5 ms·
So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table).
by gred 1y ago
So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table).
- RandallBrown 1y agoThe guy in the meme with the table saying "Change My Mind" is Steven Crowder, but I imagine they ran in similar circles.
- gred 1y agoYeah, I think it was a similar concept.
- seadan83 1y agoAgree 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.
- another_twist 1y ago[flagged]
- gosub100 1y ago"bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".
- selcuka 1y agoBoth can be true at the same time.
- Supermancho 1y ago> "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with". This is not correct.
- trimethylpurine 1y agoBut is it bad faith?
- Supermancho 1y ago"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.
- duckdriver 1y agoThis 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
- ddddang 1y ago[dead]
- bigyabai 1y agoBe 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).
- seadan83 1y agoUntrue 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-000604224.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/young-fans-critics-debate-charlie-...
- Sparkle-san 1y ago[flagged]
- another_twist 1y ago[flagged]
- temp_20251010 1y ago[dead]
- dyauspitr 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bertil 1y ago[flagged]
- duckdriver 1y agoHe's not, actually. 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
- defrost 1y agoHe 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.
- duckdriver 1y agoThis 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
- bertil 1y ago> Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point "I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.
- duckdriver 1y agoThe fact that you stuff words in my mouth is actually more revealing than anything at all. I cited a video that supported my argument. You then make a complete straw man.
- queenkjuul 1y ago[flagged]
- duckdriver 1y agoIt's unlikely that you're actually familiar with his work. There are many examples of videos like the one below, and if you'd seen any of them, you would absolutely understand why people think this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
- queenkjuul 1y agoI've literally seen this before but thanks for telling me about yourself
- duckdriver 1y agoIf you've seen this and you don't understand why people think he modeled constructive conversation, I think that says a lot more about you
- PlanksVariable 1y agoI think this because I saw him go on a college campus, give a microphone to liberal students, and give them a chance to defend their views while also providing an alternative point of view. Can you explain why you’re flabbergasted?
- queenkjuul 1y agoBecause you are able to watch a carefully staged piece of theater and mistake it for reality. I thought most people, in general, were able to discern the difference, but you and many aren't
- PlanksVariable 1y agoI was there. He let anybody speak. The college students who spoke were not actors, it was not theater. You’re deluded.
- unethical_ban 1y agoHis assassination is a bad thing. And, he was a bad faith huckster who made his money and fame on trolling. He was not open-minded or considerate.
- nativespecies 1y agolmao you should watch these debates. he wasn't an "open minded" individual and lied in a pathological manner.