Honestly, I’ve seen a few different definitions for it, from an argument that’s just meant to br antagonistic, another is that it’s one where the one making seeks to win no matter what, another is where the person making it knows it’s wrong but makes it anyway.
Can anyone nail down what arguing in bad faith actually is for me? If so, that’d be great.
In: 647
Jon Stewart debating gun control is a great example. Whether you agree with his opinion or not, he does several things that qualify. He attacks the other person’s character and makes outlandish claims about the other person’s motivation. He refuses to engage with the other side’s actual arguments and returns to an argument from pathos. He doesn’t care to understand the one data point he actually brought to the debate, but repeats it incessantly as if it meant something.
His opponent was clearly not ready for those ploys, and probably not the best to be having the conversation, as he allowed himself to be boxed in by the disingenuous framing. That doesn’t change that the goal was never to have a conversation or to understand the other side of the argument. It was for ratings and clicks and cheap theatricality.
When people are unwilling to have a serious conversation, that’s arguing in bad faith. When people shout down the opposition, that’s arguing in bad faith. When people lie or mislead the audience to bolster their points, when they strawman the opponent, that’s arguing in bad faith.
::To be clear, I’m not here to debate gun control. That was just a recent example that got some attention, and is therefore a useful example.::
Latest Answers