Should pointing out strawman arguments be banned/regulated?

Bottle_of_Smoke

I've seen a good few posts where a user claims another is using a strawman argument.

Often they're not strawman arguments, its very annoying.

Should people be banned for claiming an argument is a strawman if in fact it turns out it was not a strawman argument?

LoLth

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've seen a good few posts where a user claims another is using a strawman argument.

Often they're not strawman arguments, its very annoying.

Should people be banned for claiming an argument is a strawman if in fact it turns out it was not a strawman argument?

no, but they should be asked to support the claim that X argument is classed as such. This would, hopefully , lead to a more in depth discussion and save the electrons that would be needlessly sacrificed in a DRP thread

bonkey

Generally speaking, banning people for making a bad argument is not a good approach to take.

Wolfe Tone

bonkey wrote: »

Generally speaking, banning people for making a bad argument is not a good approach to take.

My response to this point is to say it is a strawman, thus we can all now disregard what you just said.

My name is URL

Imo, if the argument is not a fallacy then the notion that it is should be challenged (and vice versa). At the end of the day the argument is not won by those pointing out fallacies, it's lost by those who accept them.

Dudess

Yeah, that's true - sometimes when people use the line "You're using a strawman" its translation is: "Your point is decent and well thought out... and I am unable to argue back with you."

GuanYin

As a moderator in a forum where it's commonly used, I can say I ignore it completely.

Makes no difference to the outcome of the debate. The point is that other posters should be able to judge the merit of someones argument and respond accordingly.

AckwelFoley

I dont know what a "strawman agrument" is.

Having researched it, i believe it means to refute an opinion that was never made giving the illusion it was a valid point of view or arguement.

Trying to ban something like that is a nonsence. You can create rules to control a mischievous debating tactic, one that can easily be quashed

bonkey

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

My response to this point is to say it is a strawman, thus we can all now disregard what you just said.

I could argue that you're wrong, and that you are showing either a lack of understanding or willful misrepresentation of my point or of what a strawman is.

I could argue that even if you're right, its somewhat counterproductive to decide that you can simply disregard an admin's position when it comes to arguing what site-wide rules should be created or enforced...but would accept that its your perogative to act as counterproductively as you like.

I could challenge you to show why it was a strawman, leading to a discussion or your refusal to engage in one, either of which would suit me fine.

What I wouldn't do is ban you (or suggest banning you) for making that comment just because I think you're wrong and lts lazy.

Wolfe Tone

bonkey wrote: »

I could argue that you're wrong, and that you are showing either a lack of understanding or willful misrepresentation of my point or of what a strawman is.

I could argue that even if you're right, its somewhat counterproductive to decide that you can simply disregard an admin's position when it comes to arguing what site-wide rules should be created or enforced...but would accept that its your perogative to act as counterproductively as you like.

I could challenge you to show why it was a strawman, leading to a discussion or your refusal to engage in one, either of which would suit me fine.

What I wouldn't do is ban you (or suggest banning you) for making that comment just because I think you're wrong and lts lazy.

I think you missed the point, I was giving an example of what goes on, wasnt really directed at you personally.

bonkey

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think you missed the point, I was giving an example of what goes on, wasnt really directed at you personally.

No...I didn't miss the point...but its possible that you missed mine.

Lets consider two possibilities :

1) I'm trying to "win" an argument...show that my argument is the right one.
2) I'm interested in discussion...I don't really care who's right and wrong, but rather wish to have different perspectives offered for consideration.

In the former case, I can use the allegation to further my position and weaken that of the person making the allegation. I don't have to insult them personally, nor get outraged, but can simply use their claim as an opening to show they either don't know what they're talking about or are (as you've just admitted) wilfully misrepresenting things to further their own aims. Either which way, I can turn it to my ends without much effort.

In the latter case, I can use the allegation to try and get someone to open a line of discussion. If they genuinely believe I'm strawmanning, it may be because they interpret what I'm saying differently to how I intend it...or see the entire situation differently. A suitable response opens the door to continuing that discussion. If they don't want to discuss, then fine...but if they do, then it would be foolish of me to close that door, no?

So like I said...I got your point.

I was, in fact, waiting for the inevitable...someone was bound to do what you did, even if it wasn't in response to my post. I intended to respond to this in a manner to illustrate why I hold the position I do.

One one hand, that position may be clear and logical to many (including, I suspect, yourself). On the other hand, its presumably not[/] clear to the OP, and therefore not clear to an indeterminate number of potential readers. That's why I felt it was worth making.

Treat poor arguments as an opportunity and the problem effectively solves itself. This is helped by considering that you're generally not trying to persuade whoever it is you're disagreeing on-thread with....but rather anyone else who happens to be reading the exchange.

looksee

Thanks to this thread I now know what a strawman argument is, which is interesting, I also have discovered that it can be a verb - to strawman!

Boards.ie, educating the masses!

Bottle_of_Smoke

bonkey wrote: »

Generally speaking, banning people for making a bad argument is not a good approach to take.

Generally yes, but I think this is a unique case. The problem with it is ''Strawman'' doesn't get used much in the real world. So when its said in a thread it looks a bit clever at first and you basically have to go into an off topic detailed explanation of why what you said is not a strawman.

Also even if one's statement iss qualified, and one says something like ''well if X kind of logic was used, one could justify Y''

You then get an accusation of a strawman, even though you weren't saying the person supported Y. Just that they perhaps overlooked ramifications. What Dudess said perfectly sums up my frustration with its mis-use.

bonkey

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Generally yes, but I think this is a unique case.

To an extent. Ban it, and it'll be replaced by some other logical fallacy or catchphrase.

The problem with it is ''Strawman'' doesn't get used much in the real world. So when its said in a thread it looks a bit clever at first and you basically have to go into an off topic detailed explanation of why what you said is not a strawman.

I would disagree that you have to do any such thing.

To someone reading who understands what a strawman is, it shouldn't require much at all to establish that you're not strawmanning.
To someone reading who doesn't understand what it is, they won't understand what the alleged flaw in your argument is, so aren't likely to follow whether or not your response refutes that, no matter how much detail you go in to.

Also, I'm not sure how it could ever be off-topic to explain how your point is relevant to the topic at hand.

What Dudess said perfectly sums up my frustration with its mis-use.

I can understand the frustration...I just think that its something people need to learn to "work around" rather then call in the cavalry for. As I tried to show earlier, bad arguments are the easiest ones to turn to your own advantage...which is ultimately the key to making them less frustrating.

All that said...if an individual was being disruptive by constantly engaging in a tactic of accusing people of using strawmans and then getting into some sort of Punch-and-Judy whilst refusing to discuss the topic.....then they're arguably a problem to be dealt with.

strobe

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've seen a good few posts where a user claims another is using a strawman argument.

Often they're not strawman arguments, its very annoying.

Should people be banned for claiming an argument is a strawman if in fact it turns out it was not a strawman argument?

Great.......so you think we should ban any argument anyone makes that you don't agree with. Horrible idea.

Dudess

Yeah, it's one of those easily trotted-out cat calls with little to no thinking behind it, or a lack of understanding of what it actually means, like "PC brigade" or "feminist brigade" but I think policing of words that don't breach the charter would be too extreme, not to mention difficult.

Bottle_of_Smoke

strobe wrote: »

Great.......so you think we should ban any argument anyone makes that you don't agree with. Horrible idea.

Is this a trap?

Jumpy

strobe wrote: »

Great.......so you think we should ban any argument anyone makes that you don't agree with. Horrible idea.

*points* STRAWWWMAAAANNNN




git 'im lads

stovelid

I sometimes wonder if people are more worried about what is good for the site and all its users or just about eradicating minor discursive irritants from the forums that enjoy arguing in most. It feels like people are trying to continue their actual per-forum gripes on the second front of Feedback.