What exactly is an "bad faith" argument? - Social Justice is confusing, nowadays.

[Billy "the Bot" Bobson]

Setting aside whether this is a bad faith question, "bad faith argument" has a number of different definitions. When I studied argument and rhetoric in college, BFA was a tactic designed to waste another person's time or humiliate them or make fun of them or provoke them into becoming unglued, by apparently engaging in an argument (in the philosophical sense of proposing and considering propositions) but doing so insincerely and not to discover "truth" or agreed views - which is the purpose of argument - but for another malicious purpose.
For instance Alice might her conversation with Bob as a sincere request for information and so impose on Bob the largely social obligation to explain and justify his views. Alice then asks questions that seemingly seek more information or willfully misinterpret what Bob is saying and so keep him on the line, In other words, she responds to each piece of information Bob provides by misinterpreting it or seeking further clarification, but does not actually want the information; rather she wants Bob to continue dancing to her tune. Alice is attempting to harass or waste Bob's time and she has no intention of sincerely entertaining Bob's points. The "bad faith" is that argument is considered an activity - as others have pointed out - that rests on social norms of sincerity and respect and trust but Alice is abusing those - for a malicious purpose.
It is difficult to extract one's self from such situations. If Bob accuses Alice of acting in bad faith he can look evasive; she can innocently deny it (effectively engaging in another bad faith argument) and Bob again looks bad for making the accusation. And he also appears gullible and Alice can appear superior and smart.
Bad faith arguments erode trust and comity. And I have seen them lead to blows.

Regardless of faith, the most powerful commandment is easily "thou shalt not bear false witness". Being a facetious, lying dick is never a good thing.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Setting aside whether this is a bad faith question, "bad faith argument" has a number of different definitions. When I studied argument and rhetoric in college, BFA was a tactic designed to waste another person's time or humiliate them or make fun of them or provoke them into becoming unglued, by apparently engaging in an argument (in the philosophical sense of proposing and considering propositions) but doing so insincerely and not to discover "truth" or agreed views - which is the purpose of argument - but for another malicious purpose.
For instance Alice might her conversation with Bob as a sincere request for information and so impose on Bob the largely social obligation to explain and justify his views. Alice then asks questions that seemingly seek more information or willfully misinterpret what Bob is saying and so keep him on the line, In other words, she responds to each piece of information Bob provides by misinterpreting it or seeking further clarification, but does not actually want the information; rather she wants Bob to continue dancing to her tune. Alice is attempting to harass or waste Bob's time and she has no intention of sincerely entertaining Bob's points. The "bad faith" is that argument is considered an activity - as others have pointed out - that rests on social norms of sincerity and respect and trust but Alice is abusing those - for a malicious purpose.
It is difficult to extract one's self from such situations. If Bob accuses Alice of acting in bad faith he can look evasive; she can innocently deny it (effectively engaging in another bad faith argument) and Bob again looks bad for making the accusation. And he also appears gullible and Alice can appear superior and smart.
Bad faith arguments erode trust and comity. And I have seen them lead to blows.

Here's an example. It starts with a good faith argument, but then there's a bad faith argument/trap.

 

[Cool Dog]

Here is an article that gives the rundown on what constitutes "bad faith arguments". It has morphed a little from its original meaning, I think.

Medium.com: A Field Guide to Bad Faith Arguments

Jordan Peterson, who came to fame for picking an imaginary free speech fight over transgender pronouns in Canada, for instance, recently sued two professors for criticizing him and his views and even sued another university to boot.

Doesnt this hyperfaggot see the difference between some nobody benzo addict suing another nobody and the fucking government passing a law forcing you to use certain language? how fucking delusional you have to be?

But then he said:

Even when supposed free speech and civil debate advocates go on to run their own platforms, they rarely talk to people to their left.

Which is funny how he at the same time says his problem is only with hate coming from the right but then denies the fact anti-identity politics leftists are also getting fucked by this censorship

Retard still believes the aclu its about free speech

 

[NerdShamer]

Every post that @ryu289 runs afoul of this.

 

[Niggernerd]

You spout false greatness of Satan.

 

[Concho Pete]

At it's core it means having an argument without the intention of arriving at truth or some kind of mutual understanding. Equivocation, and absolute refusal to concede on even minor points of contention are dead giveaways.

It's most internet debates. They can technically still be "correct", but not in spirit.

 

[Penis Drager]

Arguing in bad faith really comes down to your assumptions about the person you're arguing with:
To have a constructive discussion requires interested parties to assume everyone involved is a rational person who has legitimate reasons to think the way they do and what they claim to believe is actually what they believe. If you go into an argument thinking anything else of your opposition (ie. They only think that way because they're stupid or haven't really thought about or they're lying), you are arguing in bad faith.