There are other sorts of “bad faith” arguments besides misrepresenting one’s own beliefs.
For instance, an arguer may attempt to provoke you to outrage to make you look foolish in front of an audience, without ever misrepresenting their own beliefs.
Or an arguer may record the argument, and use phrasing intended to get you to speak specific words, then later edit the recording to make you sound wrong, evil, or stupid. Their goal in arguing was something other than to arrive at the truth: it was to produce a recording that could be manipulated to tell a lie. Therefore, the argument itself was in bad faith because of their intentions, even if they never in the argument misrepresented their own beliefs.
I think its worth noting that not all bad things you can do in an argument are bad faith. With that in mind, your first example I think straightforwardly isn’t bad faith, its just a bad thing to do. Bad faith needs intentional deception. For the second one, I think it meets what I call the “general meaning” of bad faith in the OP, so I’m not opposed necesarily to people calling that bad faith. I do think there is a more specific meaning that I note under “good faith discourse” that covers a specific thing that gets called “bad faith” very often but I think the general meaning and this more specific meaning kind of blend together and I agree it reasonable to all something that meets the general meaning “bad faith”. I just think the more specific meaning really hits upon the “vibe” so to speak that is often being refered to when people use “bad faith” vs just deception or dishonesty.
For instance, an arguer may attempt to provoke you to outrage to make you look foolish in front of an audience, without ever misrepresenting their own beliefs.
What element of good faith forbids provoking someone to outrage or making them look foolish?
There are other sorts of “bad faith” arguments besides misrepresenting one’s own beliefs.
For instance, an arguer may attempt to provoke you to outrage to make you look foolish in front of an audience, without ever misrepresenting their own beliefs.
Or an arguer may record the argument, and use phrasing intended to get you to speak specific words, then later edit the recording to make you sound wrong, evil, or stupid. Their goal in arguing was something other than to arrive at the truth: it was to produce a recording that could be manipulated to tell a lie. Therefore, the argument itself was in bad faith because of their intentions, even if they never in the argument misrepresented their own beliefs.
I think its worth noting that not all bad things you can do in an argument are bad faith. With that in mind, your first example I think straightforwardly isn’t bad faith, its just a bad thing to do. Bad faith needs intentional deception. For the second one, I think it meets what I call the “general meaning” of bad faith in the OP, so I’m not opposed necesarily to people calling that bad faith. I do think there is a more specific meaning that I note under “good faith discourse” that covers a specific thing that gets called “bad faith” very often but I think the general meaning and this more specific meaning kind of blend together and I agree it reasonable to all something that meets the general meaning “bad faith”. I just think the more specific meaning really hits upon the “vibe” so to speak that is often being refered to when people use “bad faith” vs just deception or dishonesty.
What element of good faith forbids provoking someone to outrage or making them look foolish?