</3 to the huge derails.
A big thanks to Anethia, Harukusan and wish12oz(love the sig) for addressing the topic in which I was interested. Now I know that Lakshmi, Ragnarok, Caitsith and Odin have the same junk, at least to some degree.
Greatguardian, we obviously don't agree on some issues, nothing personal. Sorry for the "Edjamacation" cheap shot, I was irked by the strawman accusation and it slipped out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Puck
Maybe you should've taken your own advice and Googled it before you proved that you don't know what it means.
straw man
n.
1. A person who is set up as a cover or front for a questionable enterprise.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.
You didn't provide a single example of someone employing a strawman argument. Instead you cobbled together your own idea of what you think it means and gave examples that in no way exemplified the use of a strawman.
Now happily admit that you threw around a buzzword with no idea what it actually meant like so many other "master debaters" on this board.
Darn my overwhelming urge to insult you. I'll try to keep this as civil as possible.
What I said falls under point 2 of your definition, it's just a condensed explanation of what I said. I'll explain for you.
"2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."
An argument or opponent = take what someone said/their position
set up so as to be = change it slightly(to be obviously wrong) to suit your needs
easily refuted or defeated. = easily 'prove them wrong' because of your changes
"??? profit" = for the lols because forum discussions get too heated and could use some lols
What Kiroh said is a way(i.e. taking words out of context) you can strawman but is not an all inclusive definition. Greatguardian's definition was dead on. I'll reiterate, my original usage of the word was just fine and so was my post explaining it.
I've been using the term 'straw man' before it became a buzz word and I'm flattered that you'd liken me to a 'master-debater'. Really, I'm just some schmuck with strong opinions.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...93l193l0.1l1l0
All from the first page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Quote:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Quote:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
Quote:
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Strawman.html
Quote:
Straw Man occurs when
an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary
and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument;
"knocks down" the straw man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc.)
-- and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument.
Now happily admit you're guilty of your own accusations and we can be on our ways. ;)