(untitled)

what does it mean to "argue in bad faith"? i've seen the mods here complain about this 500 times, yet i still don't know what it means? my guess is that it means arguing under the assumption that the other person doesn't understand what they're talking about but if i google "argue in bad faith", it comes up with 10 definitions, and only one is what i guessed

(continued) >my guess is that it means arguing under the assumption that the other person doesn't understand what they're talking about or more generally, assuming the other person believes something retarded

Classic example is "So what you're saying is that ... *completely different point to the original statement* " You see it all the time on news, reporter gets btfod and cant argue the point so they lie about what the other person said and attack their freshly build strawman.

>arguing in bad faith is sealioning (whatever that is) >arguing in bad faith is arguing for the sake of being offensive >arguing in bad faith is the way OP defined it which is it?

>arguing in bad faith is sealioning (whatever that is) >arguing in bad faith is arguing for the sake of being ofensive >arguing in bad faith is the way OP defined it which is it?

>people dont use the same word uniform >why cant i get one precise definition is this autism?

Its possible this is something where different people legitimately mean different things when they say it. I think the most reasonable one is basically arguing dishonestly, either using points you don't actually beleive, misrepresenting positions, or any other tactic that knowingly attempts to decieve or mislead. It can include faints suggesting the bad-faith arguer is considering other arguments while not doing so. >arguing under the assumption that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about I think this is not relevant to whether an argument is made in bad faith. >sealioning whatever the hell that is per wikipedia: "Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of 'incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate'". This is a type of bad faith argument but its not the only one. >arguing in bad faith is arguing for the sake of being offensive Arguing is usually trying to find some common ground or investigate reality, so arguing for the pure sake of being offensive is likely dishonest and deceptive, therefore bad faith. Of course not all bad faith arguments are openly offensive, and nor are all openly offensive arguments bad faith.

It basically means argument where you have no intention to increase the amount of understanding anyone has.

>>29860 this anon understands.

>>29859 most people argue because they think the other person is retarded, and are correcting them while also trying to make them recognize how retarded they are. im well aware most people on the offending side are wrong, though, such as >>29857 >>29864 no, he doesn't. we already established at the start of this thread that people think that is one of the definitions. the question is what the mods think it means, and what the actual definition is (as in, dictionary, idiom database, etc. also not to be confused with the unrelated legal term "bad faith"). just because google gets a bunch of retards saying their own retarded definition because this happens to be one of those terms, doesn't mean it's not well defined. that would be like saying "lag" is not well defined. it is possible there just is no definition, but i heard this idiom many years ago so it must be well defined somewhere.

>>29867 words are not well defined in general. Some institution releasing a dictionary can try to roleplay authority but it doesn't matter when nobody adheres to it. Thats why people even tried to do community projects like urban dictionary in first place - the classic institutions were way out of touch.

In a good faith argument, you are presenting what you believe are facts, logical conclusions, and reasonable retorts to statements someone else has made. You're making a reasonable effort to avoid fallacious arguments, ensure your facts are truthful, and understand the points presented by the others involved. You argue with openness to changing your position should someone provide an argument that refutes your position. You argue with the primary goal being advancing the understanding of the subject (by you, by the others in the argument, and by readers of the argument), not "winning the argument" or belittling someone who you believe has a weaker understanding of the subject than you. Anything other than that is bad faith.

It's a quality content filter, it's arbitrary and meant to be so, it's impossible to objectively measure such thing.

>>29876 yes this, in the context of the site. The Big Apple is a fan of rules and likes to be able to point to them once in a while. You don't need to pay attention to it, they'll kick you out when they decide to and then you just don't do the same thing later if you don't want to be derezzed harder.

Honestly this word gets thrown around this site as a catch-all phrase when arguments start getting heated, or simply when they run out of things to say.

Moved to >>>/q/10866.