zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table).

>>gred+sw
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.

>>seadan+0H
"bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".

>>gosub1+xR
> "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".

This is not correct.

>>Superm+OW
But is it bad faith?

>>trimet+I11
"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.