Strawman - The Thread

[ABM]

OK. sorry in advance for the ignorance.

I've seen the term "strawman" argument bandied about many times in here. I "kinda" know the definition? Not certain I really got it in terms of discussing basketball and or politics/religion, though.

Could one or more of you kind souls provide a "primer" regarding one or more of the arguments you've been in where a strawman was used?

That would be the sweetest.

Thanks

 

[magnifier661]

OK. sorry in advance for the ignorance.

I've seen the term "strawman" argument bandied about many times in here. I "kinda" know the definition? Not certain I really got it in terms of discussing basketball and or politics/religion, though.

Could one or more of you kind souls provide a "primer" regarding one or more of the arguments you've been in where a strawman was used?

That would be the sweetest.

Thanks

An example of "strawman" would be someone saying there is such thing as an atheist Jew; then the other replies "so you can be a Christian Jew too"

Mainly it's a way to argue with someone; using what they say and drastically overreact the response based on that statement.

Another example is hickson is a great defender because he gets 8 defensive rebounds. Everyone knows he's not a good defender; but using it because it says "defensive" somehow supports your claim.

 

[magnifier661]

P.S. I use strawman a lot because its a way to expose something silly. Some don't like it because it really doesn't have much merit. I do it because it gets under your skin.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

An example of "strawman" would be someone saying there is such thing as an atheist Jew; then the other replies "so you can be a Christian Jew too"

Mainly it's a way to argue with someone; using what they say and drastically overreact the response based on that statement.

Another example is hickson is a great defender because he gets 8 defensive rebounds. Everyone knows he's not a good defender; but using it because it says "defensive" somehow supports your claim.

NICE

or I hseen a lot of guys prop up some BS aspect that they can saftly destroy, while avoiding the orrigonal arguement..

 

[magnifier661]

NICE

or I hseen a lot of guys prop up some BS aspect that they can saftly destroy, while avoiding the orrigonal arguement..

Hahaha yeah that's used too!

 

[magnifier661]

 

[Further]

P.S. I use strawman a lot because its a way to expose something silly. Some don't like it because it really doesn't have much merit. I do it because it gets under your skin.

And a big old "fuck you mags" right back at you.

 

[magnifier661]

And a big old "fuck you mags" right back at you.

Haha

 

[crowTrobot]

An example of "strawman" would be someone saying there is such thing as an atheist Jew; then the other replies "so you can be a Christian Jew too"

Mainly it's a way to argue with someone; using what they say and drastically overreact the response based on that statement.

Another example is hickson is a great defender because he gets 8 defensive rebounds. Everyone knows he's not a good defender; but using it because it says "defensive" somehow supports your claim.

this isn't exactly right.

a straw man argument (straw man logical fallacy) is simply misrepresenting your opponents position(s) in order to support your own.

an example would be an atheist saying to Mags that his belief in Christianity must be false because the earth is not 6000 years old.

 

[magnifier661]

this isn't exactly right.

a straw man argument (straw man logical fallacy) is simply misrepresenting your opponents position(s) in order to support your own.

an example would be an atheist saying to Mags that his belief in Christianity must be false because the earth is not 6000 years old.

See sometimes it works!

 

[PapaG]

this isn't exactly right.

a straw man argument (straw man logical fallacy) is simply misrepresenting your opponents position(s) in order to support your own.

an example would be an atheist saying to Mags that his belief in Christianity must be false because the earth is not 6000 years old.

No it's not.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

No it's not.

lets see..this is where I supposed to distract with some childish phrase, like



Link?

 

[ABM]

Early on, this thread is already apparent confirmation that none of us in here can seem to agree on any one given topic.

WAIT! The Blazers!!

Er, wait...................never mind.

 

[magnifier661]

Early on, this thread is already apparent confirmation that none of us in here can seem to agree on any one given topic.

WAIT! The Blazers!!

Er, wait...................never mind.

Well crowtbot likes to disagree with everything I say, so take that for what it's worth

 

[crowTrobot]

No it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[Further]

It's simple, it's setting up an argument to knock down that is different than the original main argument.

Example
Dude 1 has been arguing that Batum is a bad defender
Dude 2 has been arguing that Batum is a good defender
Then dude 1 says: Batum punched a guy in the nuts, that's just someone with bad character. Why would the rest of the blazers wast someone like that on their team.

Dude 1 changed the topic from defense to character because they had an argument for that.

 

[ABM]

Well crowtbot likes to disagree with everything I say, so take that for what it's worth

One wouldn't expect anything less than from one made from Molybdenum.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well crowtbot likes to disagree with everything I say, so take that for what it's worth

that's a straw man : )

 

[crowTrobot]

It's simple, it's setting up an argument to knock down that is different than the original main argument.

Example
Dude 1 has been arguing that Batum is a bad defender
Dude 2 has been arguing that Batum is a good defender
Then dude 1 says: Batum punched a guy in the nuts, that's just someone with bad character. Why would the rest of the blazers wast someone like that on their team.

Dude 1 changed the topic from defense to character because they had an argument for that.

this isn't exactly right either. a straw man is not changing the topic. it is arguing against or otherwise using to your benefit a position that is in reality non-existent.

 

[Further]

this isn't exactly right either. a straw man is not changing the topic. it is arguing against or otherwise using to your benefit a position that is in reality non-existent.

Ok, so set up a simple example

 

[Further]

So it's like dude 2 in my above saying - Batum is not too small to be a good defender, he is actually quite long


When nobody said it was his size inhibiting his defense.

 

[magnifier661]

that's a straw man : )

Not really. It applies to the strawman argument; hence related!

 

[magnifier661]

So it's like dude 2 in my above saying - Batum is not too small to be a good defender, he is actually quite long


When nobody said it was his size inhibiting his defense.

Your strawman example before was perfect. Crowtbot doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[crowTrobot]

Ok, so set up a simple example

an example would be an atheist saying to Mags that his belief in Christianity must be false because the earth is not 6000 years old.

Mags (last he commented) does not believe the earth is 6000 years old. this argument is a straw man - trying to make a point using a position Mags does not actually hold.

 

[crowTrobot]

Your strawman example before was perfect. Crowtbot doesn't know what he's talking about.

read the wiki link

 

[crowTrobot]

So it's like dude 2 in my above saying - Batum is not too small to be a good defender, he is actually quite long


When nobody said it was his size inhibiting his defense.

yes you got it

 

[crowTrobot]

or like Mags (continually) saying the atheists in this forum are all wrong because we can't prove god doesn't exist

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Crowbot is correct on the meaning of Strawman.

 

[Further]

Crowbot is correct on the meaning of Strawman.

No he's not, my cock hooks to the right.

 

[crowTrobot]

One wouldn't expect anything less than from one made from Molybdenum.

this made my day