I just feel more and more it’s a cheap excuse to dismiss debate out of hand rather then confront an uncomfortable truth.
I just don’t buy that anyone online cares if someone is arguing in good or bad faith
If you’re not arguing in good faith, that means you’re not actually arguing. You’re trolling for a reaction with no intention of listening to the other side. There is then, zero point in actually “debating” you because you are not actually participating in a debate.
What about people who debate issues they don’t agree with and steel man them ? good things have come from this because it causes new people to look at stuff and bring an outside view to things and point out something the activist on either side of a debate haven’t noticed.
You mean when they actually construct a better argument than the other side? Like how one would typically perform a debate with the intention of changing someone else’s opinion? That doesn’t have anything to do with arguing in bad faith.
being good faith doesn’t mean you are a good debater.
Christopher Hitchens often argued for stuff he didn’t know or care much about but he did an amazing job at it.
Meanwhile a 62 IQ Florida man who thinks the earth is flat might be the most good faith pure of heart debater who beehives that in his heart of heart that the earth is flat. He will be a terrible debater.
There’s a big difference between a conversation online and an official competitive debate. All of your comments make me think you don’t really know what arguing in good faith means.
Arguing what you believe in is not what “arguing in good faith” actually means. If you’re arguing in good faith it means you aren’t using any logical fallacies, insults, and are genuinely attempting to have an actual conversation. It has nothing to do with how good of a debater you are, or how valid your argument is.
So you’re Florida man could absolutely be arguing in good faith about the beehives in the center of the earth even though that’s very easy to disprove, while someone arguing for gar rights can arguing in bad faith when they start saying things like “every single Republican is a Nazi” (strawman argument) even though it’s objectively a good thing.
Here is a good article about what “arguing in good faith” actually is.
And yes, I know it’s Grammarly which is an AI tool, but I read through it myself and it’s a good article.
That’s just called arguing in good faith.
points at op
That’s bait.
There’s no point in arguing with someone who argues in bad faith. You’re better off telling them to fuck off to lord knows where than waste your time on them, as they’ve already made their mind up.
Because there’s no use engaging with someone who is not willing to consider new information or alternative viewpoints. Those people have an agenda to push and often come off as hostile or rude. Much better to just downvote and move on.
It discredits their view points. When you debate you are almost never going to convince the other person the goal is to convince the audience or people who haven’t made up their minds.
When you debate you are almost never going to convince the other person
Why not? Are you that bad at it?
the goal is to convince the audience
That goes only for trolls and politicians (no, I did not say whether or not a difference exists)
Often enough, their viewpoints have been discredited already. To me, it’s rarely worth the effort of disputing bunk information if it’s clearly wrong and the person writing it is not engaging in good faith. I know some people enjoy debating, but I prefer to save my sanity most of the time.
There are better ways of convincing non involved participants than debate, especially it’s an argument around human rights, bigotry, transphobia, racism etc. Getting in to a debate normalises the idea that “both sides” of these arguments have similar validity and value.
arguing in bad faith is trolling, the person isn’t really looking to have their mind changed or to have a reasonable discussion
Those that argue in bad faith usually abandon consistency in the process. Because they don’t believe in the argument they are presenting, as soon as they are proven wrong they simply pivot to a new, and likely, contradictory argument. This often occurs because their real reason for their desired outcome is abhorrent (and they are aware of that) but they argue a different reason that would have the same outcome. This is prime red meat for racists and misogynists, as an example.
What do you mean by Good? What do you mean by Faith? What do you mean by Matter?
good = opposite of evil.
faith = what ppl believe in when they observe shit they can’t understand.
matter = physical stuff
Alright, time for round 2 of bad faith argument, let’s dive into defining every word you just used.
Alternatively, your definition of Good simply uses an antonym. That doesn’t get us any closer to a definition. Define it again. This time, be careful not to use any word I’ve asked you to define previously or else I’m going to dismiss the logic of definitions as being Circular.
How can you criticise me without having workable definitions of every word I use?
By the way, I define Matter as “the impulse of the human mind’” so that’s what definition we’re using in our discussion now. /s
It only matters insofar as time invested.
If someone is just fucking around, trolling, baiting, or deliberately trying to spread some kind of propaganda in the guise of “just talking”, it’s annoying as fuck to spend fifteen minutes writing up a considered and meaningful comment. Sometimes it’s worth it anyway, if only to leave it for anyone coming along later, but it’s still a giant waste of effort that could could have been spent on someone or something genuine.
That doesn’t include someone playing devil’s advocate though. That’s fine, though it’s good manners to say so up front.
The line can be a little blurry at times, obviously. Some folks just don’t engage with others well. But most of the time, it’s fairly obvious within one or two exchanges that someone is fucking with you, or they’re just really bad at engagement and discussion.
Greetings 👋 I really do care! Expressing myself genuinely aswell as putting in the effort to understand where the other person is coming from: that builds bridges, connects and leads to worthwhile discussions. Bad faith discussions do not, I think.
I heard a quote once, paraphrasing, that tries to convey:
Good etiquette means is trying to understand the other as well as one can. That stuck with me eversince. I try to understand where the other party is coming from as well as I can. Genuinely.
My experience with that is that you build bridges. My experience without that is each side is expressing opinions, that fall flat on each other’s ears more often.
Don’t be mistaken though! It does not mean to be a pushover, nor people pleaser. It means to gracefully, exercise a conscious effort, to understand - and I noticed my arguments could be way stronger even, as they are more precise. And more accepted by others.
Now you are talking about a specific point, dismissing a debate. Because someone else argues in bad faith. Am I correct in the assumption that people told you they don’t want to discuss any further as they feel you’re coming out of a position of bad faith?
If I suspect or feel the other person is arguing in bad faith, so not being interested in finding a genuine communication channel, then it’s just that: voicing an opinion, discussing only to be able to repeat that opinion. monologue disguised as dialog. Not much value.
And it’s okay to express an opinion, it’s even sometimes okay to not wanting to discuss it - but others can sense that too and don’t want their time wasted.
So let’s discuss genuinely ☀️
You can’t really tell what people are thinking online, you can only see their messages. Words can be clumsy without other means of expression.
