| ▲ | gred 5 days ago |
| So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table). |
|
| ▲ | RandallBrown 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The guy in the meme with the table saying "Change My Mind" is Steven Crowder, but I imagine they ran in similar circles. |
| |
|
| ▲ | unethical_ban 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| His 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. |
|
| ▲ | seadan83 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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). | |
| ▲ | ddddang 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | gosub100 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with". | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with". This is not correct. | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 5 days ago | parent [-] | | But is it bad faith? | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 5 days ago | parent [-] | | "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 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Both can be true at the same time. |
| |
| ▲ | another_twist 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | queenkjuul 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | duckdriver 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It'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 | | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I've literally seen this before but thanks for telling me about yourself | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 4 days ago | parent [-] | | If 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 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I 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 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Because 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 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I was there. He let anybody speak. The college students who spoke were not actors, it was not theater. You’re deluded. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bertil 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | AaronAPU 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He was very civil and gave people the opportunity to express themselves. But it often had the result of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. | | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | He'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 | | |
| ▲ | bertil 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. Actually, not “may or may not.” | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bertil 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 4 days ago | parent [-] | | So now you want to pretend that "constructive conversation" doesn't refer to Kirk's debates, but rather our exchange? When you have to change the terms of the discussion, it's because your argument is weak. | | |
| ▲ | bertil 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | defrost 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | defrost 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | bertil 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The 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. | | |
| ▲ | bertil 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here. | | |
| ▲ | bertil 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What have I ever written that would imply I’m pro gun violence? This comment is completely unacceptable and I demand that you delete it. | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair enough, I retract the second part. It was out of line. I'll modify it to: No surprise you object to someone of opposing views going onto campuses for exchanges of ideas. | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 4 days ago | parent [-] | | it never was about "exchanges of ideas" it always was about getting short "owning the libs" clips to post on social media for views and money | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > we have to talk to each other. 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. | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | duckdriver 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mhh__ 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The oxford and cambridge unions both solely function to facilitate the careers of people debating now (e.g. someone got a career out of the kirk one) | | |
| ▲ | defrost 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | mhh__ 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nativespecies 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| lmao you should watch these debates. he wasn't an "open minded" individual and lied in a pathological manner. |
|
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Sparkle-san 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | another_twist 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
|
| ▲ | dyauspitr 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
