I just feel more and more it’s a cheap excuse to dismiss debate out of hand rather then confront an uncomfortable truth.
I just don’t buy that anyone online cares if someone is arguing in good or bad faith
What do you mean by Good? What do you mean by Faith? What do you mean by Matter?
good = opposite of evil.
faith = what ppl believe in when they observe shit they can’t understand.
matter = physical stuff
points at op
That’s bait.
There’s no point in arguing with someone who argues in bad faith. You’re better off telling them to fuck off to lord knows where than waste your time on them, as they’ve already made their mind up.
If you’re not arguing in good faith, that means you’re not actually arguing. You’re trolling for a reaction with no intention of listening to the other side. There is then, zero point in actually “debating” you because you are not actually participating in a debate.
What about people who debate issues they don’t agree with and steel man them ? good things have come from this because it causes new people to look at stuff and bring an outside view to things and point out something the activist on either side of a debate haven’t noticed.
That’s just called arguing in good faith.
You mean when they actually construct a better argument than the other side? Like how one would typically perform a debate with the intention of changing someone else’s opinion? That doesn’t have anything to do with arguing in bad faith.
being good faith doesn’t mean you are a good debater.
Christopher Hitchens often argued for stuff he didn’t know or care much about but he did an amazing job at it.
Meanwhile a 62 IQ Florida man who thinks the earth is flat might be the most good faith pure of heart debater who beehives that in his heart of heart that the earth is flat. He will be a terrible debater.
Arguing what you believe in is not what “arguing in good faith” actually means. If you’re arguing in good faith it means you aren’t using any logical fallacies, insults, and are genuinely attempting to have an actual conversation. It has nothing to do with how good of a debater you are, or how valid your argument is.
So you’re Florida man could absolutely be arguing in good faith about the beehives in the center of the earth even though that’s very easy to disprove, while someone arguing for gar rights can arguing in bad faith when they start saying things like “every single Republican is a Nazi” (strawman argument) even though it’s objectively a good thing.
Here is a good article about what “arguing in good faith” actually is.
And yes, I know it’s Grammarly which is an AI tool, but I read through it myself and it’s a good article.
There’s a big difference between a conversation online and an official competitive debate. All of your comments make me think you don’t really know what arguing in good faith means.
So you think twisting people’s words, lying, cherry-picking information, and attacking them personally - rather than addressing their actual point - is a good way to make them change their minds?
I don’t think you really believe that either, but if I were to engage with you in bad faith, that’s what it would look like.
Good faith doesn’t mean you have to be polite - it means you make a genuine effort to understand what someone is actually saying and engage with that, rather than a cartoon version of their argument. That cartoon version might get you cheers from the audience, but it’s not going to change anyone’s mind. And if minds aren’t being changed - and no serious effort is even made to try - then what’s the point of the debate in the first place?
I’d argue that if someone is genuinely trying to persuade another person, it’s virtually impossible to debate in bad faith. Acting in bad faith means you don’t care whether the other person changes their mind - you just want to dunk on them, be mean, pretend they said something they didn’t, and rally a mob to dogpile on them. Then you tell yourself you’ve “won” the debate because you’re getting upvotes and they’re not - even though all you’ve really done is push them further into their corner.
Those that argue in bad faith usually abandon consistency in the process. Because they don’t believe in the argument they are presenting, as soon as they are proven wrong they simply pivot to a new, and likely, contradictory argument. This often occurs because their real reason for their desired outcome is abhorrent (and they are aware of that) but they argue a different reason that would have the same outcome. This is prime red meat for racists and misogynists, as an example.
they don’t believe in the argument they are presenting
I don’t think that’s the case here. While people might lie when there’s something to gain from it, we generally don’t hold views we don’t believe in - because that creates cognitive dissonance.
More often, I think it’s that people hold views they feel are true on an intuitive level, but these beliefs usually aren’t something they’ve arrived at independently from first principles. Instead, they’ve adopted them from somewhere else - social groups, media, culture - and haven’t really thought them through.
The belief becomes part of their identity, and they accept it at face value. They know they’re right, so anyone who disagrees must automatically be wrong. That makes it easy to dismiss or ridicule opposing views rather than trying to understand where that “false belief” comes from. After all, why waste time listening to someone who just doesn’t get what you already know to be true?
What people need is humility. There’s no way one can be right about literally everything - we just don’t know what we’re wrong about. It might be something trivial but it also might be one of our core beliefs. The truth is not always intuitive or something that we like. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
I don’t disagree with most of your thoughts above, but I’m not seeing a discussion of the merits or detriments of arguing in bad faith. A necessary component of bad faith arguing is the knowledge that you don’t actually hold that opinion that you’re defending even while claiming you do. After your first sentence in your text above you’re speaking to actual beliefs that the person holds, which wouldn’t be bad faith.
Bad faith argumentation has nothing to do with honestly presenting your views. I can defend positions I don’t actually hold just fine, an argument doesn’t gain any special properties depending on who makes it. I could even claim that I held these beliefs and it would have no effect. Rather, bad faith argumentation has to do with how you engage with your opponents arguments, not your own. An example of bad faith would be if your opponent said that they liked Germany, and you then spun it into portraying them as a Nazi.
I don’t think actually believing the views you defend is relevant here. Playing devil’s advocate can be done in good faith. It’s about your intentions. In fact, I’d argue that being able to clearly articulate a view you don’t hold is a sign that you’ve genuinely understood your opposition’s arguments. You don’t need to be convinced by them yourself.
What does make it bad faith is if you put those arguments forward but then refuse to engage with the counterarguments - that’s where the line gets crossed.
For example, I don’t agree with the reasons Russia has given for attacking Ukraine, but I can still lay out those arguments in a way a pro-Russian person would recognize as accurate. That, on its own, isn’t bad faith. But if someone responds by calling me a delusional Nazi or something similar, that is bad faith - an ad hominem, specifically - even if that person genuinely believes people who argue that position deserve such a label.
I totally agree. There are three small words that a lot of people need to use more often:
“I think that…”
Being able to distinguish between opinions and things that you can prove is right is important for debates. The goal is to reach the best conclusion, and you cannot do that if you base the conclusion on falsehoods.
Because there’s no use engaging with someone who is not willing to consider new information or alternative viewpoints. Those people have an agenda to push and often come off as hostile or rude. Much better to just downvote and move on.
It discredits their view points. When you debate you are almost never going to convince the other person the goal is to convince the audience or people who haven’t made up their minds.
When you debate you are almost never going to convince the other person
Why not? Are you that bad at it?
the goal is to convince the audience
That goes only for trolls and politicians (no, I did not say whether or not a difference exists)
Often enough, their viewpoints have been discredited already. To me, it’s rarely worth the effort of disputing bunk information if it’s clearly wrong and the person writing it is not engaging in good faith. I know some people enjoy debating, but I prefer to save my sanity most of the time.
There are better ways of convincing non involved participants than debate, especially it’s an argument around human rights, bigotry, transphobia, racism etc. Getting in to a debate normalises the idea that “both sides” of these arguments have similar validity and value.
It only matters insofar as time invested.
If someone is just fucking around, trolling, baiting, or deliberately trying to spread some kind of propaganda in the guise of “just talking”, it’s annoying as fuck to spend fifteen minutes writing up a considered and meaningful comment. Sometimes it’s worth it anyway, if only to leave it for anyone coming along later, but it’s still a giant waste of effort that could could have been spent on someone or something genuine.
That doesn’t include someone playing devil’s advocate though. That’s fine, though it’s good manners to say so up front.
The line can be a little blurry at times, obviously. Some folks just don’t engage with others well. But most of the time, it’s fairly obvious within one or two exchanges that someone is fucking with you, or they’re just really bad at engagement and discussion.
Greetings 👋 I really do care! Expressing myself genuinely aswell as putting in the effort to understand where the other person is coming from: that builds bridges, connects and leads to worthwhile discussions. Bad faith discussions do not, I think.
I heard a quote once, paraphrasing, that tries to convey:
Good etiquette means is trying to understand the other as well as one can. That stuck with me eversince. I try to understand where the other party is coming from as well as I can. Genuinely.
My experience with that is that you build bridges. My experience without that is each side is expressing opinions, that fall flat on each other’s ears more often.
Don’t be mistaken though! It does not mean to be a pushover, nor people pleaser. It means to gracefully, exercise a conscious effort, to understand - and I noticed my arguments could be way stronger even, as they are more precise. And more accepted by others.
Now you are talking about a specific point, dismissing a debate. Because someone else argues in bad faith. Am I correct in the assumption that people told you they don’t want to discuss any further as they feel you’re coming out of a position of bad faith?
If I suspect or feel the other person is arguing in bad faith, so not being interested in finding a genuine communication channel, then it’s just that: voicing an opinion, discussing only to be able to repeat that opinion. monologue disguised as dialog. Not much value.
And it’s okay to express an opinion, it’s even sometimes okay to not wanting to discuss it - but others can sense that too and don’t want their time wasted.
So let’s discuss genuinely ☀️
Maybe you can provide some context of what you mean? I assume it is very contextual.
