I just feel more and more it’s a cheap excuse to dismiss debate out of hand rather then confront an uncomfortable truth.
I just don’t buy that anyone online cares if someone is arguing in good or bad faith
I just feel more and more it’s a cheap excuse to dismiss debate out of hand rather then confront an uncomfortable truth.
I just don’t buy that anyone online cares if someone is arguing in good or bad faith
What about people who debate issues they don’t agree with and steel man them ? good things have come from this because it causes new people to look at stuff and bring an outside view to things and point out something the activist on either side of a debate haven’t noticed.
That’s just called arguing in good faith.
You mean when they actually construct a better argument than the other side? Like how one would typically perform a debate with the intention of changing someone else’s opinion? That doesn’t have anything to do with arguing in bad faith.
being good faith doesn’t mean you are a good debater.
Christopher Hitchens often argued for stuff he didn’t know or care much about but he did an amazing job at it.
Meanwhile a 62 IQ Florida man who thinks the earth is flat might be the most good faith pure of heart debater who beehives that in his heart of heart that the earth is flat. He will be a terrible debater.
There’s a big difference between a conversation online and an official competitive debate. All of your comments make me think you don’t really know what arguing in good faith means.