Bad‑faith arguments are everywhere—from social media threads to board‑room debates. They derail productive discussion, damage trust, and leave everyone frustrated. This article unpacks what a bad‑faith argument is, why it matters, and how to keep conversations constructive—even when others are not playing fair.
But before we diagnose bad‑faith tactics, we need to remind ourselves what good‑faith debate looks like. Yes, we come armed with evidence and conviction, but the real aim is not simply to win points—it is to discover whether we can persuade and be persuaded, sharpening our understanding in the process. That only works when we grant our counterpart the courtesy of assuming their perspective carries at least a kernel of validity. Without that baseline respect, debate collapses into parallel monologues—voices shouting into the wind, each side leaving with the same views they arrived with.
What is a Bad‑Faith Argument? A Working Definition
A bad‑faith argument is any contribution to a discussion that is not offered with the genuine intent to engage with the substance of the issue. Instead, it seeks to distract, discredit, or manipulate the conversation for other aims—status, control, or simple mischief.
Key traits:
- The arguer shows little interest in the truth of their own claim.
- The response is disproportionate or irrelevant to the original point.
- Engagement stops when rhetorical advantage is lost.
Three Core Moves of Bad‑Faith Argumentation
Before we dive into the specific tactics, it helps to recognise them as a kind of playbook. Spotting these moves in real time lets you steer the discussion back to substance and protect the conversation’s integrity.
- Discrediting the Original Point
Ridicule, sarcasm, or selective quotation reframes the initial claim as absurd before it can be examined. - False Equivalence
Introducing a superficially similar but morally or logically distinct example to muddy the waters (the “both‑sides” gambit). - Conversation Morphing
Pivoting to a new topic, altering definitions, or moving goal‑posts to regain control of the narrative. - Empty Dismissal
Dismissing the original good‑faith point without offering any viable alternative. This bad debate technique keeps everyone mired in argument and serves no purpose, as there’s no constructive position to consider.
Spotting Bad‑Faith in the Wild: Red Flags
Bad‑faith tactics rarely announce themselves outright. Recognising their fingerprints in real time lets you pause, pivot, or push back before the debate derails. Below are some tell‑tale signs to keep on your radar:
- Rapid topic shifts that dodge direct questions.
- Excessive focus on tone (“You sound angry…”) over content.
- Demands for impossible precision, followed by casual hand‑waving of their own claims.
- The “gotcha” question designed for social media clips, not resolution.
- Repeated refusal to acknowledge conceded or clarified points.
Responding Without Feeding the Fire
Option A: Explicit Call‑Out
Name the tactic (“That feels like a straw‑man of what I said. Can we stick to my original claim?”) when the setting or power dynamic allows.
Option B: Implicit Redirect
Ignore the bait; restate your point succinctly and invite a good‑faith response (“Let’s stay with the data on X—how do you interpret it?”).
Tips:
- Ask clarifying questions that force specificity.
- Set conversational boundaries (“If we keep changing topics, we won’t get anywhere.”).
- Where possible, take the discussion offline or one‑to‑one to reduce performative incentives.
Keeping Yourself in Check
We all slip. Watch for signs you’re drifting:
- Rising defensiveness or desire to “win”.
- Temptation to score a quick rhetorical point.
- Ignoring new evidence because it threatens your stance.
Self‑reset: Pause, restate your goal (truth‑seeking, understanding, problem‑solving), and realign your next response to that purpose.
Trust: The Invisible Infrastructure
Constructive disagreement depends on the expectation that both sides are actively trying to understand reality—and one another. That means taking the time to uncover where a stance originates: the environment that shaped it, the assumptions it rests on, and the emotions that keep it alive. When we can acknowledge even a sliver of that back‑story, we create a span of common ground—“negotiation 101”—from which genuine movement becomes possible. If two debaters remain stranded on separate islands with only unswimmable water between, neither can approach the other.
Bad‑faith tactics erode that bridge before it can be built. Conversely, consistent good‑faith engagement—listening, steel‑manning, acknowledging nuance—lays sturdy planks of trust that carry a discussion through inevitable friction.
Conclusion
Bad‑faith arguments will not disappear, but we can neutralise their influence by taking four deliberate steps:
- Listen for roots – uncover the environment, assumptions, and emotions behind a stance before you respond.
- Name or redirect tactics early – explicitly identify or gently steer away from straw‑men, false equivalence, and derailments.
- Check your own motives – focus on insight over victory; pause if you feel the urge to score points.
- Re‑anchor on common ground – use shared facts, values, or goals to keep the bridge intact.
Call to action: In your next heated discussion—whether on social media, in the board‑room, or at the dinner table—run through these four steps. Build one plank of trust, invite the other side onto it, and watch the conversation shift from confrontation to collaboration. Good‑faith debate is contagious; let’s be the ones who spread it.
Further Reading & Resources
Books on Good-Faith Conversation and Debating
- Nonviolent Communication – Marshall B. Rosenberg
- Thank You for Arguing (4th ed.) – Jay Heinrichs
- Crucial Conversations – Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan & Al Switzler
- How to Have Impossible Conversations – Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay
- On Bullshit – Harry G. Frankfurt
- An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments – Ali Almossawi
- The Uses of Argument – Stephen Toulmin
- Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman
Leave a Reply