Should the phrase "Strawman Argument" be banned

I Heart Internet

Should the phrase "Strawman Argument" be banned from AH?

It's very annoying and overused.

on the river

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Should the phrase "Strawman Argument" be banned from AH?

It's very annoying and overused.

what do you think ?

cherryghost

on the river wrote: »

what do you think ?

He told us?

donvito99

I have never seen the use of that phrase until now OP.

Was one of your arguments straw based?

osarusan

Strawman arguments should be banned. Nothing more annoying than somebody building strawman arguments.

anncoates

Sometimes it's better just to debate with people you don't agree with, rather than slowly try and prohibit every thing that they might say.

kneemos

cherryghost wrote: »

He told us?

She?

on the river

osarusan wrote: »

Strawman arguments should be banned. Nothing more annoying than somebody building strawman arguments.

agree very frustrating on the ordinary user.

Alf. A. Male

The phrase can be banned when people stop making Strawman arguments.

Slicemeister

Ask Aunt Sally, she'll know best.

Jonny Blaze

What about wicker man arguments?

They're much stronger than strawman arguments.

calanus

I notice that a lot of the time someone will say that you are building a "strawman argument" without any idea about what such a statement means.

Alf. A. Male

Jonny Blaze wrote: »

What about wicker man arguments?

They end up going down in flames.

I Heart Internet

on the river wrote: »

what do you think ?

For the record, I think it should be banned.

(But in a tongue-in-cheek way 'cos you can't ban people from saying stuff)

Chips Lovell

It wouldn't be used so much if so many people didn't employ strawman arguments in the first place.

What do you want people to say instead?

Your argument is fallacious because it willfully or ignorantly misrepresents the point you are responding to.

I think it's easier to just say "strawman" myself...

I Heart Internet

kneemos wrote: »

She?

He

Dravokivich

No. Last time this came up with "Thinly veiled," everyone was pressing to use it as much as they could. Resulting in it coming up a lot more. If you don't like the way someone puts their post together, just gloss over'em. The less attention paid to it, the better really.

If you're sick of people directing it to you, try to keep on topic more. :P

bumper234

Should always use bricks imo, Sure if we learned nothing else from the 3 little piggies its building **** out of straw is always a bad idea.

kneemos

I Heart Internet wrote: »

He

Aw.

snausages

anncoates wrote: »

Sometimes it's better just to debate with people you don't agree with, rather than slowly try and prohibit every thing that they might say.

Such a strawman, sure the OP isn't asking to actively censor all types of speech like you suggest. :rolleyes: :pac:

I Heart Internet

Dravokivich wrote: »

No. Last time this came up with "Thinly veiled," everyone was pressing to use it as much as they could. Resulting in it coming up a lot more. If you don't like the way someone puts their post together, just gloss over'em. The less attention paid to it, the better really.

If you're sick of people directing it to you, try to keep on topic more. :P

But don't you want to save whales and dolphins from being cruelly persecuted Dravokivich?

I really can't fathom people like you!!!

Karl Stein

You just want to silence everyone who disagrees with you don't you?

Alf. A. Male

Karl Stein wrote: »

You just want to silence everyone who disagrees with you don't you?

Thinly veiled Strawman argument. Racist.

jimgoose

I suggest Wicker-Man argument instead. This is where your argument is logically "burned" by a load of pitchfork-wielding yokels going Oooooh-Arrrrrrhh!!

Collie D

I don't even have a clue what strawman means.

K-9

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But don't you want to save whales and dolphins from being cruelly persecuted Dravokivich?

I really can't fathom people like you!!!

He's a bit like Hitler that way.

beauf

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Should the phrase "Strawman Argument" be banned from AH?

It's very annoying and overused.

Why would it be annoying unless you keep using those kind of arguments.

Guy:Incognito

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It wouldn't be used so much if so many people didn't employ strawman arguments in the first place.

What do you want people to say instead?



I think it's easier to just say "strawman" myself...

Half the time is doesn't fit the meaning. Only thing worse than trying to be smart by countering a long post by quoting and just throwing strawman at the poster is doing it when the post doesn't fit the meaning.

Warper

What does it mean ?

jimgoose

Warper wrote: »

What does it mean ?

Arguing with someone's position by presenting them with a distorted, misrepresented version of their position and letting them attack it. It's not entirely dissimilar to a fighter jet throwing chaff to lose a missile.

In AH it usually means "I disagree with you and want to sound all intelligent and shít".

I Heart Internet

beauf wrote: »

Why would it be annoying unless you keep using those kind of arguments.

That's a very immature attitude beauf.

I Heart Internet

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Half the time is doesn't fit the meaning. Only thing worse than trying to be smart by countering a long post by quoting and just throwing strawman at the poster is doing it when the post doesn't fit the meaning.

That's the key thing. It's waved around like snuff at a wake.

It may well be warranted in many cases (even, dare I say it, for me) but people use it for the craic or to counter a reasonable point too.

osarusan

Warper wrote: »

What does it mean ?

Here's an example from a recent thread (I am paraphrasing):

A: I think primary school teachers should need to have passed higher level maths in the leaving cert to be allowed to teach.

B: But the stuff in ordinary level leaving cert maths is more advanced than what is taught in primary school anyway. They don't need higher level maths.

A: So you are ok with primary school maths teachers who don't really understand maths?

3rd line of the dialogue is a typical strawman - take an argument and deliberately distort it into something easier to attack.

Paddy Cow

The one that gets on my goat is "playing devil's advocate here", which translate's as "I don't actually believe this put I'll argue this just for the sake of argument". Why argue a point that you don't actually believe? I like discussing things but if you are the type of person to argue just for the sake of it, then I'm not going to take you seriously when you do try and argue something you believe in.

I Heart Internet

osarusan wrote: »

A: I think primary school teachers should need to have passed higher level maths to be allowed to teach.

B: But the stuff in OL maths is more advanced than what is taught in primary school anyway. They don't need higher level maths.

A: So you are ok with primary school maths teachers who don't really understand maths?



3rd line of the dialogue is a typical strawman - take an argument and deliberately distort it into something easier to attack.

That argument looks familiar...

Key point here is that (as you say) you were paraphrasing. One man's "Strawman Argument" is another man's "you just chose to misunderstand me like that". Circular arguments...straw everywhere.

jimgoose

Paddy Cow wrote: »

..."playing devil's advocate here"...

== "I'm a prick!"

I Heart Internet

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The one that gets on my goat is "playing devil's advocate here", which translate's as "I don't actually believe this put I'll argue this just for the sake of argument". Why argue a point that you don't actually believe? I like discussing things but if you are the type of person to argue just for the sake of it, then I'm not going to take you seriously when you do try and argue something you believe in.

The notion of devel's advocate makes sense. It's akin to saying - "well let's look at this from another point of view for a second."

kneemos

osarusan wrote: »

Here's an example from a recent thread (I am paraphrasing):




3rd line of the dialogue is a typical strawman - take an argument and deliberately distort it into something easier to attack.

Sounds like a politician.

beauf

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's a very immature attitude beauf.

How so?

You never really explained why you find it annoying. So you should clarify your position. I'm not in AH much, but in other forums it generally a certain style of posting that attracts such claims. No smoke without fire. Even if its not actually a SM it usually a variation of it, miss-quoting, selective quoting that attracts such comments. In my mind its a form of very thinly disguised baiting.

Either way that kind of posting, and the comments it attracts generally derail a thread. Its a habitual too. You'll see the same poster doing it over and over.

Dravokivich

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The one that gets on my goat is "playing devil's advocate here", which translate's as "I don't actually believe this put I'll argue this just for the sake of argument". Why argue a point that you don't actually believe? I like discussing things but if you are the type of person to argue just for the sake of it, then I'm not going to take you seriously when you do try and argue something you believe in.

Because if people just kept repeating and agreeing to the same thing, few people will actually think twice about it.

Maximus Alexander

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Should the phrase "Strawman Argument" be banned from AH?

It's very annoying and overused.

So you're saying that any phrase that is used with any regularity should be banned on Boards.ie. That's a ridiculous proposition and would stifle discussion completely, the place would become a wasteland.

I Heart Internet

beauf wrote: »

How so?

You never really explained why you find it annoying. So you should clarify your position. I'm not in AH much, but in other forums it generally a certain style of posting that attracts such claims. No smoke without fire. Even if its not actually a SM it usually a variation of it, miss-quoting, selective quoting that attracts such comments. In my mind its a form of very thinly disguised baiting.

Either way that kind of posting, and the comments it attracts generally derail a thread. Its a habitual too. You'll see the same poster doing it over and over.

Sorry beauf - i was just joking with you re immaturity!

I just think the phrase is overused - even when it is relevant. And it is somethimes used where it is completely irrelevant. Plus it's very subjective. One poster's valid and clear point of logic is another man's "Strawman".....sometimes.

beauf

Devil's advocate has to be accurate to be valid.

Strawman is a misinterpretation.

Key difference.

I Heart Internet

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

So you're saying that any phrase that is used with any regularity should be banned on Boards.ie. That's a ridiculous proposition and would stifle discussion completely, the place would become a wasteland.

No. Just "Strawman". The other phrases are fine.

beauf

NP.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I just think the phrase is overused - even when it is relevant. And it is somethimes used where it is completely irrelevant. Plus it's very subjective. One poster's valid and clear point of logic is another man's "Strawman".....sometimes.

That seems to be the objective of a Strawman is to confuse and confiscate the thread/debate.

Which makes it hard to moderate I assume.

Maximus Alexander

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Just "Strawman". The other phrases are fine.

Sometimes my wit is so advanced that people actually think I'm stupid.

I Heart Internet

beauf wrote: »

Devil's advocate has to be accurate to be valid.

Strawman is a misinterpretation.

Key difference.

Many will be aware fo the origins of the term, but for those that aren't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

Interesting (now retired) role within the "saintmaking process" of the catholic church.

I Heart Internet

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sometimes my wit is so advanced that people actually think I'm stupid.

Hahahahahaha - you got me!

Confusing!! Who says what they mean, who means what they say!?

beauf

Correcting someone incorrect use of a Strawman claim is bit grammar fascist no?

Its usually a sign that the thread has been derailed.

Akrasia

calanus wrote: »

I notice that a lot of the time someone will say that you are building a "strawman argument" without any idea about what such a statement means.

Occams razor means you're wrong.

Just cause, ya know, Occams razor

Paddy Cow

Dravokivich wrote: »

Because if people just kept repeating and agreeing to the same thing, few people will actually think twice about it.

I agree and discussion between people who have different views is interesting, challenging and sometimes makes you question your own views.

It's hard to take someone seriously though who argues an opposing side just for the sake of it. It means that no matter what you say, they will continue to argue with you no matter how valid your opinion. I end up ignoring these people because it reduces their input into a discussion to that of a child who keeps asking "buy why" every time you give an answer.