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
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

>>duckdr+PX
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).