A guide to arguing in good faith

Photo byElegant_Inspiration_Art on Pixabay

Often we can tell when our partner isn’t arguing in good faith, but in the heat of the moment, we can’t properly explain how it is they’re not arguing in good faith, so we can’t call them out on it. This article can fix that.

Both partners should read the article and then someone should keep it for later reference. Then, when the next dispute inevitably arises, each will be equipped to recognize specific bad-faith arguments and point them out. If either has a vague memory of what is being referred to, the article can be brought out to remind them. To that end, I tried to give each of these disingenuous ways of arguing a short and simple name. These can serve as keywords by which to counter bad-faith arguments in real time.

To make this an easily navigable reference guide, here are the 11 rules in the order that they’ll be discussed: 1) general vs. specific, 2) causality, 3) whataboutism, 4) misrepresentation, 5) exaggeration, 6) peacekeeper, 7) motivation, 8) subject change, 9) fixation, 10) dismissive, and 11) joking.

Each rule will first be explained as a general principle, and then followed up with conversational examples.

1. General vs. Specific

A very common way to undermine warranted criticism in a relationship is to flip back and forth between the general and the specific. This happens by one of two ways: 1) confronting an isolated example by saying that it’s not generally the case, or 2) countering a general criticism by asking for specific examples, and either using the person’s inability to list specifics at that moment against them or to attack the weakest specific they bring up.

Examples:

“You’re always late when it’s time to meet up.”

“When have I been late?!”

“Well, you were late to that party the other day and now today.”

“Oh, wow, just two times!”

Or

“You could be more supportive. I’m having a hard day.”

“What do you mean? I’m always supportive!”

2. Causality

This one can be very tricky! A lot of times people will do something messed up, and then say, “Well, how do you expect me not to when you’ve been doing x.” (The “what do you expect” is a clear giveaway.) By acting like the bad act was in response to some other act, the person can shift the blame. Often times, the things are only loosely related.

If there is merit to this — and the issue at hand was a reasonable response to some other wrongdoing — then they should both be discussed but as separate issues. If we let wrong justify wrong, we’re in a race to the bottom. It’s almost always a better approach to discuss one thing at a time wherever possible. This approach to arguing, like all the ones to be mentioned, is typically used in bad faith, just to change the subject, shift blame, and wiggle around accountability.

Examples:

“I can’t believe you’d go do something like that without telling me.”

“What do you expect when you’re never home?”

Or

“I’m mad because you lied to me!”

“You’re always so judgmental! How do you expect me to tell you the truth?”

3. Whataboutism

A very popular way of muddying up issues in politics, whataboutism also works great at muddying up issues in relationships. When we bring a complaint to our partner, and they don’t want to address their behavior, they may just try to say “what about x that you did?” This distracts from the issue presented and shifts the blame back onto the aggrieved party.

It’s similar to “causality” but doesn’t require that same connection. It’s not saying the bad act was done because of some other bad act; it’s more like saying “why are we talking about these things that I do when we should be talking about those other things that you do.”

Examples:

“You’ve been spending too much money these last few days. Have you seen the bank account? We’re going to run out of cash before the next payday.”

“I’m spending too much? What about all the money you spent on that giant painting a few months ago?”

4. Misrepresentation

Misrepresenting the actual issue at hand is a common tactic. The way it works is that you substitute the issue for something related. This way you can move past the real point being made, and undermine it by framing the argument as if it’s about something it’s really not.

You can also minimize the issue, which people can’t help but do. However, just because it’s something we naturally do when defending ourselves, doesn’t make it any less damaging. It’s another form of misrepresenting our partner’s complaint.

Examples:

“Why would you lie to me about going to the bar when you said you were at work?”

“What I can’t go to the bar? Why would you be mad at me for that?”

“No. You’re misrepresenting the issue. I’m mad that you lied.”

Or

“Oh, so you’re mad because I said I don’t talk to him, but I actually talk to him once every few months?”

(This is an example of minimizing. It’s being implied that it’s okay because even though it’s not no contact, like was said, it’s just scarce contact.)

5. Exaggeration

In response to any sort of criticism, even if it’s completely valid, some people will exaggerate your critiquing or expectations of them in order to self-victimize, and to make it seem like they’re being held to an impossible standard. This is another way of shifting the blame and undermining any sort of negative feedback. Luckily, it has telltale signs that we’ve all likely heard before.

Examples:

“You criticize everything I do.”

Or

“I’m always the problem.”

Or

“I can’t be perfect.”

Or

“You want me to act just like you. Well, I can’t.”

6. Peacekeeper

A common phenomenon throughout society, as well as in relationships, is blaming the person voicing their grievance for causing problems out of nowhere. When we’re not the one affected, or if we’re benefiting from the status quo, we can feel like all is well until someone raises objection to how things have been. In our mind, they’re disrupting the peace for no reason. However, things may have been bad for them all the while, and just because it serves us well or we’re indifferent to it, we chose not to notice. (For a more detailed description, I wrote a full article on this last year, “How Victims Pushing for Fair Treatment Are Vilified.”)

This method makes it seem like the one bringing forward any type of negative feedback is actually the one causing the problem. It’s a type of victim-blaming that undermines a lot of valid criticism.

Examples:

“You know, you never help clean up around here.”

“We’ve been having a great day, why are you trying to start with me now?”

Or

“You’ve been spending money like crazy this month. We can’t afford it.”

“Why are you always keeping tabs on the way I spend money? I never complain to you about how you spend!”

7. Motivation

A lot of times when a person is being accused of doing something wrong, they’ll call the motivation behind the accusation into question. In particularly egregious uses of this ploy, it can make it look like someone caring about a given issue is actually a bad thing. This is usually done by tying it to some insecurity or past trauma, which suggests that to be worried about such a thing is a consequence of something wrong with the person raising the complaint. Typically this comes with references to being paranoid, insecure, jealous, or stuck on a past experience.

Examples:

“You keep bringing up John. Why are you so obsessed with him?”

Or

“You just think I’m up to no good because of what your ex did.”

Or

“You’re just insecure.”

8. Subject Change

This technique is employed whenever somebody is losing on a single point. If you raise a good point, and the person responds to it by being dismissive or moving the conversation somewhere else — without first acknowledging the validity of that point — they’re arguing in bad faith.

Examples:

I’m going to use a real-life story from my text history for this one. I criticized someone I was dating for being unsupportive when I was going through a tough time. In response to that criticism, they eventually said, “I’m not changing you and you’re constantly trying to change me. Is that fair?”

I responded, “You’re not as accepting of a person just the way they are as you constantly like to claim. I’ve heard quite a lot about not cleaning enough, not cooking well, not decorating, not dressing in ways that you think are better. I’ve heard quite a lot about how I should be able to commit sooner or approach love or dating differently.”

They responded, “None of that changed. Did it?”

I then listed with specific examples, and screenshots of messages where applicable, how I responded to each one of these criticisms at the time. I was always receptive and in every case acted on the feedback in some way or another.

They then responded with, “But those are all practical things. And you are trying to change who I am!” Seeing that I provided substantial evidence against that point, they tried to move around it to another.

I called them out right then for not arguing in good faith, and said I wouldn’t keep going back and forth if their only goal was to win the argument. They soon after apologized for the original issue and said they’d try to do better.

9. Fixation

This is the exact opposite of a “subject change.” Arguments consist of a lot of smaller points that work to support the larger contention. Often people will fixate on the weakest point to try to discredit the whole argument being made.

Examples:

“You’ve been engaging in a lot of suspicious behaviors lately. I’m starting to think you might be being unfaithful.”

“What? Which suspicious behaviors?”

“You keep getting late night calls that are allegedly about work, you didn’t answer or return my call the other night for hours, and I found that hair clip in your car.”

“Stop being ridiculous! I’ve taken some of these calls in front of you, so you’ve seen they’re about work. You’re just being paranoid.”

(Some of the calls might be with someone they shouldn’t be talking to, while others really were work calls, so seeing this was the weakest of the three points, they’re focusing on it alone and using it to discredit the entire thing.)

10. Dismissive

Another way people try to get around facing an issue is to feign exhaustion or a desire for peace. They try to make it about arguing itself and not the specific issue at hand, and then just claim to not want to argue. It usually comes in the form of an exasperated and disingenuous closing statement.

Sometimes it really is a bad time to argue, like when one is not in their best state of mind. But then the conversation should be rescheduled for a later time, not dismissed outright.

Examples:

“I can’t win so whatever you say it is, that’s what it is. Okay?”

Or

“Sure, that’s fine. Happy now?”

Or

“Look, whatever you say is right, I just don’t feel like arguing.”

11. Joking

Immediately after a serious point is raised some people will start being extra playful and cracking jokes. They’re trying to make light of something that may deserve to be dealt with in an earnest way. Usually there’s a nervous energy attached to this behavior. They feel they’ve done wrong, and been caught doing it, so they want to introduce some levity into the situation to escape their discomfort, distract from the issue, and change the tone of the conversation.

Examples:

“You’re really mad at me for that little thing? Come on, you look cute when you’re mad, but let’s go back to having fun.”

Or

“Oh, you’re mad? Is it bad that it excites me a little bit when you’re angry?”

Conclusion

The point of this article is to keep people arguing in good faith. Arguments necessarily arise in relationships, but they don’t have to be a bad thing. In fact, if done right, they’ll benefit the relationship. This is true whether that relationship is with friends, family, colleagues, or romantic partners.

We should be arguing to get to the bottom of some unfairness in the relationship and determining how to fix it. We should not be arguing to win. We all need things pointed out to us and to correct our behaviors at times, so “losing an argument” isn’t actually losing anything. It’s just a sign we’re not doing right by our partner and need to correct our behavior.

There should be no winner or loser, nor should anyone be trying to win or make the other person lose. One person should communicate whatever they’re dissatisfied with in a measured way. The argument should then work to determine whether or not there’s merit to the complaint. If there is, the behavior in question should be corrected. The relationship should be healthier and happier as a result.

Arguments are much more complicated than driving in a straight line down the road, but just as the painted lines keep us each safe in our own lane, learning to recognize and avoid bad-faith arguments can serve to keep our points of disagreement moving forward in a productive and well-meaning way. A good-faith argument is how a relationship improves and grows in a healthy manner. A bad-faith argument is how we hurt each other and let resentment build.

If we want to solve the problems in our relationship, we need to demonstrate the maturity, courage, and intellectual honesty to address them directly.