Strawman Arguments: What They Are and How to Counter Them - Effectiviology

  
Via:  TᵢG  •  3 months ago  •  37 comments

By:   Effectiviology

Strawman Arguments: What They Are and How to Counter Them - Effectiviology
... person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent's stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn't necessarily support.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers


Of all the intellectually dishonest tactics, the strawman seems to be the most commonly used.

Some individuals legitimately do not understand the tactic and accidentally make strawman arguments.

Others, however, intentionally use a strawman because they cannot figure out how to rebut an actual argument so they resort to, in effect, lying about what their interlocutor wrote.

Some, it would seem, use the strawman not as a defensive position for a weak argument, but as an attack.  They come out of the gates with a strawman.  

Feel free to link to this seed when exposing strawman arguments.


Credit for this seed goes to Drakkonis who first linked it on this site.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent's stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn't necessarily support.

For example, if someone says "I think that we should give better study guides to students", a person using a strawman might reply by saying "I think that your idea is bad, because we shouldn't just give out easy A's to everyone".

Because strawman arguments are frequently used in discussions on various topics, it's important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about strawman arguments, see examples of how they are used, and understand what you can do in order to counter them successfully.

Table of contents

  • How a strawman works
  • Examples of strawman arguments
  • Types of strawman arguments
  • How to counter a strawman
    • Accounting for an audience
    • Accounting for unintentional use of strawman arguments
    • How to avoid using strawman arguments yourself
  • Variants of the strawman
    • Hollow-man arguments
    • Iron-man arguments
    • Steel-man arguments
    • A note on terminology
  • Summary and conclusions

How a strawman works


In general, the use of a strawman consists of the following three stages:

  • First, person A states their position.
  • Then, person B presents a distorted version of person A's original position, while pretending that there's no difference between the two versions.
  • Finally, person B attacks the distorted version of person A's position, and acts as if this invalidates person A's original argument.

Essentially, person B creates a strawman, which is a distorted version of their opponent's original argument, which makes it easier for them to attack their opponent's stance.

This means that there is a flaw in the premise of the strawman argument, since the stance that it addresses doesn't accurately reflect the stance that it was originally meant to address. As such, the strawman fallacy is considered to be a type of an informal logical fallacy, and specifically a type of a relevance fallacy, since the person using it is attacking a stance that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Note that, in some cases, the use of the strawman might involve a slightly different process. For example, the person using the strawman might not present the distorted version of their opponent's stance before attacking it, but will instead use an attack which simply addresses the distorted stance directly.

Examples of strawman arguments


The following is a typical example of a strawman argument:


Teaching assistant: the homework assignment was much harder than we thought, so I think we should give a few extra points to students who completed it. Professor: that's a terrible idea. If we give everyone a perfect score for no reason, students won't bother working hard in the future.

In this example, the professor uses a strawman argument, by misrepresenting their assistant's stance in three ways:

  • The professor argues against giving everyone a bonus, while the teaching assistant suggested giving it only to students who completed the assignment.
  • The professor argues against giving students a perfect score, while their assistant suggested giving students only a few extra points.
  • The professor argues against giving students a bonus for no reason, while their assistant suggested giving them the bonus because the assignment was harder than expected.

In doing all of this, the professor makes it much easier for themself to attack their assistant's stance.

Keep in mind that it doesn't matter whether the overall claims of the professor who is using the strawman are true or not (i.e. that if everyone got a perfect score for no reason, then students won't work hard in the future). This is because the professor's argument is a fallacious misrepresentation of their opponent's stance, meaning that it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion in the first place.

Another example of a strawman is the following:

Alex: I think that a bigger portion of our company's budget should go to customer support, because we're currently struggling in that area.

Bob: if we spend all of our money on customer support like you're suggesting, we'll go bankrupt in a year.

In this example, Bob is using a strawman, when he distorts Alex's original stance in order to make it easier to attack. Specifically, while Alex proposes that the company should spend a bigger portion of their budget on customer support, Bob attacks the idea that the company should spend all of their budget on customer support, which is a different, much more extreme stance (i.e. a strawman).

Types of strawman arguments


There are countless ways to distort an opposing view when using a strawman. Common ways to do so include:

  • Oversimplifying, generalizing, or exaggerating the opponent's argument.
  • Focusing on only a few specific aspects of an opponent's argument.
  • Quoting parts of the opponent's argument out of context.
  • Arguing against fringe or extreme opinions which are sometimes used in order to support the opponent's stance, but which the opponent didn't actually use.

In addition, there are various other ways in which people create strawman arguments, which can be as minor as changing small details in their opponent's original statement, or as major as completely fabricating claims that their opponent has never made in the first place.

However, all of these techniques share one thing in common: they all involve someone distorting the opposing stance, in order to make it easier to attack.

As such, strawman arguments are relatively simple to recognize in discourse. Essentially, when you realize that there is a mismatch between someone's stance and the stance that their opponent is attacking, it's a clear sign that a strawman is being used. Nevertheless, in practice it can be sometimes difficult to notice or to be sure whether this type of argument has been used, especially if the person who is using the strawman knows what they're doing.

How to counter a strawman


A good way to minimize your vulnerability to strawman arguments in the first place is to use clear and definitive language, with as little room for misinterpretation as possible. This makes it more difficult for your opponent to distort your stance, and makes it easier for you to correct them if they attempt to do so.

However, while this reduces the risk of someone using a strawman against you, nothing can prevent someone from using this type of argument if they truly want to, so it's important to know how to respond to the use of a strawman argument.

In general, there are three main strategies you can use:

  • Point out the strawman. Call out your opponent on their use of the strawman, by explaining why their argument is fallacious, and how it distorts your original stance. You can put them on the defensive by asking them to justify why they believe that the distorted stance that they present is the same as the one that you originally proposed; since the two are different, your opponent will either be forced to admit that their argument was invalid, or they will try to justify it by using even more fallacious reasoning, which you can then attack.
  • Ignore the strawman. You can choose to ignore the distorted version of your argument that your opponent presents (i.e. the strawman), and continue to advocate for your original position. This can be effective in some cases, but if they continue to focus on the strawman, you may have to use one of the two other techniques mentioned here, in order to ensure that the discussion progresses, and in order to avoid giving the impression that you're incapable of addressing your opponent's argument.
  • Accept the strawman. In some cases, it might be necessary or preferable for you to accept a strawman when you're defending your stance, meaning that instead of arguing in favor of your original stance, you could start defending the distorted version of your stance, as presented by your opponent. Keep in mind, however, that the longer you go down this route, the more difficult it will be to go back and point out your opponent's fallacious reasoning, since by defending the argument presented in the strawman you appear to accept it as your own stance.

Overall, since a strawman argument is fallacious because it distorts the stance that it argues against, the correct way to counter it, from a purely logical perspective, is to point out this distortion. This is also the most effective choice for countering the strawman in most cases, but there are some situations where it is better to use an alternative approach, by either ignoring the strawman or accepting it.

Accounting for an audience


Strawman arguments are often used during debates that are being viewed by people who are not a part of the discussion itself. The presence of such an audience is important to take into consideration when you choose how to respond to a strawman, because it can influence the effectiveness of the different strategies that you can choose from.

Essentially, when arguing in front of an audience, your focus should often be on addressing and persuading them, rather than on persuading your opponent. This is one of the main reasons why people use strawman arguments in the first place, even when they know that doing so won't help them convince their opponent that they're wrong.

As such, when choosing which approach to use in order to counter a strawman that is being used against you, think about which one will appeal the most to your audience. Different techniques will work better on different audiences, and some people, for example, might need you to explicitly call out the use of the strawman, while others might expect you to simply ignore it entirely.

Accounting for unintentional use of strawman arguments


When deciding how to counter the use of a strawman by your opponent, it's important to apply the principle of charity, and keep in mind that the use of a strawman argument can sometimes be unintentional. This is because, in some cases, people distort their opponent's stance because they misunderstand it, rather than because they want to make it easier to attack.

As such, as long as it's reasonable to do so, when responding to a strawman you should begin your response by asking your opponent to justify their use of the strawman, instead of just attacking them for their fallacious reasoning.

Doing this is beneficial not only because it promotes more friendly discourse, but also because it also increases the likelihood that the other person will see the problem with their reasoning and accept their mistake. Furthermore, if there is an audience watching the debate, doing this can improve your image, by showing your willingness to debate in a reasonable and non-confrontational manner.

How to avoid using strawman arguments yourself


It's important to remember that you might be using strawman arguments unintentionally. If you identify cases where this happens, and specifically if you notice instances where you distort your opponent's views in order to make them easier for you to attack, try to keep this distortion in mind, and correct it before approaching their argument again.

One way to ensure that you're not using a strawman is to try to re-express your opponent's position, and then ask them whether they agree with your description of their position before you start arguing against it. This is the best way to make sure that your opponent agrees with your formulation of their stance, and is a good way to engage in productive discourse.

Now, there may be times where you might choose to use a strawman argument intentionally, for whatever reason. However, keep in mind that while this technique can be persuasive in some cases, research suggests that using this type of argument is not always the best option from a strategic perspective, aside from the inherent logical and moral issues which are associated with using fallacious reasoning.

Specifically, a study on the topic showed that as a rhetoric technique, strawman arguments are useful only when listeners are relatively unmotivated to scrutinize them, meaning that they don't care much about what's being said. This is because, when listeners are invested in the discussion and care enough to pay attention to the arguments that are being proposed, the strawman technique is generally ineffective, and can even backfire by reducing the persuasiveness of the person who is using it.

Variants of the strawman


Hollow-man arguments


A hollow-man argument is an argument that involves inventing a weak fictitious position and attributing it to a vaguely-defined group who is supposed to represent the opposition, before attacking it in an attempt to discredit your opponent.

As such, hollow-man arguments represent a more extreme version of strawman arguments, since while a strawman is a distorted version of an original stance, the hollow-man is an argument which is almost entirely fabricated, and which has little to do with the stance of the person that it's meant to represent.

Hollow-man arguments can often be identified through the use of weasel words, which include phrases such as "some say…", that are not attributed to any specific person or group. This is because the use of such phrases makes the statement vague enough that it's nearly impossible to refute, while absolving the speaker of any responsibility with regard to their truthfulness.

Iron-man arguments


An iron-man argument is an argument that involves distorting your own stance in order to make it easier for you to defend. Essentially, an iron-man is constructed in a similar way to the way you would construct a strawman (i.e. by misrepresenting an original stance), but this time it's in order to strengthen your own stance, rather than to weaken your opponent's.

One of the most prominent ways to create an iron-man argument is to use vague statements that are easy to agree with, even if they don't have much to do with your actual point. For example, consider the following exchange:

Reporter: recently, citizens have been complaining that you haven't actually passed any anti-corruption laws since you were elected, despite your promises. What can you say about that? 

Politician: all I can say is that we are working hard to make sure that we do what's best for everyone, and I just to be sure that we end up doing the right thing. Following our moral compass takes courage in hard times, but only if we remain steadfast in our beliefs will we be able to prosper and grow strong together.

Here, the politician doesn't say anything that is directly related to the question that they are being asked. Instead, he's simply making abstract statements that almost anyone would agree with, and adopts this vague agenda as his stance. This means that instead of defending his true actions, he's arguing in favor of concepts that are much easier for him to defend, such as "doing the right thing".

Steel-man arguments


A steel-man argument is an argument that involves distorting your opponent's argument in order to make it easier for them to defend, and more difficult for you to attack. Essentially, you create a steel-man argument by carefully examining your opponent's original stance, and then framing it in the best light possible before you move on to address it.

This is the suggested course of action under the principle of charity, which suggests that you should argue against the best possible interpretation of your opponent's argument. One way to do this is by using the following steps, which were suggested by philosopher Daniel Dennett (and which he based on the work of psychologist Anatol Rapoport):


How to compose a successful critical commentary:
  1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
  2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
  3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
  4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
— From 'Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking'

Doing this can lead to more productive discussions, and increase the likelihood that your opponent will be willing to listen to what you have to say.

A note on terminology


Some scholars use the term 'iron-man argument' to refer to any argument which distorts an original position in order to improve it.

However, the distinction between iron-man and steel-man arguments is important to make, since the goals of these two types of arguments are completely different. Specifically, while iron-man arguments are used in order to make it easier for you to defend your own stance, steel-man arguments make it more difficult for you to attack your opponent's stance.

This means that iron-man arguments are generally seen as a form of fallacious reasoning, which should be avoided, while steel-man arguments are generally seen as a reasonable debate technique, which should be encouraged.

Summary and conclusions

  • A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack.
  • There are various ways in which one can distort an opposing argument, with some common ones being exaggerating the original argument, focusing on specific details in the original argument, and quoting parts of the original argument out of context.
  • The main way to counter a straw man is to point out its use, and to then ask your opponent to prove that your original stance and their distorted stance are identical, though in some situations you might also choose to either ignore your opponent's strawman, or to simply accept it and continue the discussion.
  • When responding to a strawman, it's important to take into account any audience that might be watching the discussion, and to choose an approach that will appeal to them.
  • Variants of the straw man include the hollow-man argument, which involves inventing a fictitious position and attributing it to the opposition, the iron-man argument, which involves distorting your own stance in order to make it easier for you to defend, and the steel-man argument, which involves distorting your opponent's stance in order to make it harder for you to attack.

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  seeder  TᵢG    3 months ago

This is a very common, slimy and obnoxious tactic.

Note also:  hollow-man, iron-man and the distinguished steel-man variants.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
1.1  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 months ago
Note also:  hollow-man, iron-man and the distinguished steel-man variants.

And don't forget the "oh-man!" variant.  An argument so ridiculous that all you can say is, "oh man!"

Also the "snow-man" variant.  An argument so weakly countering your argument that it melts under scrutiny.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.1    3 months ago

Then the obtuse-man where the interlocutor pretends to not understand and argues an inaccurate simplification of your point.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Freewill @1.1    3 months ago
And don't forget the "oh-man!" variant.

Not to mention the new "c'mon man" variant recently introduced.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
1.1.3  Freewill  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    3 months ago
Not to mention the new "c'mon man" variant recently introduced.

320

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1.4  MAGA  replied to  Freewill @1.1.3    3 months ago

lol!  🇺🇸🗽🦅

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    3 months ago

Sea lioning, lol.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
1.1.6  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    2 months ago
Then the obtuse-man where the interlocutor pretends to not understand and argues an inaccurate simplification of your point.

Don't know what you mean, but your point is moot.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

Don't know what drew me back to this thread, but here I am.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     3 months ago

Each of the strawman listed in the article is used on NT on a daily basis. 

I use this meme when all the strawman arguments start.

512

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Senior Guide
3  Drakkonis    3 months ago

LOL! Iron man arguments. I think that describes most of what we hear from politicians when they get hardball questions : )

Anyway, great post. I hope it makes a difference. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Senior Guide
3.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Drakkonis @3    3 months ago

Oh, and all the credit goes to TiG. He posted it and is at least as ferocious as I am on the subject. In fact, whatever skills I have in debate are mostly due to going up against him : )  He really knows how to keep someone on their toes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1    3 months ago

That might be the nicest compliment I have ever gotten from you Drakk.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif   And in return, I would encourage people to stay as calm, focused and logical as you do.   In most cases, in forums like this, as soon as the first disagreement emerges the shit hits the fan and the intellectual dishonesty ensues.   Rarely do we see actual debates (vs. slap fights) as lengthy as those we have had over the years.   Even though things get shitty toward the end, it usually takes quite a while so good on us.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Senior Guide
3.1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    3 months ago
Even though things get shitty toward the end, it usually takes quite a while so good on us.

Yeah, I can't stop thinking about that, actually. We often end up thinking the other is being disingenuous and is the cause of the problem but I'm  not so sure anymore that this is an accurate description of what happens so often in the end. I think there are certain aspects of our worldview that are cast in iron, so to speak. We believe some things on such a basic, unchangeable level that we cannot accept that the other can't see what we do. So we think the other is being disingenuous. 

But, having known you and debated you for so long, I can't reconcile the charge of being disingenuous with the knowledge of how rigorously you conduct your arguments according to the principles of logic and reason. Although it seems, from my perspective, you deny points that seem inarguable to me, I can't believe you do so maliciously but, rather, you see things from an entirely different perspective that do not allow you to accept my point. If that is true, there must be something in my worldview that prevents me from accepting points that you present you feel are too obvious to deny. 

I don't know, exactly, what this means concerning future engagements with you. But I want you to know how much you contributed to my growth as an individual. That isn't a platitude. I literally had to learn new things and concepts just to be able to meet you in debate. Concepts concerning debate, logic, philosophy and more. I literally thought philosophy was something people who had no ambition in life pursued before meeting you. Now, if I had my life to do over again, I think I would have considered being one. 

So, in spite of how often things end crappily for us, I want you to understand the impact you've had on my life. As intensely frustrating as I sometimes find you to be, I don't regret for a second engaging with you. 

Now, stop hugging me. People are watching.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.2    3 months ago

I think this is basically what happens when debating immutable positions.   Our key disagreement is, ultimately, on the divinity of the Bible or really any expressions by human beings that a god exists.   My position, of course, is that without significant supporting evidence, claims of divinity are nothing more than what human beings have done for all of recorded history — we make claims of gods and exploit the profound effect this has on the masses.   And we have the thousands of gods and their historical effects to prove it.  You, in contrast, have all that you need to be convinced that God as you understand Him exists.  

There is no reconciling such a divide.   But we should at least recognize common ground:  it is logically possible that a sentient creator exists.    But as we add attributes to this creator our divide grows exponentially.   When the attributes contradict, the defined entity becomes impossible (as defined).

The best one can hope for, given this, is a challenging debate to see what value exists in the two positions and to raise questions that the interlocutors had not considered before.

One other point, I have grown to believe that the religious debates are substantially better than partisan debates.   The former can be intellectual whereas the latter is usually superficial and emotional.   After all, when someone makes an opening move of 'Stop the Steal' there is no chance of anything intelligent ensuing.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
3.1.4  Freewill  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1    3 months ago
In fact, whatever skills I have in debate are mostly due to going up against him : )  He really knows how to keep someone on their toes. 

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
3.1.5  Freewill  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.2    3 months ago
Now, stop hugging me. People are watching. 

LOL!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Senior Guide
3.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    3 months ago
One other point, I have grown to believe that the religious debates are substantially better than partisan debates.   The former can be intellectual whereas the latter is usually superficial and emotional.

This is an interesting point on a personal level. I can't escape the feeling that my involvement in the political debate is fairly pointless the more time goes by. In fact, I'd say it was more than a feeling. In truth, I feel there is little to no hope for our country. This isn't because people seem to be losing common sense. I believe they are, but not for common, secular explanations. In my view, all of history, whether people recognized it or not, has centered around God's plan for us. In spite of this, I find myself arguing politics on a secular basis. The more I involve myself in these political discussions, the more convinced I become that, at least the way I've approached it, is pointless. 

To be more specific, what we see happening today is the result of abandoning God. On both sides. Even the attempts of the religious right in politics have been, at a minimum, misguided. From my perspective, history has basically been about one thing. Acceptance of God as God or rejecting Him. What we see is a continuation of that. 

What I've attempted to do in the political discussion is present the truth on a logical level. But, as the Bible says, people don't want the truth. They want want what the heart desires. So, what I see  happening in our country is the result of the rejection of God. I don't think it is possible to change that. I see us descending into a very dark place and, even then, people will still reject God. They won't see the situation as having anything to do with God. 

And so, I wonder why I keep commenting. I think it is  because I love debate. That's a bad reason to do what I do. I know the world is heading in the direction it is because the Bible predicts it. There is no changing it. I am rapidly coming to the point where I recognize the need to abandon this place because it is a dead end. There's no point to it. My only real option for continuing here is to preach, which I'm not sure Perrie would tolerate. 

Anyway, I'm not seeking an argument with you. I'm sure you will comment, but since I'm only expressing my personal feelings on the matter, don't expect much in the way of a response.

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
3.1.7  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.6    3 months ago

I think you need TiG to hug you again.... jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
4  Freewill    3 months ago

So what you're saying is that using arguments that end in "...-man" are sexist or misogynistic in some way?  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @4    3 months ago

Nicely played.   jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
4.1.1  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    3 months ago
Nicely played.

And to think that my example of a strawman was not nearly as wildly outrageous as many we have seen here...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @4.1.1    3 months ago

True, not by a long shot.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Senior Guide
4.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Freewill @4    3 months ago
So what you're saying is that using arguments that end in "...-man" are sexist or misogynistic in some way?

OMG! Indeed! Well played, sir! That was perfect. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5  Buzz of the Orient    3 months ago

This is the only strawman I was ever familiar with. (Is this a strawman argument?  Maybe so if he only had a brain)

The-Scarecrow-Wizard-of-Oz.jpg?resize=290%2C250

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 months ago

what does george w bush have to do with anything here?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
6  evilgenius    3 months ago

I don't argue with strawmen, I tilt at windmills! Just kidding. It's horrible to have to bring this same article up time after time. Dishonest debate tactics are a sure sign one doesn't know what they are talking about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @6    3 months ago
... a sure sign one doesn't know what they are talking about.

... or cannot defend a poor debate position. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
7  Transyferous Rex    3 months ago

I was going to copy and paste a few things here, but why take up the space? Suffice it to say, my experience has been that there aren't many people who enjoy or appreciate debate enough to make use of the seeded content. Too many want a "mic drop" moment, but lack either the patience or ability to really get there. So, there is an immediate resort to the strawman, or unsubstantiated calling out thereof. 

News to me. I'd never heard the terms "iron man" or "steel man." I see the value of the steel man, which is a technique I employ against my children often. Just had no term for it. My wife, on the other hand, prefers the method I see here often, but don't really see an example set forth above. Edict-man. Absolutely no debating the sovereign proclamation, once it's issued, and only a fools dares to. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7    3 months ago
Too many want a "mic drop" moment, but lack either the patience or ability to really get there. So, there is an immediate resort to the strawman, or unsubstantiated calling out thereof. 

And there is a lot of anger too.   So many seem to be venting and lashing out.   Lots of emotion and very little reason.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    3 months ago
Lots of emotion and very little reason.

Ditto, Ditto.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
7.1.2  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    3 months ago

I agree with that. Lots of people harboring lots of animosity these days. They are hate filled, and looking for someone to direct the hate at. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8  Thomas    3 months ago

Thank you, TiG.

I remember on a planet far, far away, in a time long removed, debating Socrates repeatedly, and actually once changing my point of view as a result. You have also changed my pov from time to time. 

I see the anger towards which you and Drakonis point as giving rise to the quite often vicious debate tactics that some choose to utilize. Often, however, I am unsure of from where the anger arises, but think that it may arise from the feeling that something is not right, a feeling that is played upon by politicians. This feeling, kind of a vague unease, can be amplified by disingenuous debate tactics that I see constantly in articles posted here, and then more so by the people who "push" the article as the truth. 

Anyway, just stopped by to say thank you for the article and the many debates we have participated in. You make me think, and Thinking is Good.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
8.1  Freewill  replied to  Thomas @8    3 months ago
Anyway, just stopped by to say thank you for the article and the many debates we have participated in. You make me think, and Thinking is Good.

Indeed!

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
8.2  Freewill  replied to  Thomas @8    3 months ago
debating Socrates repeatedly

Does one debate Socrates, or does one simply utilize his method?  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.2.1  Thomas  replied to  Freewill @8.2    3 months ago

Bah-dum-dum-Tssh!  Good one!

In this case, however, the member of NV was actually called Socrates....

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Participates
8.2.2  Freewill  replied to  Thomas @8.2.1    3 months ago

Ah yes!  I remember that Viner as well. Anyone know where he ended up?

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
8.2.3  Thomas  replied to  Freewill @8.2.2    3 months ago

No Clue. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


FLYNAVY1
Duck Hawk
Vic Eldred
Dulay


41 visitors