Charlie Kirk Deleted This Debate With a Vegan

The famous conservative struggled to handle a vegan

If you’d prefer the video version of this post, click the play button to watch on YouTube.

---

Charlie Kirk deleted this debate with a vegan

Charlie Kirk recently had a debate with a vegan and it went so badly, he took it down. His own fans called him out for being rude, dismissive, and losing the debate.

The person he debated? Michael Bilotich. A fighter, a fitness coach, and a masculinity coach. Not exactly your stereotypical soy boy. Let’s take a closer look at the debate Charlie Kirk didn’t want you to see.

---

The debate

Michael Bilotich:
I’ve seen, based on most of your clips, that I agree with most of your beliefs and stances on things, but there’s one topic that I disagree with your logic on. I’ve seen when you debate other people on this topic, oftentimes they get kind of shooed off the mic. So I ask that you please give me a fair chance to debate.

I believe that the breeding, exploitation, and killing of animals for food, when we do not have to, is immoral.

Charlie Kirk:
Did you lose a bet?

Michael Bilotich:
No. So, again, I’m serious. I would ask for a fair chance at a debate without shooing me off the mic or making jokes, please.

Charlie Kirk:
What do you eat?

Michael Bilotich:
What do I eat? Like, for protein? I eat tofu, nutritional yeast, seitan. I easily get over 200 grams of protein per day.

Charlie Kirk:
That’s a lot of tofu to get 200 grams of protein, man.

Michael Bilotich:
I have about a pound a day. That’s not my main source, that gives me about 40 a day. But I get 200 grams a day for lifting. In terms of actual health for humans, we do not need that much; we barely even need 100 grams a day, which is easily obtained through plants.

Charlie Kirk:
Okay, so what is your contention? That we should outlaw or make it harder to eat animal‑based protein?

Michael Bilotich:
No, I’m not as much concerned about the legality of it—more so the morality.

Charlie Kirk:
Okay, so are human beings equal to cows?

Michael Bilotich:
I would put human beings above cows.

Charlie Kirk:
Okay, so we don’t want to see animal cruelty, but what moral worth would you say a cow has?

Michael Bilotich:
I would say that a cow has worth in the sense that we should not, like any sentient animal, cause them suffering or kill them if we do not have to.

Charlie Kirk:
So you don’t eat fish either, I assume?

Michael Bilotich:
I don’t eat any animal products at all—no animal products.

Charlie Kirk:
And no dairy? So, full vegan?

Michael Bilotich:
Yes.

Charlie Kirk:
Wow. Okay. Do you know there would actually be fewer cows if we didn’t eat them?

Michael Bilotich:
I’m aware, yes.

Charlie Kirk:
So you would argue for fewer cows, not more cows.

Michael Bilotich:
Basically I am against the breeding, exploitation, and slaughter of them for food.

---

Is more cows a good thing?

Charlie starts off by acting like fewer cows is a tragedy for vegans, as if vegans want more cows simply because we care about them, but that’s a complete misunderstanding of why we care. If they’re being bred into a system of confinement and slaughter and their whole life is predetermined suffering, why would we want that?

Applying this logic in other cases leads to some pretty funny conclusions, too. For example, Charlie is passionate about helping people, but I’m sure he wouldn’t support breeding humans for organ harvesting just because it results in more humans. So why would we use that logic for cows?

---

Charlie Kirk:
What obligations do we have to wild animals?

Michael Bilotich:
I mean, the animals that we eat are not wild animals, they’re domesticated. We specifically breed, control, and kill them; we control their whole life, so they’re not really wild.

Charlie Kirk:
Should we stop other animals from being carnivores?

Michael Bilotich:
No, because those animals need to eat. A lion needs to eat an antelope to survive. So, in a survival situation, it is okay to eat animals, but in the modern day we do not need to.

---

Are we wild animals?

Charlie brings up wild animal behaviour, basically asking, “Well, lions eat meat, so why shouldn’t we?” It’s a fair question, but we have to ask, “Are wild animals making moral choices?” Comparing ourselves to wild predators definitely sounds cool, but it doesn’t really make sense. We don’t base our decisions on what bears or wolves do; we base them on reason, empathy, and accountability. Can you imagine if we were all out here basing our life decisions on what a lion, a bear, or a wolf does? That would be a pretty messed‑up world.

Charlie is standing on a stage talking about philosophy and values, so when he tries to compare himself to a predator it doesn’t work. It’s like saying, “A baby cries, so it’s okay for adults to throw tantrums.” Although I’m sure many of you, like me, are partial to the odd tantrum once in a while.

We hold ourselves to different standards because we can make ethical choices, and with that ability comes responsibility.

---

Michael Bilotich:
And I believe that we were designed by God not needing to eat meat.

Charlie Kirk:
What scripture are you referencing?

Michael Bilotich:
Genesis 1:29.

Charlie Kirk:
Oh, you mean the scripture that says God gave dominion over the animals?

Michael Bilotich:
When it says, “I’ve given you every seed‑bearing plant, fruit, and tree on this earth, and for you that shall be meat.”

Charlie Kirk:
Right, but again, just to continue a little further—to be clear, in the Noahic covenant it does allow for animals.

Michael Bilotich:
I’m aware.

Charlie Kirk:
So, after the flood… And just to be clear, doesn’t the law give guidance on how to kill animals—like how to kill animals in certain ways? The Bible is explicitly pro‑meat‑eating—so much so that they would kill an animal as a sacrifice to God or kill the fatted calf in celebration of something.

Michael Bilotich:
I mean, Jesus—when Jesus came, he ended the animal sacrifice. So, again, I think during that time there was a lot more food shortage…

Charlie Kirk:
Hold on—Jesus ate fish. He fed the 5,000 with fish.

Michael Bilotich:
Yeah, so like I said…

Charlie Kirk:
Jesus didn’t say, “Stop—don’t eat the fish, they are sentient beings.” He fed fish to people.

---

The Christ question

Biblical interpretations vary massively, and some key words, like “fish,” for example, have been mistranslated, misunderstood, and debated for centuries. I recommend watching the incredible film Christspiracy to learn more about that.

Some people hear “dominion” and think it means domination. Others, many Christian theologians included, see it as stewardship, a responsibility to care for animals the way a good ruler cares for his people. So while Charlie may be leaning into a more literal interpretation, it’s worth acknowledging that there’s a deeper debate to be had here.

---

Michael Bilotich:
So, like I said, in a survival situation where there’s 5,000 people…

Charlie Kirk:
There was also bread.

Michael Bilotich:
Yeah, but bread has no protein—

---

Bread has protein!

This is just a small correction, but bread does contain protein. What Michael probably meant was that bread has less protein than fish, not that it has none. Still worth correcting.

---

Charlie Kirk (interrupting):
Hold on—Jesus is God. He could have been, “Here’s a legume!” Jesus is God. He could have said, “Here’s an almond.” He could have said, “Here’s tofu.” Yet Jesus said, “Here’s fish.” So who are you to question Jesus—who he fed the 5,000 with? He could have said, “Here’s a lentil.”

---

What would Jesus do?

It’s also worth noting that the question isn’t really what Jesus ate 2,000 years ago. The question is what we can choose to eat today.

And when it comes to dominion, again, there’s a huge distinction between using power and abusing it. Many Christians would argue that kindness, compassion, and avoiding harming animals is more aligned with Jesus’s teachings than being violent to animals for our own enjoyment, like eating a steak or trophy hunting.

---

Charlie Kirk:
So the disciples brought him fish and bread. That was what he multiplied—the feeding of the 5,000.

Michael Bilotich:
Right, but I think in this modern day we do not need to eat meat to be healthy, have good performance, and survive. And therefore, causing immense suffering to these beings that do feel pain and suffering is wrong.

Charlie Kirk: I know this might seem unrelated, but I would hope to say you’re also pro‑life, right?

Michael Bilotich:
Yes.

Charlie Kirk:
Okay, good—so you are consistent. When vegans are not pro‑life it is a…

Michael Bilotich:
Yeah, I’m overall conservative. I agree with you on pretty much everything besides this one issue.

Charlie Kirk:

But you would agree, though—animals are not humans.

Michael Bilotich:
Yes.

Charlie Kirk:
Okay, but you would say… If I eat a steak, am I doing something immoral?

Michael Bilotich:
I would say that if you eat a steak knowing that you didn’t have to and you chose to pay for an animal—yes.

Charlie Kirk:
I plan to do this tonight, so tell me what—

---

Harmless humour or disrespect?

Michael the vegan has already made it clear that this is a serious, deeply moral topic for him, and he politely asked Charlie to treat the conversation with respect because this is about real animal suffering. Charlie now responds by joking that he’s going to go and eat a steak that same night.

Humour has its place, but this, in my opinion, wasn’t the time to be scoring laughs. It should have been about seeing whether two people could actually connect on shared values, like caring about unnecessary suffering. Charlie may not have meant to be disrespectful, but it came across that way. It shows that he wasn’t engaging with the arguments; he was just playing to the crowd.

---

Michael Bilotich:
Like I said, I think the breeding, exploitation, and killing of animals for food is immoral.

Charlie Kirk:
But what moral—what moral standard do you derive that from?

Michael Bilotich:
Well, are you against animal cruelty?

Charlie Kirk:
Of course I am. No one wants cruelty. In fact, the Bible is explicitly against animal cruelty, and so all of us should be. The animals actually made an appearance in the Ten Commandments: animals got a Sabbath—they got a day off. It says, “For six days you shall work, and one day you shall rest, including your ox and your animal.”
So the Bible actually has done more for animal rights than any other ancient scripture that we can ever find. I’m all there—no one wants animal cruelty. However, I just want to understand—by what moral framework do you say it is immoral to eat the meat of something that is not human, especially if we get nutrients and we human beings are able to flourish?

Michael Bilotich:
Well, I would say—why are you against animal cruelty?

Charlie Kirk:
Well, first of all, no one wants to see something suffer unnecessarily.

---

The truth about animal suffering

Charlie makes a key statement that he doesn’t want anything to suffer unnecessarily, and that’s a powerful point, because if we accept that then we also have to ask: are the things we do to animals necessary?

Factory farming, where most animal products like meat, dairy, and eggs come from, actually, where 99 % of U.S. animal products come from, is filled with practices that most people would find appalling. Extreme confinement, painful invasive procedures, mutilations, killing at a young age. When there are other delicious, nutritious alternatives just down the aisle at the supermarket, but we choose that violence instead, what does that say about us and our values?

If Charlie is against unnecessary suffering and he can live and eat well without supporting that suffering, which he can, why wouldn’t he?

---

Charlie Kirk:
But if and when you are able to derive calories, nutrients… and I would also contest one of the other things: I do believe we need animal‑based protein. In fact, I think one of the main reasons, and maybe you’re able to work it out, that young men are seeing such a dramatic drop in testosterone rates is the removal of animal‑based proteins from diets, especially ages 10, 11, and 12, and replacement with a lot of these counterfeit soy‑based plant proteins.

Michael Bilotich:
Studies have found that with equal calorie and protein intake there is zero difference in testosterone levels between an animal‑based diet and—

Charlie Kirk (interrupting):
Have you ever heard the term “soy boy”?

Michael Bilotich:
Yes, of course. I am a soy boy—yes, in terms… that’s what people call vegans, so yes, I am.

Charlie Kirk:
I didn’t call you that, I just said have you ever heard of the term.

Michael Bilotich:
Yes, I’ve heard the term.

---

Soy and testosterone

The drop we’re seeing in testosterone is a concern worth looking into, but Charlie’s theory here isn’t supported by the research. A tiny percentage of the population is currently vegan, and most young men in the U.S. are still eating a lot of meat and other animal products. So if testosterone levels are dropping, it’s likely due to factors like stress, sleep, and lifestyle, not tofu.

---

Charlie Kirk:
That’s because—but again, I don’t want to get too deep in the biology, but soy is inherently estrogenic.

Michael Bilotich:
So, soy has phytoestrogens—they’re not actual estrogens. They work in the body similar to a SERM, which is a selective estrogen receptor modulator. In some situations that can actually lower estrogen in males if they have an estrogen imbalance.

Charlie Kirk:
And suppress testosterone production.

Michael Bilotich:
It does not suppress the testosterone production. Studies have found equal testosterone between meat‑eaters and vegans considering calories and protein equal—in addition, many professional—

Charlie Kirk:
No, no, the consumption of soy—the consumption of soy—

Michael Bilotich:
I mean, most—

Charlie Kirk:
Let’s get down to one last question, though—just from a very technical one.

---

The science on soy is in

Michael starts citing studies, and Charlie changes the subject, that’s something you see a lot when someone realises they’re losing ground. Soy has been studied extensively: it doesn’t lower testosterone; it doesn’t feminize men. Soy protein and whey protein result in similar muscle gains when combined with resistance training. Even if you’re unsure about soy, it’s not a problem, you don’t have to eat soy to make better choices for animals.

---

Charlie Kirk:
Wouldn’t you agree that it is far more expensive to eat vegan than to eat animal‑based protein?

Michael Bilotich:
Oh, it’s about the same. Like a pound of—before I went vegan I’d have 93 % ground beef for lean protein; at Aldi that’d be like six bucks. Now I eat seitan—which most people don’t know, because it’s—they just eat meat. But in less than 400 calories it has 80 grams of protein and it’s only five dollars. So, I mean, it’s not that expensive to eat vegan.

Charlie Kirk:
Let me just ask you one last question on this—because almost everything you consume has to be either manufactured or put together, where actually the way we’re arguing to eat is far more “of the earth” and far more whole foods. Vegans actually have to go out of their way to try and have different ingredients and compositions and oils that largely are far more human interference into the consumption‑of‑the‑food process, right? Which one is more “of the earth”: eating vegan or eating—let’s just say more paleo, not necessarily carnivore?

Michael Bilotich:
I’ll answer that, then I have one question to ask back to you. In terms of the food itself, I eat mostly—pretty much—just whole‑food vegan. Like, sometimes I’ll eat a vegan Impossible Burger—that’s not necessarily healthy—

Charlie Kirk (interrupting):
No, no, time out—hold on. That is like the most manufactured—

Michael Bilotich:

I know that’s not healthy—

Charlie Kirk:
Now you’re proving my point. Let’s just be clear: an Impossible Burger has like 50 ingredients that you cannot pronounce and it is made in a lab—literally, it’s like lab‑grown meat. Versus a cow.

Michael Bilotich:
I understand. I’m not saying it’s healthy, but sometime a cheeseburger is not the staple of a healthy diet either.

Charlie Kirk:

Like with cows—if I had to choose, like, a double cheeseburger from Culver’s or an Impossible Burger—it’s a double cheeseburger every single day; that is better for you. Like, it’s not even close.

---

Is living “naturally” better?

A lot of people value this idea of more natural ways of living. Even though it doesn’t always make sense, for example, cancer is natural,I do get it. But the idea that meat is more natural than animal‑free alternatives only seems to make sense until you look a bit closer. Animals in the food system live in tightly packed barns, covered in their own faeces and urine, and given a cocktail of all sorts of supplements and drugs, like antibiotics, to keep them alive long enough to make money. That’s far from what any of us would consider natural.

If your concern is eating naturally, there’s nothing natural going on in animal farming.

---

Charlie Kirk:
The fact that we have to make “Franken‑food,” like Frankenstein food, is one of the greatest arguments that we should continue to eat real meat.

Michael Bilotich:
I eat only whole foods.

Charlie Kirk:
No, no, I got it, but you’re the one that brought up Impossible Burgers.

Michael Bilotich:
A lot of people use that as an example to shame veganism—well, that’s not an example of a—

Charlie Kirk:
I am curious: how did you get into this?

---

The truth about farmed animals

Charlie talks about Frankenstein food, but the irony is the animals we eat today have themselves been bred into unnatural forms. They’re basically Frankenstein animals. They’ve been bred into bloated, mutated versions of what they once were: chickens that grow so fast their legs can’t support them; dairy cows so overworked that they collapse. These aren’t wild animals, they’re genetically shaped for output. If synthetic ingredients are a concern, it’s worth looking at the full food system, including meat, dairy, and eggs.

---

Michael Bilotich:
I first got into it by—I saw how animals were treated in factory farms, which is what 99 % of meat sold in America is: factory farms. A lot of people say, “Oh, grass‑fed, pasture‑raised.” That is only a small percent—

Charlie Kirk:
I do want to thank you, ’cause—we’ll get to the next question. It is hard to take an unpopular position, and you’ve taken a very unpopular public position, of which you should be commended.

---

Why did Charlie delete this debate?

I don’t want to put words in Charlie’s mouth or try to read his mind here, but it’s hard not to think he shut this debate down because he was outmatched and then took the video down once he saw his supporters turning against him in the comments. I think Charlie stepped into a topic he wasn’t fully prepared for. And that’s fine, it happens. It’s okay to not have all the answers.

But what’s not okay is mocking, deflecting, and posturing when you’re not actually prepared. Michael stayed calm, rational, and focused; Charlie cracked jokes, kept changing the subject, and avoided direct challenges. Maybe that’s why the video disappeared.

Hopefully this can be a moment of reflection for Charlie and for anyone who saw the debate. You don’t have to agree with everything, but when someone asks you to think about your choices, about real animal suffering, maybe don’t laugh it off. Caring about animals isn’t weakness; it’s responsibility. Choosing to live with a little more intention, making choices that make the world a better place for animals, I think that’s something worth respecting.