I’ve been in my fair share of debates, online, in classrooms, around the dinner table. Sometimes, the conversation is a genuine attempt to learn, to push toward truth. These are fun and enlightening. Other times, it’s clear someone is just trying to win. These are obnoxious wastes of time.

Scripture reminds us to be discerning about who we give our attention to. Proverbs 23:9 says, “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.” Knowing when to engage and when to step back is wisdom.

Here are the 9 signs that your debate partner isn’t playing straight.

9 Signs of a Bad Debate Partner

1) Consistent Use of Logical Fallacies

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that weakens an argument. It’s a shortcut or trick that makes a point seem valid when it isn’t. Spotting fallacies helps you see when someone is more interested in scoring points than wrestling with truth.

Here are the ones you’ll see most often:

Red Herring – Distracting from the issue in focus. If you’re arguing about how to fix poverty and someone says, “Why worry about poverty when the world is about to burn?”

Genetic Fallacy – Judging an argument based on its origin instead of its merits. “You can’t talk about abortion because you’re a man; no uterus, no opinion.”

Strawman – Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. “You are against social welfare because you want to protect billionaires’ yacht funds.”

Ad Hominem – Attacking the person instead of the argument. “You’re ugly” or “You’re a brainwashed sycophant.” Maybe true, maybe not, but it doesn’t touch the argument. Even ugly people can be right!

Appeal to Authority – Using someone’s status instead of evidence. “Well, the FDA said it so it’s true” or “I have a degree from Harvard, so I am right.”

Circular Definition / Reasoning – Using the conclusion as the premise. You may ask, “What is a woman?” and your partner responds, “A woman is anyone who thinks they’re a woman.” This is circular because their answer assumes the conclusion (that anyone who thinks they’re a woman is a woman) as part of the definition, so it doesn’t actually explain or prove anything.

Anyone who constantly intentionally deals in logical fallacies lacks character. Those who refuse to learn about or admit logical fallacies lack aptitude. Both can never engage in worthwhile conversation. Learn to spot the fallacies and save yourself some time.

2) Emotion Bombs

They aim to trigger feelings instead of logic. When folks begin to focus on emotions, they aren’t interested in seeking the truth. Emotions are good at indicating what I believe to be true, but not so good at helping me see what is actually true. Good faith conversation partners will work hard to keep emotions from blurring the argument. I saw this on TV all the time during the Hamas/Israel war, “How can you say Israel has a right to defend itself? Think of all the women and children who are suffering!” Instead of engaging with the reasoning or evidence behind a position, many call upon the feels.

3) Being Vague

This is when someone is unwilling to state their ideas or presuppositions with clarity. Sometimes this is done to avoid accountability or for some reason cover their underlying assumptions. “You know what I mean, everyone thinks that,” instead of stating a clear argument.

I’ve seen this with many progressive Christians, especially those operating within more conservative institutions where they don’t want others to know their leanings. In dialogue, they’ll often subtly push back on orthodox positions with questions like, “But that’s what Paul said, not Jesus,” or, “Do you really think all of the Bible needs to be 100% historically accurate?” Rarely are they clear from the outset, or willing to admit, even when challenged, that they don’t actually believe all Scripture is true or authoritative. Saying it aloud could carry negative consequences so they stick to vague, Christian-sounding language.

4) Not Listening

They repeat their points or ignore yours. You explain your stance and they reply with a pre-rehearsed line that doesn’t touch anything you said. When they try to restate your argument, you quickly realize they haven’t actually listened at all. It’s like talking to one of those auto-reply machines when you’re just trying to reach customer service. Always talking, rarely listening. If someone can’t accurately repeat your argument or keeps putting words in your mouth, it’s a sign they’re not interested in dialogue. They merely want to give you a monologue you annoyingly keep interrupting.

5) Dog Piling

They talk to others about you rather than to you about the issue. When you’re speaking, they glance at their comrades smirking. Online, in a comment thread, they turn to their allies and say things like, “He obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. What a noob. You are so right.” This behavior shows they’re more interested in group validation than genuine dialogue.

6) “What About-Isms”

People often deflect with irrelevant comparisons. It happens all the time in political discussions. Sometimes it’s legitimate, pointing out a double standard. Other times, it’s used to highlight the other party’s failures to avoid speaking about or owning up to one’s own. It’s a deflection that evades responsibility. The goal isn’t learning, but protection.

7) Getting Mean

This overlaps with the “ad hominem” point above but is worth repeating, especially in today’s toxic online culture. People type things they’d never say face-to-face. Insults replace arguments, and civility gives way to rabid rhetoric. A sure sign someone isn’t interested in finding the truth is when they stop reasoning and start insulting.

8) Parroting Headlines

When someone simply echoes the talking points they’ve absorbed from their favorite news outlet, influencer, or book, they are not thinking, they are propagandizing. A clear example is when people keep bringing up the “very fine people on both sides” line from Donald Trump’s 2017 remarks. Mainstream media used that short clip to suggest Trump thought Nazis were fine people with their own perspective. But if you take 10 consecutive seconds to check the clip in context, you will find he said the exact opposite (read the transcript yourself). People who do this choose to be megaphones instead of minds. Conversation will not go far unless they are willing to think critically about the sources they rely on and go beyond the sound-bites or headlines they have memorized.

9) Unwillingness to Concede Anything

When someone refuses to acknowledge even minor truths or admit where they may have been proven wrong, they reveal that they’re not seeking truth but victory. Continuing to dialogue with people like this is like banging your head against a brick wall. If they won’t budge an inch on even small points, save yourself the headache.

Choose Your Debate Partners Well

In my experience, some conversations with those I disagree with have been deeply fruitful, and others have been a total waste of time. Over the years, I’ve changed my mind on many issues because of good-faith dialogue partners. I’ve also lost hours to bad actors. Recognizing these behaviors isn’t about scoring points; it’s about learning which people are worth engaging and which are better ignored.

All of us believe what we believe because we think it’s true. Otherwise, we wouldn’t believe it! But if we’re honest, we know some of our current beliefs can’t all be right. Only through humble investigation with good-faith dialogue partners do we stand a chance of discovering which ones those are.

We should value dialogue and disagreement as essential tools for growing in wisdom and knowledge. But we shouldn’t confuse that with wasting time on people who are more interested in the drama of the fight or the comfort of their own bias. Hopefully, these signs help you find the goodies and ignore the baddies.