Arguing in good faith

[mike]

A phrase that has intrigued me in relation to discussion/argument is "in good faith." I wasn't sure how that is actually defined, so I searched it on ChatGPT and here's what it said.

To argue in good faith means to participate in a discussion with the genuine goal of understanding the issue, evaluating evidence, and honestly communicating your own position.

Someone arguing in good faith typically:

States what they actually believe.
Tries to understand the other person's argument accurately.
Uses evidence and reasoning honestly.
Admits mistakes when shown to be wrong.
Is willing to change their mind if the evidence warrants it.
Avoids deliberately misleading, distracting, or manipulating others.

A key issue is whether a person trying to discover truth, or simply trying to identify points of disagreement, in a discussion, or whether they are just trying to win a debate by any means. Discussions and arguments are quite a bit more pleasant and beneficial when the former is the case.

[barnhart]

Good topic.

[Ernie]

A key issue is whether a person ... is... just trying to win a debate by any means.

I try to avoid getting involved in discussions where it is evident that this is what is going on.

[Soloist]

The majority of people myself included on Mennonet are responding to things we view as appalling and we are speaking to the silent witness not to the "opponent"
I see this pattern whenever people are having the same argument for the 100th time... I can think of people by name here and most of us can.

[mike]

The majority of people myself included on Mennonet are responding to things we view as appalling and we are speaking to the silent witness not to the "opponent"
I see this pattern whenever people are having the same argument for the 100th time... I can think of people by name here and most of us can.

Yes, and it's a good thing to keep in mind, because a public web forum is essentially a stage in a gigantic room. It's worth the discussion sometimes for that reason alone.

[Szdfan]

The majority of people myself included on Mennonet are responding to things we view as appalling and we are speaking to the silent witness not to the "opponent"
I see this pattern whenever people are having the same argument for the 100th time... I can think of people by name here and most of us can.

I can think of someone very, very, very close to me who might be guilty of that.

[barnhart]

The majority of people myself included on Mennonet are responding to things we view as appalling and we are speaking to the silent witness not to the "opponent"
I see this pattern whenever people are having the same argument for the 100th time... I can think of people by name here and most of us can.

Yes, and it's a good thing to keep in mind, because a public web forum is essentially a stage in a gigantic room. It's worth the discussion sometimes for that reason alone.

I have spoken up against ideas that seemed egregious but I don't think there is any obligation to do so. It's just an Internet forum and not that important really...

[Bootstrap]

Some parts of “arguing in good faith” are actually part of our official forum policy.

For example:

• “States what they actually believe” aligns with “Use I statements. Speak for yourself…”
• “Tries to understand the other person’s argument accurately” aligns with “Don’t decide what someone else is meaning to say…” and “Do not take another’s statement and distort it to an extreme.”
• “Avoids deliberately misleading, distracting, or manipulating others” is at least partly reflected in the rules against distortion and extreme sarcasm.

I think the spirit of this rule is also directly relevant to a lot of the conflict we see here:

• “Do not state that someone else is wrong or does not understand. State your own thoughts and opinions.”

If we’re not supposed to tell another member that they are wrong or don’t understand, it seems consistent that we also shouldn’t label people and insist that WE know better than THEY do what they think instead of engaging with what they’ve actually written.

Any infractions can cause a warning.
After 3 warnings, that person will be banned for 3 days. If they continue with infractions, the ban will go longer.
Each Warning will automatically age out in 30 days.

In theory, some of the things that lead to arguing in good faith are already part of the policy, and violating these things has consequences. In practice, these rules are not consistently enforced.

[barnhart]

Maybe one aspect of arguing in good faith is to use generally accepted terminology, or to put it more bluntly, avoid private definitions.

[JohnH]

In theory, some of the things that lead to arguing in good faith are already part of the policy, and violating these things has consequences. In practice, these rules are not consistently enforced.

An example of arguing in bad faith is complaining that the rules aren't being applied the way you think should be with an underlying agenda to silence your opponents.