- 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.
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.