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
It comes down to the purpose of argument
An argument should have the ultimate goal of benefiting all parties involved. You want everyone to make the right choice. There shouldn’t be a winner or loser. You’re trying to make sure everyone is right.
You state the facts, you work out the logic, and at worst, both sides come out knowing a little bit more about the situation than they did before.
Arguing from bad faith is when you’re arguing for a more malicious reason. You don’t care about being right or wrong; You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, or arguing expressly to annoy, or straight up hurt someone.
There’s a difference between “I think you’re wrong, but let’s talk about it and find out”, and yammering at someone for 25 minutes because you’re fed up with them. That difference is faith.
You gotta have faith that the person you’re talking to wants to do the right thing, just the same as you do. If you don’t, then you’re not in a position to argue.
It comes down to the purpose of argument
An argument should have the ultimate goal of benefiting all parties involved. You want everyone to make the right choice. There shouldn’t be a winner or loser. You’re trying to make sure everyone is right.
You state the facts, you work out the logic, and at worst, both sides come out knowing a little bit more about the situation than they did before.
Arguing from bad faith is when you’re arguing for a more malicious reason. You don’t care about being right or wrong; You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, or arguing expressly to annoy, or straight up hurt someone.
There’s a difference between “I think you’re wrong, but let’s talk about it and find out”, and yammering at someone for 25 minutes because you’re fed up with them. That difference is faith.
You gotta have faith that the person you’re talking to wants to do the right thing, just the same as you do. If you don’t, then you’re not in a position to argue.
A bad faith argument tends to argue the opponent’s *position* rather than how they *arrive* at that position.
If Person 1 says that “we believe A because of X,Y,Z”, to counter argue in good faith you must show why X, Y, and Z are wrong.
If instead you ignore X, Y, and Z because “Person 1 in fact doesn’t believe in A at all”, you are arguing in bad faith.
When it comes down to it, a good faith argument assumes that the person making the original claim believes what they are saying.
Original claim: “The earth is flat and here’s the science to prove it!”
Bad faith argument: “Flat earthers are trolls who are only looking to piss people off at we need not listen to them.”
Good faith argument: “The earth is round and here’s why flat earth science is garbage.”
The thing is, the bad faith argument in this case isn’t necessarily wrong and it’s not a bad idea to ignore flat earthers. But a good faith argument can seldom be used as a weapon to silence the truth in the way bad faith ones can. Bad faith arguments can be wielded by the powerful against the weak or unpopular, regardless of the truth. And a better world is one that seeks the truth over moral necessity.
A bad faith argument tends to argue the opponent’s *position* rather than how they *arrive* at that position.
If Person 1 says that “we believe A because of X,Y,Z”, to counter argue in good faith you must show why X, Y, and Z are wrong.
If instead you ignore X, Y, and Z because “Person 1 in fact doesn’t believe in A at all”, you are arguing in bad faith.
When it comes down to it, a good faith argument assumes that the person making the original claim believes what they are saying.
Original claim: “The earth is flat and here’s the science to prove it!”
Bad faith argument: “Flat earthers are trolls who are only looking to piss people off at we need not listen to them.”
Good faith argument: “The earth is round and here’s why flat earth science is garbage.”
The thing is, the bad faith argument in this case isn’t necessarily wrong and it’s not a bad idea to ignore flat earthers. But a good faith argument can seldom be used as a weapon to silence the truth in the way bad faith ones can. Bad faith arguments can be wielded by the powerful against the weak or unpopular, regardless of the truth. And a better world is one that seeks the truth over moral necessity.
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.
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.
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.
If you aren’t entering into an argument willing to change your mind if new information is presented, aren’t willing to compromise, and just want to win, you’re arguing in bad faith.
If you aren’t entering into an argument willing to change your mind if new information is presented, aren’t willing to compromise, and just want to win, you’re arguing in bad faith.
If you aren’t entering into an argument willing to change your mind if new information is presented, aren’t willing to compromise, and just want to win, you’re arguing in bad faith.
Latest Answers