You are being obviously disingenuous considering I provided you with a specific debate in another comment where he was respectful and constructive and you proceeded to blithely ignored the fact that it completely contradicts your argument.
I found the thing you said couldn't be found and you said "whatever, I'm still right."
You linked a single twelve minute clip. Charlie Kirk’s performances were routinely hours-long. The only videos in that channel that are close to the length of his actual performances have titles like Versus The Wokies and Crushes Woke Lies.
They’re both pretty long, and I’m not going to spend four hours watching Charlie Kirk performances, so if you could tell me which is a better example of his legitimate debate style I would appreciate that.
Which is a better example of reasoned discussion: Crushes Woke Lies or Versus The Wokies?
I shared a video of a legitimate discussion with you. There are many others like it. You obviously only care about defending your tribe and its positions. Goodbye.
This is untrue. There are many cases of his debate where he acknowledged strong points made by his counterpart and commended them on the quality of their argument.
You may have seen one of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. Those exist, as do many examples like the below:
Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
Even if someone concedes "good point", it does not mean they frequently are debating in good faith. My view of the "very often in bad faith" is not being aware of a single position where he evolved. For example, not only saying "good point" but also "you're right."
Your retort, my comment, the comment I responded to all seem very predictable. Charlie Kirk's debates seem to be a Rorschach test.
Google AI says similar when asked "how often did Charlie Kirk debate in bad faith". The response lists lots of criticisms, but also that defenders point out that Kirk did at least engage in open debates (which is commendable even if not always done in good faith, it was some level of dialogue at least).
There are other sources that indicate there are quite a few of these bad faith examples (not just my words, not just my anecdata):
> "When we found out about his death, I wanted to know if I misjudged him, so I looked again on YouTube," she said. [1]
> "But I found the way he talks to people in a debate is not opening up any genuine discussion – especially when he debates with a woman. He tends to talk very fast and talk over them," she said. [1]
I've seen debates with Pastors, and others, where opinions do change - the tenor of those debates is all quite different. I don't see the same talking points constantly brought out even after someone thoroughly debunks one (from a previous debate).
> Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
No, because he WAS reaching across an intellectual divide.
Would be curious to your reply to hnewsenjoyer's comment, as it captures my thoughts well. His willingness or lack of willingness to change his mind doesn't mean he wasn't facilitating the exchange of ideas or bridging intellectual gaps. He was doing politics the way it was supposed to be done in a liberal democracy.
Much of the commentary of “it’s not a real debate” or “it’s not good faith” feels like an attempt to disqualify him for violating some technicality about how a “proper” exchange of ideas should occur, eliminating the need to actually respond to opposing ideas. A type of “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
The fact is, he facilitated many frank exchanges of ideas. Whether he was willing to change his own mind during them is immaterial. Anyone could discuss any topic with him, and arguments needed to be made by both sides in front of an audience that observed and evaluated. Those sorts of interactions are the lifeblood of a pluralistic liberal democracy.
Imagine if Trump refused to debate for the presidency? That would be terrible, regardless of the fact that no presidential candidate would meet any of your standards for “good faith.”
Be that as it may, this is a political rally and not a moderated debate. People don't take these seriously because they're always engineered to drum up advertising over everything else. And that's okay! It's just clearly not a debate.
For whatever it's worth, there are liberal and neocon commentators who are hated for doing this same thing (and rightfully so).
You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion.
The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed.
He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in.
This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale.
Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation.
The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in constructive conversations. This video is ABSOLUTELY an example of a constructive conversation.
Constructive conversation would be you asking why we didn’t think this was, learning from our perspective. It’s when you use questions marks for something else than snark.
You don’t seem to know what that looks like, so you telling me WITH BIG SHOUTY LETTERS that ABSOLUTELY it is… That feels a bit self-defeating to stay polite.
You are the one using him as a reference. Neither of you care to understand what the other person is saying and grow from others’ experience; you only care to pretend to debate with people who already agree with you, and find witty quips if not.
Otherwise, you would have stopped your reply at the first line. That could have been a great question if you cared enough to read to the answer before dismissing it.
He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge.").
Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash.
The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.
This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion.
I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that.
Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before.
Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props.
Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back.
It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
I reacted to the context of that video. You ignoring that and telling me that I didn’t do it is a nice illustrations of the problem I have with pretend debate.
There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available.
Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted them and was paid for them, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy.
There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. Did Charlie Kirk build a business around it with clickbait titles about "owning the libs?" Yep. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative.
There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements.
You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
yes, the conversations need to be honest and on equal footing. Not rage/click-bait to further divide society, which is exactly what Kirk did. His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".
> There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.).
Qanon, January sixth, Pizzagate, Plandemic, Birther and other conspiracy theories, the attacks on democrat politicians, the rhetoric around George Floyds murder and BLM, the rage against black athletes doing something as simple as taking a knee. See a pattern? Hell Trump's own words and those of his cabinet are radicalized rhetoric, so I really don't know what to tell you when you say "the left rejects dialogue and is violent". "The left" has tried for years to explain the world via fact checking and educational content, lots of good that has done!
> “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.”
Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion. His whole career was based on "prove me wrong", an obvious challenge to prove that he is right, and nothing can sway him. Give me one time where he changed his mind through dialogue. Even when shown a dolphin foetus and mistook it for human, he did not accept that he was wrong.
So yea, excuse me if I don't think you are arguing in good faith, just like i don't think Charlie Kirk ever was.
It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith. This is a convenient scapegoat for you to ignore strong counterarguments, since all it takes to dismiss the speaker is their "lack of good faith." With your brilliant reasoning, after all, how could anyone of good faith disagree?
> His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".
There are many counterexamples to this. If you're arguing in such good faith, you should explore those.
> lots of good that has done!
Even this is a good example of what I'm talking about. It sounds like you're giving up on dialogue, which is precisely my point. Don't give up on it. Commend those who seek it.
> fact checking
Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious, if you have the good faith to look.
> Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion
You may be correct, but that doesn't even matter. The proposition that no one was swayed by his dialogue would be outrageous, and I doubt you would make such an argument. So even if he would never change his mind, he's still contributing to dialogue.
I asked you before -- What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?
> It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith.
I gave you about 10 examples of "the right" being unhinged, violent and espousing radical rhetoric. You conveniently ignored all of them and continue claiming it's "the left" that does not want dialogue. That is bad faith.
> There are many counterexamples to this.
I am really not about to waste my time going through that dreck. If you have examples i'll have a look.
> Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious,
Again, going to need sources. Is "get out of your bubble" the constructive discourse you were mentioning earlier?
> What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?
That I do not know, people have been radicalized by insane conspiracy theories over the last 10 - 15 years that I don't think much can be done to help them at this point.
Just for context, here some constructive statements from Charlie Kirk:
- If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
- Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
- Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
- The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
The right does not have a monopoly on hateful, violent people/rhetoric. The idea that they do is a soothing story people on the left like to tell themselves.
I don’t defend those things he said, or those things hateful rightwing things you cited. The fact that you think of them as a response to “look at this bad thing on the left” is very telling. The existence of bad things on the right have no bearing on the observation that there are bad things on the left.
You should think more deeply about what to do about all those Americans who agree with Charlie Kirk. “Force them to change their minds” is not an option available to you.
I encourage you to read the thread you jumped in on, which begins with the example you asked for. The first comment you responded to, which perhaps you stopped reading partially through, explains my position, and it’s not “Charlie Kirk is the good guy here.” You don’t have to like him, you can disagree with everything he thinks, but he was doing politics the right way: through debate and discussion. Classifying that as somehow invalid is an attempt to insulate yourself from challenges to your worldview.
Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.
I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.
This is untrue. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. But to say he never participated in real debate shows you haven't adequately found information outside your filter bubble. There are many examples like the one below
Good faith debate involves being careful with facts and —very importantly — not lying.
The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc.
It’s a bit strange to say that I’m somehow uninformed because of my “filter bubble” seeing as in order to call Charlie Kirk’s performances legitimate debate you would either have to have never heard of his many, many outright lies or believe that it’s acceptable to make stuff up in a debate. (If the latter is the case we simply disagree on what constitutes a real debate)
I’m familiar with his routine, which is why I described his performances as sometimes resembling legitimate debate. He was able to at times take (from your example) twelve minutes out of several hours of owning the libs to engage in a more mild performance, but that’s not the same thing as someone that has a genuinely good-faith interest in debate. That’s just taking a few minutes to make a marketing video for his podcast/speaking tours.
Charlie Kirk’s performances were hours long and you’ve now posted three times about how a single clip that you saw vindicates his entire career and reputation - while also declining to discuss anything other than that one clip.
I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes?
Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?
The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”.
Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.
I just don’t think you have the gotcha that you insist that you do here. You keep quoting the first sentence of what I wrote as if that is all that I wrote. You’re kind of trying to use the same rhetorical trick on what I wrote as you’re attempting to do with Charlie Kirk’s performances: selecting context. “Well what if I only read a fraction of what you wrote? Or deliberately misunderstood it? What if I simply failed to understand a very simple point? That would make you look foolish indeed!” isn’t a cheat code to being correct.
Out of curiosity can you quote the sentence that came immediately after the one you’ve repeated and respond to that? It’s not very long, just a little over 20 words, so complexity shouldn’t be a big issue. If not I’m going to have to end this discussion. The shoddy reasoning and leaps to victory are getting tediously close to “owning the libs“ rigmarole, which is profoundly empty and, frankly, boring.
I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it. Quote it in reply and I will respond.
Quoting you and responding to you is not a cheap gotcha. You need to take responsibility for your words. You said those things, and you have not retracted them. To your point, this is what you seem to expect of Charlie Kirk. You were welcome at any point to say "Ok I exaggerated a bit with that sentence, fair enough -- he's been in some real debates. My main point was XYZ and I'd like to discuss that." You have not done this, even now. I welcome you to accept the draft language I was forced to write on your behalf.
> I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it
This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said?
Here is the entirety of my first post (because context matters!), which was clear, and I have further clarified over the course of this discussion.
I have italicized the sentence I would like you to address.
>We can say that killing people is bad without making stuff up about the victims.
>Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate. He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. He happened to sometimes structure his performances to kind of look like good-faith debate, but pretending that the owning-the-libs displays are the same thing as actual discussion does everyone a disservice.
You are also welcome to _additionally_ address my further clarifying statements, such as:
> The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc.
And
> Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater
> This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said?
Where did I obligate myself to respond to your entire comment? I quoted specifically what I wanted to reply to. There is nothing invalid about that. Notice how I didn’t respond to those other comments you made along the way, because that was not the component of your statement that I engaged you on. Hence your need to list them all in your last comment. At no point did I infer anything about “what I thought you said” in your original comment because I stayed precisely on the topic that I intended to address.
You are demanding an increase in the scope of the discussion as if it’s something you’re owed. I will give it to you, but there is nothing illegitimate about rebutting a single component of your post. I cited the scope I wanted to address repeatedly and yet you are outraged that I wouldn’t implicitly expand the scope. I notice you have yet to retract this false statement in the way that I recommended, shame on you. You are the one making stuff up about the victim.
> He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be.
I largely disagree. Yes, there was a level of theatrics to his schtick, but in the scheme of what the theatrics might have been, it really did just boil down to a guy with a microphone having discussions/debates/arguments with whoever wanted to come along. Call it a performance if you want — anything public becomes a performance by this definition. This is also the nature of the media ecosystem we live in — views are important, so his titles and framing are spicy and oriented to firing up his base. It’s called marketing. Don’t clutch your pearls so hard — you seem like a person experienced in the ways of the world.
I’m not familiar with all his claims — perhaps I would disagree with many of them and I’m happy to condemn the ones that I think are irresponsible. People are rarely “all good” or “all bad.” This is a large part of what motivated me to dispute your extremely black-and-white statement about how he had never been in a real debate. It’s possible for much of your criticism to be true AND for him to have engaged in many serious debates and exchanges of ideas, and for his legacy to reflect that.
You seem to place a large emphasis on race baiting in the comments you listed, so I’ll take that on as an example. One of his most well known race related statements is “If I see a black pilot, boy I hope he’s qualified.”
If you can find a way to get past the performative title, in the video below he addresses a black student who challenges him on this. To call this discussion race baiting would be highly inaccurate. I understand throwing video links at people is not a great way to make an argument, but you’ve already invested significant time in this conversation and the discussion is about his content and statements, so I feel this is valid. This is another, separate example of him having a legitimate discussion and exchange of ideas that is not at all accurately summarized by your criticism of him, even if other statements and speeches from him may very well be correctly described that way. There are many other examples beyond just these 2 that I have now cited.
>Where did I obligate myself to respond to your entire comment? I quoted specifically what I wanted to reply to.
Oh ok. I kind of figured that. You saw a sentence that you didn’t like and then imagined a version of it that meant something that you felt you could refute, and then ran with it.
I’m kind of confused why you’re posting to other human beings on here though. If you want to have imaginary sparring battles where you get to dictate what the other party means, there are some extremely popular chat bots that you can talk to. Like you get that this hasn’t been a real conversation right? Like essentially you’ve been talking to yourself using bits and pieces of text that I wrote and arguing against a position that you made up in your head. In public.
They were your words, not mine. Run from them if you want. He was obviously involved in many real debates, and it shouldn't be hard for you to acknowledge that. I even drafted the language for you to clarify your argument to be about what you claim to want, but your ego seems to be standing in the way of embracing it.
I responded to what you asked me to, and then you tucked tail. Very disappointing. Nevertheless, I will add a final thought here.
Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he makes, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy.
There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative.
There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements.
You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
EDIT ADDENDUM
That link doesn’t prove what you want it to. The first two bullets establish 2 people fired from TPUSA for being racist. Later there's a bullet there where an attendee of a conference said racist things. Like, really? That's the best you've got?
The whole “he knew bad people” style of rhetoric just doesn’t work anymore. I honestly expected to find much worse in that link — you convinced me that TPUSA and Kirk were less racist than I thought the record might show. The fact that you think that link is a slam dunk shows just how remarkably warping the tribal mentality is for clarity of thought.
You have a fascinating point. When you wrote “Charlie Kirk saved me from a hot car when I was a baby” I can see the finer points in the Goku vs Superman debate, and to that all I have to say is:
I'll make a basic comparison of the different attributes and provide an explanation, then go into more detail into the other factors that determine the outcome of the fight and post the result!
STRENGTH: Superman 7/10 Goku is strong, VERY strong and probably has enough striking power to put some serious hurt on the Solar System's mass, but Superman just has much better lifting feats and even shatters the boundaries of SPACE/TIME fighting another Superman. Shits cray yo.
DURABILIY: Superman 9/10 Though Goku can take up to 8 times the punishment that SSJ1 can take casually, Superman has just had some RIDICULOUS showings of durability, such as surviving 50 Supernovas when weakened, fucking the earth up upon impact when weakened, and surviving the SOURCE WALL explosion.
ENERGY PROJECTION: Goku 6/10 Goku takes this one. Ki attacks are extremely versatile and have a large edge of Superman's heat vision. The only reason this is close is due to Supe's beyond supernova temperatures in his heat vision and can even match Absolute Zero.
SPEED: Goku 6/10 Though Superman completely out-classes Goku in travel speed and can even phase through attacks, most of these have a bit of an acceleration thing going on, even for a bit of a second. Goku seems to be doing his much quicker and using his speed in a much more practical way. This is a bit of a toss-up however, as both of their speeds are ridiculous, and this was the hardest deciding factor for me. If someone heavily disagrees, feel free to argue with me!
SKILL: Goku 6.5/10 Superman has much more experience, fighting for 1000+ years and all that, but Goku seems to have martial arts skills that don't even make any sense. His ability to copy moves as soon as he sees them (I could never find a scan for this?) gives him the hard edge on this one.
OTHER FACTORS: Now time for the miscellaneous factors included in this. Both of them are pretty 2 dimensional fighters, so most of the fight might be considered with the above stats but I will also include this. Goku has versatile moves such as the Solar Flare and the Instant Transmission, while Superman has Freeze Breath, Super Senses, Infinite Mass Punch and Phase Punches.
Solar Flare - Would the Solar Flare work on Superman? It's strange, because Superman shouldn't likely be able to be blinded by light right? He stays in the Sun sometimes, which is pretty much a giant ball of blinding light, not to mention his heat vision. But does the Solar Flare work in a different way? It is never stated to work anyway besides a bright light, so it most likely wont.
Instant Transmission - This is the most controversial. Goku can teleport anywhere instantly and this would likely give him a massive speed advantage, but unless they are fighting on a battle-field specifically with Ki in it, Goku can't use it. Since Superman doesn't have Ki, he can't teleport to him, and if they are fighting on a battle-field without anyone with Ki around, then he can't use it to surprise Supes or get out of the way of an attack.
Freeze Breath - Probably not. Goku should be able to easily get out of it.
Super Senses - Since Goku cannot use IT and will likely not be hiding from Superman, Supes does not have to use these to track him down. It could provide a possibility for Superman to analyze Goku's body structure and weakpoints?
Infinite Mass Punch - Extremely powerful, but Goku might be able to tank it enough, especially if they are fighting at FTL. If they do, it might provide a gigantic boost to Superman's punching power, but his IMP works a bit different than the Flash's from what Ive seen. Someone care to correct me? I also tried to look up the mass of a white dwarf and one says it is 1.4 solar masses? If this is true then Supes is essentially able to hit Goku with a force of a Solar System each hit? Since there are so many questions, I'll just say Goku can tank it.
Phase Punches - Assuming that Supes hits Goku with a phase punch (or even chooses to do so), it could be fatal if he strikes in the right place. Supes could also use it to dodge Goku's larger beams or harder hits if he so chooses. Goku likely has no resistance to this beyond Ki shields.
Healing Factor - Supes has a healing factor. He once had his throat slipped opeb by WW's tiara and it came back to normal after 10 or 20 seconds. This helps his durability A LOT.
FINAL VERDICT: It's a close fight, but there are many variables I am not quite sure of.
I found the thing you said couldn't be found and you said "whatever, I'm still right."