WR Exercise: Steel man a fellow WR poster

Lead

/Led/ blanket
Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
45,532
Reaction score
12,381
Not sure if this will work but it's worth a try.

I'm sure many of you have either been victim or guilty of using a straw man argument in the past, whether in the WR or elsewhere. For definition:
'a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.""

Tag a WR poster and steel man their political point of view / ideology (whether on a specific topic or just their general frame of thinking approaching any issues) and see if they agree with your post. You aren't necessarily agreeing with the viewpoint but are presenting it in a manner that the poster themselves would agree matches their viewpoint. The hope of this exercise would be to learn more about the poster than you originally had assumed/ignored and possibly give you more insight in the next thread you engage them in. Vice versa, a poster being steel manned will also have to consider what their core beliefs are in they really align with what the other poster said.

For those who really don't see value in certain posters they disagree with, see this as a challenge for yourself rather than appeasing the other poster and possibly a jumping off point for debating their core beliefs as they currently have framed them.


 
Not sure if this will work but it's worth a try.

I'm sure many of you have either been victim or guilty of using a straw man argument in the past, whether in the WR or elsewhere. For definition:
'a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.""

Tag a WR poster and steel man their political point of view / ideology (whether on a specific topic or just their general frame of thinking approaching any issues) and see if they agree with your post. You aren't necessarily agreeing with the viewpoint but are presenting it in a manner that the poster themselves would agree matches their viewpoint. The hope of this exercise would be to learn more about the poster than you originally had assumed/ignored and possibly give you more insight in the next thread you engage them in. Vice versa, a poster being steel manned will also have to consider what their core beliefs are in they really align with what the other poster said.

For those who really don't see value in certain posters they disagree with, see this as a challenge for yourself rather than appeasing the other poster and possibly a jumping off point for debating their core beliefs as they currently have framed them.

Give us an example boss man.
 
I'm not going to try cause I'm drinking.

It's the opposite of a strawman. Presenting an argument of your opponent in a manner they would agree with rather than a strawman that they wouldn't even agree that's their own view.

So this is basically a permission to troll thread lol. I get what you are saying though.
 
Too wide a target. I would have to write a novel for even a low info poster.

I like this idea, but I think it has to be more pointed.

Maybe ask for another posters position on a single issue.

I will give that a shot here in a few minutes.
 
@Madmick

I think your view on foreign policy is dog eat dog. That not only do you think Kissinger is right, but you have no moral quandry with it. That basically might means right in it's simplest terms.
 
I feel this thread is going to be smarter posters making the case for the idiots. These points will later be used by the idiots to argue for their side.
 
I'm not smart enough to understand this. I need to see someone else do it first.
 
@TheComebackKid

We shouldn't allow the globalist and the elites to continue to sacrifice babies and feed them to demons. Babies are high in calories and will make Ba'al fat.

@Soul Crusher

Too much diversity is bad because ethnic girls have larger butts which make men more promiscuous and sex outside of marriage is a sin.

887.png


@Cint

Obama is evil because he is black and Michelle is a tranny.
 
Last edited:
It's a very unfortunate euphemism that has been popularized mainly as a consequence of Sam Harris' subconscious desire to have his wife impregnated by more masculine men.
 
51OrrZRXTvL._SY445_.jpg


I believe this guy's view is that he might get accused of rape if he bangs a groupie.
 
@waiguoren
Various members of Trump's campaign/cabinet being charged with -and pleading guilty to- a whole host of crimes is actually good for his Presidency in that it somehow defeats the notion of "muh collusion"
 
So this is basically a permission to troll thread lol. I get what you are saying though.

Yea, I had the potential to go south fast and probably already has. I picked the right night to drink and post it.

I feel this thread is going to be smarter posters making the case for the idiots. These points will later be used by the idiots to argue for their side.

I tried to make a disclaimer at the bottom for posters thinking that to see the challenge in trying to understand those posters and doing so might help them sway their opinions in the future. I get it seems risky to do but you aren't agreeing with someone just by presenting their ideas. By avoiding the hopes of swaying anyone's opinion in this place (or even our own) I feel like we miss the point entirely of coming here.
 
Back
Top