I am sick of people misusing the term Straw Man in this forum. Here is the definition from Wikipedia:
The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Please keep this in mind the next time you start throwing the term around.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow I am sick of people misusing the term Straw Man in this forum. Please keep this in mind the next time you start throwing the term around.
So you don't think this would apply in the latest "Proving Evolution" thread?
It has actually been bugging me for a while. Your post made me remember and I decided to post a definition. I just wanted people who choose not to read the newest evolution argument to read it as well.
I think the greater challenge is to find an example in an actual human argument where the strawman has not been used by either and probably both sides.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul I think the greater challenge is to find an example in an actual human argument where the strawman has not been used by either and probably both sides.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Poor old strawman, taking it from both sides.
How about an argument then?
All you would have to do is argue normally. I have yet to see an argument in which either side actually looked at their opponents argument clearly. A more interesting exercise would be to practice arguing without a strawman. Of course, as perspective is always skewed, how do you know when you are not using a strawman?
Originally posted by thesonofsaul A more interesting exercise would be to practice arguing without a strawman. Of course, as perspective is always skewed, how do you know when you are not using a strawman?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Considering the venue, it would have to be something spiritual.
OK, I'll argue that the concept of spirituality is meaningless in modern society. What do you say?
To keep it fair, I will have to argue the contrary, that is, that spirituality is not meaningless in today's society. I'm afraid that you have the harder side, for you have to prove complete absense while I just have to find one example to contradict.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Considering the venue, it would have to be something spiritual.
OK, I'll argue that the concept of spirituality is meaningless in modern society. What do you say?
OK, I'll argue that the concept of spirituality is meaningless in modern society. What do you say?
Dam good! How broadly, however, are you defining "spirituality?" Are you including non-theistic expressions such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism or the "monistic" expressions of religions that are ususally theistic--such as the Sufis in Islam, or the Kabbalists and hasidim in Judaism, or the likes of Meister Eckhart in Christianity?
Originally posted by thesonofsaul To keep it fair, I will have to argue the contrary, that is, that spirituality is not meaningless in today's society. I'm afraid that you have the harder side, for you have to prove complete absense while I just have to find one example to contradict.
Well, I'm more interested in the process than the outcome--and if I find myself losing I shall undoubtedly be tempted to bring the straw man out of his box--if only to see what he looks like.
I shall mull it over and open the argument tomorrow.
Vistesd--good point, terms have to be defined. As referee, you get to define what spirituality means in this argument.
Originally posted by vistesd [b]OK, I'll argue that the concept of spirituality is meaningless in modern society. What do you say?
Dam good! How broadly, however, are you defining "spirituality?" Are you including non-theistic expressions such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism or the "monistic" expressions of religions that are ususally theistic--such as the Sufis in Islam, ...[text shortened]... or the likes of Meister Eckhart in Christianity?
Dam, Bosse, see how easily I am "hooked?"[/b]
I was just about to ask the same thing. How, for the sake of the argument, is "spirituality" defined?
Straw Man argument
13 Oct '05 15:061 edit
Back to Top