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
To argue in “good faith” is to accept at the start that a good argument may change your mind and to make an effort to present as valid an argument as you can.
To argue in “bad faith” is essentially cheating or being a sore loser in an argument. Deliberately using manipulative or misleading phrasing, presuming that your stance is so correct that it’s self-supporting, attacking people instead of arguments, and so on. The purpose of a bad faith argument is usually to make the other party look or feel bad, rather than to come to an understanding.
Latest Answers