History Main / StrawmanFallacy

13th Jul '17 6:13:57 PM TheAmazingBlachman
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Steelmanning, where the ''strongest'' possible interpretation of an argument or position is rebutted, even if it is not necessarily the position the opponent actually presented.

to:

* Steelmanning, where the ''strongest'' (hence the use of the word "steel"; i.e. an armorplated straw man) possible interpretation of an argument or position is rebutted, even if it is not necessarily the position the opponent actually presented.
presented.

!!!Converse:

* Ironmanning, where one's own or another's position is intentionally misrepresented, to make it appear that one's arguments are stronger than they actually are in order to more easily defend a position, or to make it appear that one's critics are unfair or shrill.
18th Jun '17 11:18:07 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


:: Bob has successfully sidetracked Alice from the cost of health insurance to the necessity of many medical tests.

to:

:: Bob has successfully sidetracked Alice from the cost of health insurance to the necessity of many medical tests.
tests. This is often done subtly by altering the meaning of one of the terms used in the original argument, to rebut what appears to be the same argument but is actually a totally different one.
8th Jun '17 9:57:40 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* ''Reductio ad absurdum'' ("reduction to the absurd"), a legitimate debating technique where it is demonstrated that a natural conclusion of an un-distorted version of the opposing argument is bizarre or absurd.
24th Feb '17 11:29:30 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


:: In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is; Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.

to:

:: In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is; Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: original; if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.
24th Feb '17 11:29:01 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


:: In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.

to:

:: In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: is; Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.
24th Feb '17 11:28:39 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


::In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.

to:

::In :: In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.
24th Feb '17 11:24:39 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.

to:

In ::In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.
24th Feb '17 11:24:12 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!!Suppressed Correlative (aka Lost Constrast)

to:

!!!Suppressed Correlative (aka Lost Constrast)
Contrast)
24th Feb '17 11:23:50 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!!Reverse No True Scotsman
* Sometimes this takes the form of a sort of reverse NoTrueScotsman:

-->"Christians hate <insert group>!"
-->"I'm Christian, and I don't hate <group>."
-->"Then you aren't a REAL Christian."


Added DiffLines:

!!!Suppressed Correlative (aka Lost Constrast)

* A special type of Strawman, this occurs when a debater is arguing using a correlative (a statement that "all things are either A or not A") and their opponent attempts to redefine A such that all things that were previously excluded are now included.

--> '''Alice''': Well, I say art is a word that refers to something that displays superior craftsmanship, and so this unmade bed isn't art, as anyone could make it.
--> '''Bob''': I define "art" to refer to any form of human expression, and so the unmade bed ''is'' art.

In this extended form it should be clear what the problem is: Bob is addressing a claim Alice obviously never made (that the unmade bed was not a form of human expression) and therefore using a distorted version of her position to rebut her. This is true even if the Suppressed Correlative uses the word in a ''more technically correct way'' than the original: if you know your opponent is using a word incorrectly, it follows you know what they intended it to say and should rebut ''that'' argument.
24th Feb '17 12:49:47 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This can include when the representation is insulting or crude, but accurate. That can be a form of AdHominem or satire.

to:

** This can include when the representation is insulting or crude, but accurate. That can be a form of AdHominem or satire.
accurate.
This list shows the last 10 events of 26. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.StrawmanFallacy