People have tried this for ages. It has not worked. These bigots are not debating in good faith. The only response is the verbal or legal equivalent of bapping them on the nose with a newspaper and going, “NO! BAD!”
Debate does not work if they are not arguing in good faith
While i agree with the spirit of what you’re saying here, I’d just like to add that’s it is important to not let these bad faith arguments go unanswered. Anybody that reads the conversation later on will (hopefully) see one side is trying to have a debate/conversation, while the other side is basically full of it.
Arguing in bad faith is advantageous because your arguments are able appeal to existing biases or emotional responses or “common sense.” Those biases, emotional responses, and “common sense” are by definition conservative and populist and so they hurt marginalized groups and stand in the way of progress. A rational debate requires a certain level of disconnected and objective reasoning, which bad faith arguments do not do. It also requires the principle of charity, where you interpret your opponent’s argument in the most charitable way rather than rejecting it outright or latching on to some detail they got wrong. Bad faith arguments don’t do that either.
This is why uneducated people and people with limited life experience are more likely to be conservative as well, they only know the default culture they absorbed through their existence, and new ideas are scary. They’re scary for everyone, at first, but progressives are just people who have become accustomed to them and allowed their knee jerk reactions to succumb to reason.
If your goal is to win an argument, then using bad faith offers no advantage.
If your goal is just to do whatever the fuck you want, to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives, or to badger people into giving up the exchange, then arguing in bad faith is highly resistant to considered arguments and offers a never-ending supply of counters.
to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives,
Yes, if the hidden motives are to irritate, waste time or troll the other person
or to badger people into giving up the exchange,
Here it’s more the other way around. The bad faith accuser gets to quit while claiming victory. If someone’s arguments are not logical then they should just be called out.
People have tried this for ages. It has not worked. These bigots are not debating in good faith. The only response is the verbal or legal equivalent of bapping them on the nose with a newspaper and going, “NO! BAD!”
Debate does not work if they are not arguing in good faith
While i agree with the spirit of what you’re saying here, I’d just like to add that’s it is important to not let these bad faith arguments go unanswered. Anybody that reads the conversation later on will (hopefully) see one side is trying to have a debate/conversation, while the other side is basically full of it.
What is the advantage of someone arguing in bad faith?
Isn’t labeling someone “bad faith” just an excuse not to respond in a considered manner?
Arguing in bad faith is advantageous because your arguments are able appeal to existing biases or emotional responses or “common sense.” Those biases, emotional responses, and “common sense” are by definition conservative and populist and so they hurt marginalized groups and stand in the way of progress. A rational debate requires a certain level of disconnected and objective reasoning, which bad faith arguments do not do. It also requires the principle of charity, where you interpret your opponent’s argument in the most charitable way rather than rejecting it outright or latching on to some detail they got wrong. Bad faith arguments don’t do that either.
This is why uneducated people and people with limited life experience are more likely to be conservative as well, they only know the default culture they absorbed through their existence, and new ideas are scary. They’re scary for everyone, at first, but progressives are just people who have become accustomed to them and allowed their knee jerk reactions to succumb to reason.
Thanks for your comments on bad faith arguments, listening and responding to the opponent is essential for a decent discussion.
Bad faith arguments are probably prioritising publicising their own opinion, rather than trying to change others (or their own).
If your goal is to win an argument, then using bad faith offers no advantage.
If your goal is just to do whatever the fuck you want, to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives, or to badger people into giving up the exchange, then arguing in bad faith is highly resistant to considered arguments and offers a never-ending supply of counters.
Here, not engaging has no effect.
Yes, if the hidden motives are to irritate, waste time or troll the other person
Here it’s more the other way around. The bad faith accuser gets to quit while claiming victory. If someone’s arguments are not logical then they should just be called out.