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
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
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.