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 put it very simply, a GOOD faith argument is an honest exchange of information, while a BAD faith argument is a dishonest exchange of information.
The main goal of a person who is arguing in GOOD faith is to find a solution, reach an agreement, or to deliver a point. The main goal of a person who is arguing in BAD faith is to frustrate the other person by interpreting what they say in the least reasonable way possible, and distract from the actual discussion.
Here’s an example of a bad faith argument about which number is bigger:
**Person A:**
– I think the number 1 is bigger than the number 2.
**Person B:**
– I disagree. I think the number 2 is bigger than the number 1.
**Person A:**
– Oh, so you’re saying 2 grapes are bigger than 1 watermelon?!
In this example, Person-A is arguing in bad faith. They certainly understood what Person-B was saying, but have decided to deliberately misinterpret it. This will drag out the argument as Person-B will be forced to over-clarify their points. That in turn will distract from the actual argument and reduce the chance that the two will reach any kind of agreement or conclusion.
Latest Answers