NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do people think that setting up a strawman argument just so that they can knock it down is a good means of debate? What sort of rationale leads people to participate in this?

Is this a "burning man" type deal?

How about a little fire, Scarecrow?:gundge:

i think you pick it up by example.

the big time radio talk show hosts do it all the time. it sounds great (if you dont think about it) and makes them sound very smart and extremely right (again, if you dont think about it)

who wouldnt want to do that too?

Sometimes I think it's done unintentionally because the person doesn't really understand the opposing viewpoint and can't be bothered to listen to the other guy's actual arguments.

Is this a "burning man" type deal?

How about a little fire, Scarecrow?:gundge:

Yes; well, flaming can get involved.

It's where someone states their opponent's argument before tearing it down, only the argument they propose doesn't necessarily represent the opponent's argument at all. They've created a "strawman" that is so flimsy and weak that tearing it down is simple.

It's easier to get someone to defend something you want them to rather than their actual argument, you can shape the debate the way you want it if the other person takes the bait. Plus it saves you from addressing any real issue if you can take one large group and accuse "so many of them" of whatever bullshit you want to rant about without having to find any real examples.

Why do people think that setting up a strawman argument just so that they can knock it down is a good means of debate? What sort of rationale leads people to participate in this?

An inability to see through the eyes of the other debater; this one-sided sight is also, ironically, what spawns most debates to begin with.

Why do people think that setting up a strawman argument just so that they can knock it down is a good means of debate? What sort of rationale leads people to participate in this?

It is much less expensive to construct and subsequently assault than a brick man.

Yes; well, flaming can get involved.

It's where someone states their opponent's argument before tearing it down, only the argument they propose doesn't necessarily represent the opponent's argument at all. They've created a "strawman" that is so flimsy and weak that tearing it down is simple.

Oh, That's interesting. Those arguments are what keep me for engaging in serious debates. How can you counter something like that?

:(....I thought this would be about scarecrows....

Oh, That's interesting. Those arguments are what keep me for engaging in serious debates. How can you counter something like that?

You can point out their rhetorical fallacy and then throw bricks at them . . .

Oh, That's interesting. Those arguments are what keep me for engaging in serious debates. How can you counter something like that?

By telling the opponent that's not your argument and then be accused of flip-flopping.

This is why I just pop into threads for irreverent statements instead of engaging in meaningful debate.

You can point out their rhetorical fallacy and then throw bricks at them . . .

By telling the opponent that's not your argument and then be accused of flip-flopping.

This is why I just pop into threads for irreverent statements instead of engaging in meaningful debate.

But, at that point it gets into a shouting contest that I have no intetion of contributing to.

But, at that point it gets into a shouting contest that I have no intetion of contributing to.

Not if you aim well with the brick!

But, at that point it gets into a shouting contest that I have no intetion of contributing to.

Exactly. Nobody wants to get into a shouting match (except pundits).

That's why all civilized debate should be conducted with big, padded sticks on a narrow crossbeam above a gym mat. I would have a hard time not watching Hillary wail on people on Cspan.

Exactly. Nobody wants to get into a shouting match (except pundits).

That's why all civilized debate should be conducted with big, padded sticks on a narrow crossbeam above a gym mat. I would have a hard time not watching Hillary wail on people on Cspan.

been watching reruns of american gladiator, have we? I'd like to see hilary get her game on... without the phoney accent.

To scare away the http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Crow.jpg, no?

Oh, That's interesting. Those arguments are what keep me for engaging in serious debates. How can you counter something like that?

I find sometimes that the strawman happens because the argument wasn't understood. One way to 'counter' is to restate your argument, trying to house it in terms that are better understood. It can get tiring, though.

Why do people think that setting up a strawman argument just so that they can knock it down is a good means of debate? What sort of rationale leads people to participate in this?

Because we're enamoured of our own wit and brilliance and want to display it, not only so we can look at it and congratulate ourselves but so others can be properly impressed with our wonderfulness.

Because we're enamoured of our own wit and brilliance and want to display it, not only so we can look at it and congratulate ourselves but so others can be properly impressed with our wonderfulness.

I resemble that remark!

I think sometimes people are accused of making straw men when they aren't actually making straw men. That is to say, they understand someone's arguement, and carry it on to it's logical conclusion (i.e. use of reducto ad absurdum) and then are accused of making straw men when, in fact, they did not. Often times I see someone get accused of making a straw man when all they did was show someone the fallacy of their own arguement, and the other person simply didn't want to believe they were wrong.

To scare away the http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Crow.jpg, no?

Do you have a smiley for everything?

lol, the wikipedia page lists a few different forms of a straw man... LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

lol. FOX commentators' methods right there.

Is this a "burning man" type deal?

How about a little fire, Scarecrow?:gundge:

I hope so. Strawmen would burn nicely.

Why do people think that setting up a strawman argument just so that they can knock it down is a good means of debate? What sort of rationale leads people to participate in this?

What you are saying here is that any attempt to restate your opponent's position in your own terms lowers the tone of debate.

Whereas I'd say that trying to restate the opponent's position makes it much clearer where misunderstanding lies. Anyone who can't repeat in their own words what an opponent is saying is not in fact debating, merely mouthing-off.

Here's the lyrics to Lou Reed's Strawman (http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Lou-Reed/Strawman.html), from the 1988 album New York. They still ring hauntingly. . .

I think sometimes people are accused of making straw men when they aren't actually making straw men. That is to say, they understand someone's arguement, and carry it on to it's logical conclusion (i.e. use of reducto ad absurdum) and then are accused of making straw men when, in fact, they did not. Often times I see someone get accused of making a straw man when all they did was show someone the fallacy of their own arguement, and the other person simply didn't want to believe they were wrong.
I think one problem with this is that often the absurdum part is emphasized, to the point where the argument is unreasonable. I've often spouted off on this, but reason is much more important than logic when examining most human endeavours.

Sometimes I think it's done unintentionally because the person doesn't really understand the opposing viewpoint and can't be bothered to listen to the other guy's actual arguments.

Yes but this isn't even always accidental. It's just plain easier to respond to what you think someone says, than trying to comprehend. Same with responding to the idea of who a person is instead of who they are. People love to lie to themselves in order to make the world fit in a neat little box which requires as little thinking as possible. So I think while there is lack of understanding going on, sometimes accidental, most of the time it is just through mental laziness and self-deception.

I think sometimes people are accused of making straw men when they aren't actually making straw men. That is to say, they understand someone's arguement, and carry it on to it's logical conclusion (i.e. use of reducto ad absurdum) and then are accused of making straw men when, in fact, they did not. Often times I see someone get accused of making a straw man when all they did was show someone the fallacy of their own arguement, and the other person simply didn't want to believe they were wrong.

I agree. And that is true of all of the terms used in formal logic.

On the national scene, Sean Hannity and Rush do it all the time and their listeners eat it up. And it got GW elected twice. Made McCain and Kerry into cowards and GW into a war hero.

Most people have no concept of logic. They believe what they want to believe. Aristotle said people make decisions on emotion not on logic. Humans nature hasn't changed.

Because we're enamoured of our own wit and brilliance and want to display it, not only so we can look at it and congratulate ourselves but so others can be properly impressed with our wonderfulness.

Isn't that a strawma--oh, well done!

Sometimes I think it's done unintentionally because the person doesn't really understand the opposing viewpoint and can't be bothered to listen to the other guy's actual arguments.

^^^ so true.... especially on message boards.