Good Faith vs. Bad Faith Argument

[John Bauer]

A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in constructive discourse, avoiding distortions or personal attacks (i.e., fallacies). He represents his own viewpoint openly and candidly, and represents his opponent's viewpoint accurately and with respect. He acknowledges valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments when they are presented, and stays on topic when faced with challenges and adapts his argument to valid criticisms. Arguing in good faith is about seeking truth and fostering mutual understanding, rather than merely winning the debate or promoting personal interests.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.

 

[makesends]

A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in constructive discourse, avoiding distortions or personal attacks (i.e., fallacies). He represents his own viewpoint openly and candidly, and represents his opponent's viewpoint accurately and with respect. He acknowledges valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments when they are presented, and stays on topic when faced with challenges and adapts his argument to valid criticisms. Arguing in good faith is about seeking truth and fostering mutual understanding, rather than merely winning the debate or promoting personal interests.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.

I'm sorry, and, yes, I'm jaded, but there are none of us that don't have hidden agendas or presumptions. The most beautiful people I have ever seen are hurting so badly that all they know is, "God please help me".

 

[Hazelelponi]

This is a good thread.

I often feel disheartened by the personal attacks that creep into our conversations. As Christians, I had hoped we would be a balm to one another, since the world already hates us for belonging to Christ (John 15:18–19). But instead of encouragement, there are times when it feels like only hostility.

Scripture tells us that love for the brethren is love for Christ Himself (1 John 3:14). So when discussion turns into constant jabs, I wonder if we are truly approaching one another in good faith. To me, good faith means not only honesty in reasoning, but also gentleness and love in how we treat Christ’s body (Ephesians 4:15). Without that, the discussion loses its witness.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.

What do you suggest in the face of it? My conclusion has often been that the only option is to walk away—but perhaps I’m wrong, and there may be a better way that I haven’t yet discovered. I’ve simply never found it.

When people approach in a certain manner, the discussion almost always descends. As a result, I tend to stop trying—even unconsciously—at the first sign that it’s becoming a political fight rather than a spiritual discussion among brothers and sisters. I can hold my own in political debates and am often adept at winning them, but what I long for is genuine theological conversation with fellow believers. I can’t understand why there seems to be such animosity among those who confess the same Lord.

Sometimes I even wonder if someone who continually shows hostility toward fellow believers, without cause, is a fellow believer at all.

 

[fastfredy0]

What do you suggest in the face of it?

I like the "ignore" setting. I just looked it up, I have 9 people on ignore. It is so peaceful.

 

[Josheb]

A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in constructive discourse, avoiding distortions or personal attacks (i.e., fallacies). He represents his own viewpoint openly and candidly, and represents his opponent's viewpoint accurately and with respect. He acknowledges valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments when they are presented, and stays on topic when faced with challenges and adapts his argument to valid criticisms. Arguing in good faith is about seeking truth and fostering mutual understanding, rather than merely winning the debate or promoting personal interests.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.

Good op but (at the risk of being seen as arguing in bad faith) I have a few inquiries.

Do you think the common practice of rhetorical inquiry is valid? Allowed? A lack of arguing in good faith?

What about the matters of directness and timely response? I don't read anything in the op about either. One of the most frequent challenges I experience and observe is the unanswered inquiry and the ensuing false accusation of false motive when it would be much more efficacious to simply answer questions asked when asked- providing the inquirer the opportunity to demonstrate his/her good faith and sincerity.

Lastly, I am wondering who, specifically, is in mind concerning the mention of "merely winning the debate" because I never think that is anyone's intent. Speculating on others' motives is generally an effective way to derail one's own participation. A "debate" is "won" when both parties come to a consensus with scripture, not merely with each other. Showing a position correct that does not result in mutual fellowship with scripture is not a win.

 

[John Bauer]

To me, good faith means not only honesty in reasoning but also gentleness and love in how we treat Christ’s body (Ephesians 4:15). Without that, the discussion loses its witness.

That is the ideal, I agree. But it would be great if our efforts could attain just this bare minimum.

What do you suggest in the face of [bad faith engagement]?

What I try—try!—to do is highlight and address the bad faith elements of their response while continuing to argue in good faith on my part. For example, in a recent exchange I pointed out where he was distorting my view, articulated what my view actually is, corrected the factual errors in his post, and affirmed what he got right.

There are four or five elements to the structure of a good faith response:

• You can begin by summarizing the person's main point in your own words (e.g., "You seem to be arguing that …").
  
  ​
• You can also acknowledge or affirm what they got right or where you agree (e.g., "I think you're right about X …").
  
  ​
• It can help to note any ambiguities and ask for precision or clarifying questions (e.g., "When you say X, do you mean …?").
  
  ​
• And there is always the value of the critique or counterpoint, but present your disagreement clearly, keeping it focused (e.g., "Your claim is factually wrong because …," or "The difficulty I see is …").
  
  ​
• But also try and contribute something constructive, add supporting evidence, or build a way forward (e.g., "Another way to think about this might be …").
  
  ​
• It's also best to find some way to invite a response, but I almost never remember to do this part (e.g., "Does that line up with how you're seeing it?").

I guess that's actually six. But, in practice, you don't always need all six—sometimes only three are fitting (affirm, critique, and contribute).

This structure disciplines you to start with fairness, ground critique in respect, and end with openness.

If it helps, I see this kind of format in a lot of your responses. So, I think you're already on the right track.

My conclusion has often been that the only option is to walk away—but perhaps I’m wrong, and there may be a better way that I haven’t yet discovered. I’ve simply never found it.

Sometimes that really is the best option. There are some people who only argue in bad faith and, more often than not, the best thing to do is not respond at all.

Not here, anyway. Sometimes I'll still respond—in my Notepad app and with unfiltered language, just to get it out. Then I consider what I've written and prayerfully reflect on why I wanted to respond in this way. And, finally, I close Notepad without saving.

I can hold my own in political debates and am often adept at winning them, ...

I get where you're coming from. Debates can feel like something to "win." For me, though, they feel more fruitful when they are less about scoring points and more about understanding one another or uncovering truth—explaining what I believe and why I believe it, listening carefully to why the other person believes what they do, and working together to sort out errors—biblical, scientific, theological, factual, or logical. That kind of exchange can sharpen both sides.

That doesn't mean I consistently attain that ideal—I certainly don't!—but it's the ideal that motivates my desire to engage.

What I long for is genuine theological conversation with fellow believers. I can't understand why there seems to be such animosity among those who confess the same Lord.

There are several typical reasons why theological discussions can get heated. A common, fundamental reason has to do with theological convictions being wrapped up with our identity. If someone questions your position, you can feel subconsciously like you are being questioned, like it's personal. These discussions also touch eternal realities, so the deeper a doctrine connects to personal assurance—salvation, God's character, your spiritual family—the more threatening disagreement feels, eliciting a defensive or combative posture.

And there is also the usual cognitive dissonance, pride and the flesh, zeal without wisdom (e.g., cage stage Calvinism), and so on, not to mention a real adversary who delights in sowing division among believers.

Sometimes I even wonder if someone who continually shows hostility toward fellow believers, without cause, is a fellow believer at all.

I hope that I've shown you that there may indeed be cause, even if you can't discern it or the other person isn't conscious of it.

 

[John Bauer]

Lastly, I am wondering who, specifically, is in mind concerning the mention of "merely winning the debate" because I never think that is anyone's intent.

And yet sometimes it is:

I can hold my own in political debates and am often adept at winning them, ...

 

[Josheb]

And yet sometimes it is:

And I will make note of that concerning the identified poster (I try to keep a few basic notes on posters' self-disclosures, so I know the context within which they post, but that mostly pertains to theological orientation). Otherwise, I find it serves my participation best to assume goodwill and good faith.... until evidence to the contrary is provided. I appreciate the op, but it's not something that can be controlled in an internet discussion board. This forum has managed to stay above most of the subterfuge common in other boards, but I suspect that will gradually change once the forum has some tenure and a larger, more diverse, membership.

 

[Josheb]

I like the "ignore" setting. I just looked it up, I have 9 people on ignore. It is so peaceful.

What fun is that?

I reserve the ignore feature for the most obvious of trolls and consider it character development to resist the urge to post when discussions, not posters, (likely) prove fruitless. As one of my favorite talk-show hosts puts it, one of the greatest powers we have is the power to ignore It's too easy to silence others who in one place may be fools but, in another place, astute. I recently had DM exchange that was completely abusive and irrational (lacking in good faith), but the same poster has shown him/herself capable of functional discourse elsewhere. What I view of the forum would be incomplete if s/he were placed on ignore and the threads hid those posts from my reading.

I will also add that I find a few posters behave differently indifferent forums. I won't name avatars but there's one poster who used to post frequently here with whom it was impossible to have a cogent conversation, but I've got fairly functional discourse with the same poster elsewhere (although that may be due to my use of a different avatar), and the exact opposite with another former CCAM poster.
.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And I will make note of that concerning the identified poster (I try to keep a few basic notes on posters' self-disclosures, so I know the context within which they post, but that mostly pertains to theological orientation)

Also note we don't do political posting here, (because we don't do politics here) I post differently for theological topics. But politics is my background for online debate. However, there are people who post politically even in theological discussions, I try and avoid it in this area.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That is the ideal, I agree. But it would be great if our efforts could attain just this bare minimum.




What I try—try!—to do is highlight and address the bad faith elements of their response while continuing to argue in good faith on my part. For example, in a recent exchange I pointed out where he was distorting my view, articulated what my view actually is, corrected the factual errors in his post, and affirmed what he got right.

There are four or five elements to the structure of a good faith response:

• You can begin by summarizing the person's main point in your own words (e.g., "You seem to be arguing that …").
  
  ​
• You can also acknowledge or affirm what they got right or where you agree (e.g., "I think you're right about X …").
  
  ​
• It can help to note any ambiguities and ask for precision or clarifying questions (e.g., "When you say X, do you mean …?").
  
  ​
• And there is always the value of the critique or counterpoint, but present your disagreement clearly, keeping it focused (e.g., "Your claim is factually wrong because …," or "The difficulty I see is …").
  
  ​
• But also try and contribute something constructive, add supporting evidence, or build a way forward (e.g., "Another way to think about this might be …").
  
  ​
• It's also best to find some way to invite a response, but I almost never remember to do this part (e.g., "Does that line up with how you're seeing it?").

I guess that's actually six. But, in practice, you don't always need all six—sometimes only three are fitting (affirm, critique, and contribute).

This structure disciplines you to start with fairness, ground critique in respect, and end with openness.

If it helps, I see this kind of format in a lot of your responses. So, I think you're already on the right track.




Sometimes that really is the best option. There are some people who only argue in bad faith and, more often than not, the best thing to do is not respond at all.

Not here, anyway. Sometimes I'll still respond—in my Notepad app and with unfiltered language, just to get it out. Then I consider what I've written and prayerfully reflect on why I wanted to respond in this way. And, finally, I close Notepad without saving.




I get where you're coming from. Debates can feel like something to "win." For me, though, they feel more fruitful when they are less about scoring points and more about understanding one another or uncovering truth—explaining what I believe and why I believe it, listening carefully to why the other person believes what they do, and working together to sort out errors—biblical, scientific, theological, factual, or logical. That kind of exchange can sharpen both sides.

That doesn't mean I consistently attain that ideal—I certainly don't!—but it's the ideal that motivates my desire to engage.




There are several typical reasons why theological discussions can get heated. A common, fundamental reason has to do with theological convictions being wrapped up with our identity. If someone questions your position, you can feel subconsciously like you are being questioned, like it's personal. These discussions also touch eternal realities, so the deeper a doctrine connects to personal assurance—salvation, God's character, your spiritual family—the more threatening disagreement feels, eliciting a defensive or combative posture.

And there is also the usual cognitive dissonance, pride and the flesh, zeal without wisdom (e.g., cage stage Calvinism), and so on, not to mention a real adversary who delights in sowing division among believers.




I hope that I've shown you that there may indeed be cause, even if you can't discern it or the other person isn't conscious of it.

Thank you for this. It's all very helpful and I will try and keep it as a format.

I try always to engage posts accurately and respectfully, but perhaps if I followed this method more it might be more helpful.

I just know there's some people I can speak to very easily and others I cannot seem to no matter how hard I try, I'm hoping to learn how to get along better in discussions.

 

[Carbon]

A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in constructive discourse, avoiding distortions or personal attacks (i.e., fallacies). He represents his own viewpoint openly and candidly, and represents his opponent's viewpoint accurately and with respect. He acknowledges valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments when they are presented, and stays on topic when faced with challenges and adapts his argument to valid criticisms. Arguing in good faith is about seeking truth and fostering mutual understanding, rather than merely winning the debate or promoting personal interests.

True indeed. And I believe this discussion is, or surely can be, about maturity.

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Hebrews 10:24-25.

As my pastor preached today on the subject, he mentioned:
1) You may have a great intellectual knowledge of systematic theology.
2) You may spend hours each week helping the poor.
But if you do not have love, you have nothing.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.1 Corinthians 13.

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, Heb 10:24.
And as my pastor asked, who is the "one another?"
His answer: "Fellow Christians, especially those around us in the local church."

What is love? I'll post the scripture at the end of this post.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives. He engages in destructive discourse, relying on distortions or personal attacks to undermine his opponent. He misrepresents his own position to appear more reasonable than it is, and misrepresents his opponent’s viewpoint to make it easier to dismiss or ridicule. He ignores or dismisses valid points, evidence, and counter-arguments, frequently straying off topic when challenged, and resists adapting his claims in the face of legitimate criticism. Arguing in bad faith is about winning at all costs, manipulating perception, or advancing personal interests, rather than seeking truth or fostering mutual understanding.

Now, there are surely, perhaps, a few different reasons for this. One is they are not believers and couldn't care less about truth and love.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1.

Others are immature Christians, and they just dont know any better. There are those who are in a church that teaches bad doctrine, and they have come to love that church and therefore the teachings.
Then there are those who are arrogant; these believe they know it all. They are right and you are wrong, and that's the way it is. And if these are believers, these, in my opinion, are also very immature.

Here is Paul's famous definition of love. I know I dont live up to it. 1 Corinthians 13:1-

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it his not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 mLove bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

 

[fastfredy0]

What I view of the forum would be incomplete if s/he were placed on ignore and the threads hid those posts from my reading.

Well, I value enjoyment of the forum above other desires like complete understanding of all posts. For example, when the thread is at post 500 and JoeBlow tells CindySmith that he was referring to post #230 and #235, well I just skip that to see what's next ... or when someone's logic/competency is so bad that it frustrates me to try to figure out a puzzle that probably has no answer, then I ignore them.

 

[John Bauer]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me / Don't hurt me no more

 

[Arial]

A person is arguing in good faith when he maintains honesty and sincerity in his arguments, free from hidden agendas or ulterior motives.

A person is arguing in bad faith when he lacks honesty and sincerity in his arguments, concealing hidden agendas or ulterior motives.

I agree with your points. However it doesn't take into account those who have an emotional reaction to a sincere and honest argument and see it as a personal attack. Or those who use that accusation to deflect from an honest and sincere argument.

I have found that in either one of those cases, the more I try to make myself understood, and the more I try to rectify the misunderstanding, the other party just digs deeper into it.

 

[Josheb]

Well, I value enjoyment of the forum above other desires like complete understanding of all posts. For example, when the thread is at post 500 and JoeBlow tells CindySmith that he was referring to post #230 and #235, well I just skip that to see what's next ... or when someone's logic/competency is so bad that it frustrates me to try to figure out a puzzle that probably has no answer, then I ignore them.

I'm impressed. I rarely hang around past Post 200.

 

[Carbon]

I'm impressed. I rarely hang around past Post 200.

Depends on the topic for me.

 

[John Bauer]

I agree with your points. However, it doesn't take into account those who have an emotional reaction to a sincere and honest argument and see it as a personal attack. Or those who use that accusation to deflect from an honest and sincere argument.

Fair enough.

But I would point out that it was more of a general sketch of what good-faith and bad-faith arguments look like, not a comprehensive account of these things.

Still, you raise an important point: Some people take an honest critique as a personal attack, others pretend to feel that way in order to deflect. The challenge is discerning whether you are dealing with someone who is genuinely hurt or someone trying to avoid the issue—two very different dynamics. Easier said than done.

I have found that in either one of those cases, the more I try to make myself understood, and the more I try to rectify the misunderstanding, the other party just digs deeper into it.

I have experienced that too. The harder you work to clarify, the more entrenched the other person becomes. In those cases, I dust off my hands and let the readers draw their own conclusions—and sometimes even saying so, in order to signal that my part in the exchange is finished. There are times when the wisest move is to step back, let the heat dissipate, and trust that the truth is clear enough for others without endless restatement, even if your interlocutor continues to resist.

Also, I heard a piece of wisdom once that's always stuck with me: "It is better to understand than to be understood."