prove their point to him, listening as they did so, and then he would ask questions, probe the other person’s logic, and explain his side of the proverbial isle all in order to stay reasonable.

Many would call this debating. I still see it as a reasonable exchange of ideas, guided by logic and common sense. These only seemed like debates when the persons talking to Charlie Kirk were “aggressive” at the get-go. But even in those circumstances, Kirk the logician would even try to diffuse the situation by dousing the feisty questioning with a refreshing dose of logical reasoning.

What is, perhaps, the most illogical of all is how this man died in the most senseless and irrational manner. It is one thing to clash in the arena of ideas and another to silence those who do not share your thoughts by violence. Sadder still is how, just moments after his death, some of those who disagree with Kirk’s politics and ideas celebrated his tragic demise—actions that were immediately criticized and condemned by even Kirk’s own harshest critics.

Call him what you will, but Charlie Kirk would always be that “guy on the campus” who tried to remind everyone that universities and colleges are places where people should not be sheltered from contrary ideas and opinions. The freedom to express oneself comes with the responsibility to listen to others.

I am sure that Charlie Kirk’s work will continue and his thoughts will remain relevant even now that he is no longer around. After all, it is the very nature of ideas that they continue to persist long after the persons who conceived and uttered them ceased to exist.