“We will not stop calling out and fighting back against extremist, so-called leaders who try to prevent our children from learning our true and full history,” the vice president said in Florida.
“We will not stop calling out and fighting back against extremist, so-called leaders who try to prevent our children from learning our true and full history,” the vice president said in Florida.
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
Any turn of events somehow bolsters their claim, because their worldview is unfalsifiable nonsense. It is not even wrong.
Would there be a way, though, to actually debate the bad faith holders and win? By exposing their bad faith point for point and making them look so bad in public that they automatically lose?
Nope. The mere fact that they are intentionally arguing in bad faith is proof of that. Their entire reason for making the offer to “discuss” is to trap you in one of their “gotcha” moments, so they can use it to prove their claim. They will never acknowledge their mistakes and will simply talk in circles. Typical grifter/troll approach to politics.
Yep, they can cut and paste anything into a win
I just can’t seem to believe that, after millenia of constant rhetoric art evolving from Cicero and Iulius Caesar to this day we can’t find ways to circumvent their bad faith traps and actually and credibly strike back while having them lose any support and credibility (since these seem to be their source of perceived power to make such bad faith arguments).
Well in the past people who would like that ended up getting assassinated. So I guess there is a mechanism to deal with them.
Remember of course sometimes the bad guys do win.
History does not provide us with a defense against them because history is not a record of what happened, it’s a record of what people want to record. Anytime someone managed to actually admit their mistakes it was just written down as “and lo did the bad guy see the era of their ways. The end, aren’t we wonderful”, because why would it be written any other way, our view won we were clearly correct from the beginning.
Its not about the validity of an argument or the ability to expose an intentional blatant fallacy. Its the mental state of those that follow these bad faith actors. These people approach the world with their mind already made up, nothing that is said by anyone other than their chosen leader matters to them. You can stand there and make the bad faith actor look like a fool by the standards of the rest of society, but to the followers of that bad faith actor, what you did doesn’t matter. As long as you are upset in some way, they see it as a win. So attempting to debate with them in any situation is futile.
You make the mistake of thinking their followers will pay any attention to their bad faith antics.
And how many people are well versed in these arts? Enough to see through bad faith tactics
This is one of many reasons education matters and why Republicans have spent so much time and money systematically attacking public education, including higher education, over the past four or five decades.
I like the anlaogy that debating with a MAGoo is like playing chess with a pigeon. All they’ll do is shit all over the table and then strut around like they won.
The Gish Gallop is an actual technique the Right loves to use. Just pour out an endless stream of lies, half lies, utter fantasies, and nonsense in order to force the opposition to spend time refuting stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Theoretically, that’s what structured debate and courtroom practice is for. But these days I sincerely doubt anyone, much less a politician, would agree to such a thing, nor would it be easily “television worthy”
98% of people watching wouldn’t understand what’s going on anyway. The rules would get thrown out instantly, and that would be widely perceived as “winning.”
If you have any sort of moderator to actually enforce the rules, they’ll just end up getting death threats for actually enforcing them because that’s “biased.” Especially if only one side violates the rules. Wont matter that the moderator is only enforcing the rules on that side because the other side is following them and doesn’t need enforcement. Don’t know how likely this particular scenario is in the case of two politicians debating, but this is part of why scientists and other people who engage in logical debate can’t engage with bad actors in good faith.
That’s the dream.
In practice, very no.
Very unlikely. I think I see where you’re headed.
You might want to check out The Alt Right Playbook video series as it kind of scratches that itch.
Bad faith actors have many tricks up their sleeves. For example, they’ll gish gallop you-- overwhelming you with too many claims to counter. And before you finish discussing one claim they’ll throw a load more at you.
Also their concept of winning is very different from those of a good faith debater.
I think the real answer is to discuss in good faith, in person, with people you know and share mutual respect. Because when people know what the right wing is about and know what the dog whistles are, then they see right through the pathetic tactics of the right wing extremists.
In practice no. They’ll just keep bringing out more and more points that are increasingly ridiculous, then they’ll point at the time a Scientist got flustered and had no answer when asked about whatever grift it is this time. But the question is something like “If the Earth is round why haven’t we all fallen off yet?” And there’s no good answer to that.
deleted by creator
And as soon as it becomes falsifiable they will change it. Even to the point of espousing the exact opposite.