History Main / StrawmanFallacy

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.
24th Feb '17 12:49:01 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* PoesLaw is a claim that a group is actually so extreme, it is impossible to make a strawman of them.

to:

* PoesLaw Steelmanning, where the ''strongest'' possible interpretation of an argument or position is a claim that a group rebutted, even if it is not necessarily the position the opponent actually so extreme, it is impossible to make a strawman of them.
presented.
27th Nov '16 1:25:12 AM M3
Is there an issue? Send a Message


For examples see TheWarOnStraw. Beloved of {{Author Tract}}s the world over. The StrawMisogynist and the StrawFeminist both use this technique subtly (although the latter applies much more than the former).

to:

For examples see TheWarOnStraw. Beloved of {{Author Tract}}s the world over. The StrawMisogynist and the StrawFeminist both use this technique subtly (although the latter applies much more than the former).
subtly.
12th Oct '16 7:19:22 AM chc232323
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** This can include when the representation is insulting or crude, but accurate. That can be a form of AdHominem or satire.
This list shows the last 10 events of 23. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.StrawmanFallacy