[seadan83]

Agree sad, but not because he was reaching across the intellectual divide. Kirk's debate responses/performances were very often bad faith. It seemed more performative than an actual debate - "owning the libs" and not an intellectual exercise. I really don't think there was a true willingness to listen to contrary viewpoints. For example, his positions did not evolve on most all positions, even when confronted with compelling arguments.

[duckdriver]

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw

[seadan83]

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).

[1] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/young-fans-critics-debate-charlie-...

[duckdriver]

> 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.

[hnewsenjoyer]

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.”

[bigyabai]

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).

[gosub100]

"bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".

[Supermancho]

> "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".

This is not correct.

[trimethylpurine]

But is it bad faith?

[Supermancho]

"Bad faith" is choosing the weakest, least useful, or intentional misinterpretation of a position. Typically this is then used as the starting point for a rebuttal.

> Wikipedia:

> A bad faith discussion is characterized by insincerity and a lack of genuine commitment to the exchange of ideas, where the primary goal is not to seek truth or understand opposing viewpoints, but to manipulate, deceive, or win the argument regardless of the facts

Discussion is most useful when parties attempt to make the strongest arguments for and against each other's positions to find an optimally logical position and/or to clarify ideological beliefs that underpin those positions. Good faith discussion enables that. Bad faith exchanges are often used to derail, to generate strawmen, to mischaracterize another party's beliefs or thinking, et al.

[selcuka]

Both can be true at the same time.