Bad Faith Arguments
Bad faith arguments are rhetorical tactics designed not to seek truth but to derail discussions, manipulate public perception, and insulate indefensible positions from criticism. These techniques are used in political discourse, online debates, and media spin to create confusion and exhaust opponents.
Recognizing these tactics is essential—not just to avoid pointless debates, but to counter them effectively and win arguments on your own terms. Many people who use bad faith arguments don’t even realize they’re doing it. They are often repeating talking points they’ve absorbed from political media, social networks, or partisan influencers without critically examining them. Understanding these tactics helps you not only expose deception but also engage with people who might be arguing in bad faith without knowing it.
This glossary is part of your toolkit for identifying, countering, and ultimately dismantling these tactics so that truth prevails over deception.
I’ll be calling out these tactics in my posts; use this page if you’re not sure what they mean.
Remember: the first step to winning an argument is realizing when you're not actually in one.
Motte-and-Bailey Tactic
Why It’s Used: This tactic allows someone to push a more extreme or controversial agenda while having a convenient fallback position when challenged. It creates the illusion of reasonableness while still advocating for the original, more extreme idea. By shifting between the two positions, they can claim both moderation and ideological purity, depending on the audience.
What It Is: Someone makes an extreme or controversial claim (the "bailey") but, when challenged, retreats to a more defensible and watered-down version (the "motte"). Once the challenge passes, they revert to the original claim.
Example:
Bailey: "The government should control what media narratives are allowed because misinformation is dangerous."
Challenge: "That would destroy free speech!"
Motte: "I'm just saying we need fact-checking and media literacy efforts."
(Later, they go back to advocating media control.)
How to Counter: Demand clarity—"Which position are you actually defending?" Call out any shift back to the extreme claim.
Whataboutism
What It Is: Instead of addressing an issue, the person deflects by pointing to a different issue, often unrelated or exaggerated.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is deployed to deflect criticism and avoid accountability. By pointing to another issue, often unrelated, the person using Whataboutism attempts to shift the focus away from their own actions or beliefs. It creates the illusion that addressing one issue is pointless unless all issues are addressed simultaneously, thereby derailing meaningful discussions.
Example:
"You're criticizing police brutality? What about crime in cities?"
"You care about wealth inequality? What about how much money celebrities make?"
How to Counter: Keep them on topic: "One problem doesn’t erase another." Redirect the conversation to the original issue.
Strawmanning
What It Is: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument into something absurd, extreme, or easily refutable.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to make an opponent’s position appear unreasonable or ridiculous, making it easier to dismiss without engaging with their actual argument. By distorting the opposing view, the person employing the strawman can rally support while avoiding substantive debate.
Example:
You: "We need police reform."
Them: "So you want to abolish the police and let criminals run wild?"
How to Counter: "That’s not what I said. Here’s my actual position." Demand they engage with what you actually said, not a distorted version.
Sealioning
What It Is: Pretending to ask innocent questions while bombarding someone with relentless demands for "proof" to exhaust them.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to drain an opponent’s energy and make them appear evasive or unprepared. By continuously demanding more evidence—regardless of how much is provided—the person using sealioning can create the illusion that their opponent has no real argument while avoiding engaging with the substance of the discussion.
Example:
"Can you provide a source?" (You provide one.)
"I need another." (You provide another.)
"I’m still not convinced."
How to Counter: Ask them upfront: "What specific evidence would satisfy you?" If they refuse to answer, they’re not engaging in good faith.
Gaslighting
What It Is: Making someone doubt reality by denying something happened or that they are misinterpreting what was said, even when evidence exists.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to undermine an opponent’s confidence in their own perception, memory, or judgment. By repeatedly insisting that something didn’t happen or wasn’t said, the gaslighter attempts to make their target question their own reliability, ultimately making them more vulnerable to manipulation.
Example:
"Nobody ever said that." (Even when there are direct quotes.)
"You're overreacting, that wasn’t offensive at all."
How to Counter: Keep receipts. Quote their own words back to them and don’t let them shift the burden onto you.
False Equivalence
What It Is: Treating two unequal things as if they are the same to minimize or justify bad behavior.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to downplay serious issues by equating them with minor or unrelated matters. It allows bad actors to avoid accountability by making it seem as though their actions are no worse than those of their opponents, even when there is a vast difference in scale or intent.
Example:
"Both sides are equally bad!" (When one side is objectively worse.)
"Saying mean things online is just as bad as passing laws that harm people."
How to Counter: Point out the actual scale and impact of the issues being compared.
Moving the Goalposts
What It Is: When someone continuously changes the criteria for what would convince them, so they never have to admit they’re wrong.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to ensure that no amount of evidence can ever be considered sufficient. By constantly shifting the standards of proof, the person employing this strategy can maintain their position indefinitely while making their opponent feel like they are failing to provide a valid argument.
Example:
"If there was real evidence, I’d believe it."
(You provide evidence.)
"That’s not good enough. Show me more."
How to Counter: Ask them: "What specific proof would change your mind?" If they can’t answer, they’re not arguing in good faith.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
What It Is: Arguing that one small action will inevitably lead to an extreme and undesirable outcome without evidence.
Why It’s Used: This tactic exploits fear and uncertainty to discourage change or reform. By painting a minor policy shift as the first step toward a catastrophic scenario, the person using this fallacy can shut down discussion before it begins, preventing nuanced debate on the actual merits of the proposal.
Example:
"If we allow universal healthcare, next the government will control every aspect of our lives!"
"If we ban hate speech, soon they'll ban all speech they don’t like!"
How to Counter: Ask for actual evidence that the extreme consequence is inevitable.
Red Herring
What It Is: Introducing a completely irrelevant topic to distract from the main issue.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to derail discussions and shift focus away from a difficult or uncomfortable subject. By introducing an unrelated topic, the person employing the red herring can avoid addressing legitimate criticism and force their opponent to waste time refuting a point that isn't relevant.
Example:
"We should talk about police reform."
"What about Hollywood and video games promoting violence?"
How to Counter: Bring them back: "That’s a different issue. Let’s focus on this one."
Gish Gallop
What It Is: Bombarding an opponent with so many weak arguments at once that they can't possibly refute them all. The effect of this tactic is not on the person in the argument but on how the tactic appears to third-party observers, making it look like the person using it is "winning" even when their claims are weak.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to overwhelm opponents and create the illusion of intellectual dominance. By presenting an unmanageable number of weak or misleading claims, the Gish Galloper forces their opponent to either ignore the majority of arguments (which looks like a concession) or spend excessive time refuting each point, losing the broader discussion in the process.
Example:
"Climate change isn’t real because (1) it was cold last winter, (2) scientists lie for money, (3) volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans, (4) Al Gore is rich…"
How to Counter: Pick one falsehood, debunk it, and refuse to chase distractions.
Firehose of Falsehoods
What It Is: Overwhelming an opponent with a rapid flood of misleading, false, or half-true claims, making it impossible to fact-check everything in real-time.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to create confusion and discourage critical thinking. By bombarding people with too much disinformation to effectively refute, the person employing this strategy can make it seem as though the truth is unknowable or that all sources of information are equally unreliable, fostering cynicism and disengagement.
Example:
"The election was stolen! Ballots were dumped, machines were hacked, people voted twice, and dead people voted!"
How to Counter: Call out the tactic itself: "You’re throwing out a rapid stream of misinformation to overwhelm the discussion." Focus on dismantling one core claim rather than chasing every misstatement.
The Kafka Trap
What It Is: Any denial of an accusation is taken as proof that the accusation is true.
Why It’s Used: Forces the accused into an unwinnable position where any defense reinforces the accusation.
Example:
"You're a racist."
"No, I'm not."
"Denying it just proves you are!"
This creates an impossible situation where the accused is guilty regardless of their response.
How to Counter: Point out that an accusation without evidence is meaningless and demand specific proof.
JAQing Off (Just Asking Questions)
What It Is: Posing leading or loaded questions to imply a false premise while avoiding making a direct claim.
Why It’s Used: Allows someone to inject disinformation while avoiding accountability for making false claims.
Example:
"If climate change is real, why was it so cold last winter?"
How to Counter: Ask them to clarify their position—"Are you suggesting climate change isn’t real?"—forcing them to own their argument.
Appeal to Hypocrisy (Tu Quoque)
What It Is: Dodging criticism by accusing the other side of similar behavior, even if the comparison is irrelevant.
Why It’s Used: Shifts focus away from valid criticism without addressing the issue.
Example:
"You criticize corruption in our party, but your side has corrupt politicians too!"
How to Counter: Redirect back to the original point—"We can discuss both issues, but first, let’s address this one."
Argument From Silence (Burden Shifting)
What It Is: Claiming that because something hasn't been explicitly refuted, it must be true.
Why It’s Used: Shifts the burden of proof, making the opponent disprove a claim rather than the claimant proving it.
Example:
"You can't prove voter fraud didn’t happen, so how can you say it didn’t influence the election?"
How to Counter: Remind them that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Equivocation
What It Is: Using ambiguous language to shift meanings mid-argument, often in a way that misleads or confuses the opponent.
Why It’s Used: This tactic allows someone to make an argument appear stronger by subtly altering the definition of key terms. It makes refutation difficult because the meaning of the argument keeps shifting.
Example:
"Freedom of speech means I can say whatever I want!" (Ignoring legal distinctions between free speech and consequences for speech.)
How to Counter: Demand they define their terms clearly and stick to one meaning.
The False Middle (Appeal to Moderation)
What It Is: Claiming that the "middle ground" between two opposing views is always correct.
Why It’s Used: Gives legitimacy to extreme or false positions by presenting compromise as inherently reasonable, even when evidence overwhelmingly supports one side.
Example:
"Some people say vaccines work, others say they don’t. The truth must be somewhere in between."
How to Counter: Point out that the correct answer isn’t always the midpoint but where the evidence leads.
Poisoning the Well
What It Is: Discrediting an opponent before they even present their argument, making anything they say seem suspect.
Why It’s Used: This tactic preemptively dismisses counterarguments without engaging with them, ensuring that the opponent is viewed as biased or untrustworthy before they speak.
Example:
"Only an idiot would think universal healthcare is a good idea."
How to Counter: Call out the tactic and insist on a discussion based on facts rather than personal attacks.
False Dichotomy (Black-and-White Thinking)
What It Is: Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing an opponent into an extreme position they don’t actually hold.
Why It’s Used: This tactic oversimplifies complex issues, making one option seem entirely good and the other entirely bad, which eliminates nuanced discussion.
Example:
"You're either with us or against us!"
How to Counter: Identify and present the additional options they ignored.
Appeal to Personal Incredulity
What It Is: Rejecting a claim because it seems too complicated or counterintuitive.
Why It’s Used: Relies on a lack of understanding to dismiss complex issues, making it easier to avoid engaging with evidence-based arguments.
Example:
"I just don’t see how climate change could be real. The Earth is huge!"
How to Counter: Explain that personal intuition is not a valid form of evidence and provide accessible explanations for complex concepts.
The Lone Wolf Excuse
What It Is: Dismissing patterns of harmful behavior as isolated incidents to avoid addressing systemic problems.
Why It’s Used: This tactic prevents accountability for broader trends by framing acts of violence or extremism as the actions of "lone wolves." It allows groups or ideologies to distance themselves from the consequences of their rhetoric or policies.
Example:
"This shooter wasn’t radicalized by political rhetoric—he was just a lone wolf."
How to Counter: Point to patterns of behavior that indicate systemic issues rather than isolated events.
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
What It Is: Cherry-picking data to fit a preconceived narrative while ignoring broader evidence.
Why It’s Used: This tactic misrepresents data by selecting specific instances that support a claim while disregarding the full dataset, making it seem as though the evidence overwhelmingly favors one side.
Example:
"This one cold winter disproves global warming!"
How to Counter: Highlight the larger dataset and statistical trends rather than isolated cases.
No True Scotsman
What It Is: Excluding counterexamples by arbitrarily redefining terms to protect a group or ideology from criticism.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to shield a belief system from accountability by dismissing inconvenient examples as "not real" members of the group.
Example:
"No true conservative would support universal healthcare."
How to Counter: Ask them to provide a consistent definition of their terms and hold them to it.
The Overton Window Shift
What It Is: Shifting the boundaries of acceptable discourse to make extreme views seem mainstream.
Why It’s Used: This tactic is used to gradually normalize radical or fringe ideas by repeatedly introducing them into the public discourse, making formerly extreme positions appear more reasonable over time.
Example:
"Just ten years ago, this policy would have been unthinkable. Now it's a serious discussion!"
How to Counter: Challenge the assumption that normalization equals legitimacy and push back against harmful ideas before they become widely accepted.
The Reverse Causation Fallacy
What It Is: Confusing correlation with causation, leading to incorrect conclusions about cause and effect.
Why It’s Used: This tactic allows someone to mislead their audience by suggesting that one event directly caused another, even when no causal link exists.
Example:
"Cities with strict gun control laws have high crime rates, so gun control must cause crime!"
How to Counter: Explain that correlation does not imply causation and demand evidence of a direct causal relationship.
Final Thoughts
Recognizing bad faith arguments is the first step to disarming them. By staying focused, demanding clarity, and refusing to be baited into endless distractions, you can expose these tactics and keep the discussion centered on truth and accountability.
This page will continue to grow with more examples and refinements. Stay tuned!