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
A bad faith argument is one that is deliberately deceptive, either about the facts or about the arguer’s motivations. In general, someone arguing in bad faith is not arguing to learn the truth or to present an honest set of facts, but to support one side regardless of what the facts may say.
Note that “bad faith” is different from “wrong”. A person who honestly believes false things is not operating in bad faith. Nor is a person who is (openly and honestly) advocating for one position and thinks other positions are wrong. Bad faith is about deception of either fact or motivation, not about correctness or disagreement.
—-
For example, suppose that there are two groups in a country, group A and group B. There are 100 jerks in group A and 110 jerks in group B. A bad faith argument from someone who knows this fact might go:
* Wow, group A is so terrible! They have 100 jerks! That is so many jerks!
The bad faith here is that the speaker is concealing the fact that group B in fact has even more jerks, because that fact does not support your goal with this argument (to attack group A).
For a real world example, consider groups like the [American College of Pediatricians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians). This is a group named to deliberately cause confusion with an actual professional medical organization, the [American Academy of Pediatrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics), and to allow bad faith arguments of the form:
* The American College of Pediatricians [which is a social-conservative advocacy group] says being gay is bad for kids.
The goal here is to mislead listeners into thinking that this is a mainstream medical opinion via the use of a deceptively official-sounding name.
A bad faith argument is one that is deliberately deceptive, either about the facts or about the arguer’s motivations. In general, someone arguing in bad faith is not arguing to learn the truth or to present an honest set of facts, but to support one side regardless of what the facts may say.
Note that “bad faith” is different from “wrong”. A person who honestly believes false things is not operating in bad faith. Nor is a person who is (openly and honestly) advocating for one position and thinks other positions are wrong. Bad faith is about deception of either fact or motivation, not about correctness or disagreement.
—-
For example, suppose that there are two groups in a country, group A and group B. There are 100 jerks in group A and 110 jerks in group B. A bad faith argument from someone who knows this fact might go:
* Wow, group A is so terrible! They have 100 jerks! That is so many jerks!
The bad faith here is that the speaker is concealing the fact that group B in fact has even more jerks, because that fact does not support your goal with this argument (to attack group A).
For a real world example, consider groups like the [American College of Pediatricians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians). This is a group named to deliberately cause confusion with an actual professional medical organization, the [American Academy of Pediatrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics), and to allow bad faith arguments of the form:
* The American College of Pediatricians [which is a social-conservative advocacy group] says being gay is bad for kids.
The goal here is to mislead listeners into thinking that this is a mainstream medical opinion via the use of a deceptively official-sounding name.
A bad faith argument is one that is deliberately deceptive, either about the facts or about the arguer’s motivations. In general, someone arguing in bad faith is not arguing to learn the truth or to present an honest set of facts, but to support one side regardless of what the facts may say.
Note that “bad faith” is different from “wrong”. A person who honestly believes false things is not operating in bad faith. Nor is a person who is (openly and honestly) advocating for one position and thinks other positions are wrong. Bad faith is about deception of either fact or motivation, not about correctness or disagreement.
—-
For example, suppose that there are two groups in a country, group A and group B. There are 100 jerks in group A and 110 jerks in group B. A bad faith argument from someone who knows this fact might go:
* Wow, group A is so terrible! They have 100 jerks! That is so many jerks!
The bad faith here is that the speaker is concealing the fact that group B in fact has even more jerks, because that fact does not support your goal with this argument (to attack group A).
For a real world example, consider groups like the [American College of Pediatricians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians). This is a group named to deliberately cause confusion with an actual professional medical organization, the [American Academy of Pediatrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics), and to allow bad faith arguments of the form:
* The American College of Pediatricians [which is a social-conservative advocacy group] says being gay is bad for kids.
The goal here is to mislead listeners into thinking that this is a mainstream medical opinion via the use of a deceptively official-sounding name.
A simple rule of thumb is that in an ideal argument, you consider yourself and your ‘opponent’ to be working together to figure out what’s true. In a bad faith argument you don’t care what’s true; your objective is to create the impression that what you’re saying is true, or that what your opponent says is false, by whatever means necessary.
Good faith = trying to get at the truth; bad faith = trying to win the argument.
Note that either one of these can include refuting things your opponent says, supporting what you say, and possibly making your opponent look stupid; the difference is the arguer’s motivation and choice of tactics.
A simple rule of thumb is that in an ideal argument, you consider yourself and your ‘opponent’ to be working together to figure out what’s true. In a bad faith argument you don’t care what’s true; your objective is to create the impression that what you’re saying is true, or that what your opponent says is false, by whatever means necessary.
Good faith = trying to get at the truth; bad faith = trying to win the argument.
Note that either one of these can include refuting things your opponent says, supporting what you say, and possibly making your opponent look stupid; the difference is the arguer’s motivation and choice of tactics.
A simple rule of thumb is that in an ideal argument, you consider yourself and your ‘opponent’ to be working together to figure out what’s true. In a bad faith argument you don’t care what’s true; your objective is to create the impression that what you’re saying is true, or that what your opponent says is false, by whatever means necessary.
Good faith = trying to get at the truth; bad faith = trying to win the argument.
Note that either one of these can include refuting things your opponent says, supporting what you say, and possibly making your opponent look stupid; the difference is the arguer’s motivation and choice of tactics.
Negotiating in bad faith is when you are negotiation with zero intent on finalizing a deal.
Bad faith argument seems to be a bit fuzzier but I’ve seen it defined similar to bad faith negotiating. Arguing a point you actually don’t believe.
A real life example. Republicans arguing that wind turbines decimate bird populations. Regardless if it’s true or not, the party has always favored abundant energy/cheaper energy over environmental concerns. Arguing the environmental impact of wind farms using bird deaths is a bad faith argument.
Say both you and your friend have separate lemonade stands. Your friend advertises that “Dentist say lemonade is good for your teeth!” on the side of his stand. Your friend however knows this isn’t true. They made up the lie to sell more lemonade. They are arguing in bad faith because they know their argument is false.
You however take their argument at face value since you’re five and don’t know any better. You also set up a sign for your lemonade stand saying “Lemonade is good for teeth!” because you want more people to know the health benefits of lemonade. Even though you’re wrong, you’re actually arguing in good faith because you genuinely believe the argument you’re pushing.
Bad faith accusations are usually difficult to prove. If you’re lucky there might be text messages or e-mail of someone saying one thing while they’ve been publicly stating another but rarely will we ever see that. It’s a good critical thinking skill to consider how one might benefit from the argument they’re making. I’d rather get my teeth advise from a expert like a dentist than a lemonade seller with a conflict of interest.
Negotiating in bad faith is when you are negotiation with zero intent on finalizing a deal.
Bad faith argument seems to be a bit fuzzier but I’ve seen it defined similar to bad faith negotiating. Arguing a point you actually don’t believe.
A real life example. Republicans arguing that wind turbines decimate bird populations. Regardless if it’s true or not, the party has always favored abundant energy/cheaper energy over environmental concerns. Arguing the environmental impact of wind farms using bird deaths is a bad faith argument.
Negotiating in bad faith is when you are negotiation with zero intent on finalizing a deal.
Bad faith argument seems to be a bit fuzzier but I’ve seen it defined similar to bad faith negotiating. Arguing a point you actually don’t believe.
A real life example. Republicans arguing that wind turbines decimate bird populations. Regardless if it’s true or not, the party has always favored abundant energy/cheaper energy over environmental concerns. Arguing the environmental impact of wind farms using bird deaths is a bad faith argument.
Latest Answers