The Strawman Fallacy: See video below. Lets talk about this... At what point is this truly a fallacy? Lets first remove the portion when the opposition is simply misunderstanding the initial information presented to them. If one side or the other cannot appropriately represent themselves or understand the basic concepts brought to the table, they have no business debating. And if its a simple misunderstanding than that can be simply corrected. Now when this is done intentionally. If you cannot rebuke a bullet point as a whole and need to use some part of partial truth system to do so then I think this is indeed a fallacy, because you are not rebuking what has been presented before you. And in turn makes your own argument look week. Now what if you simply apply the same logic to other subject matter? Is this really a fallacy if it reaches a point of absurdity? You need to identify what part of the argument makes it absurd. Does it become absurd because the substitute subjects are apples to the original subject oranges? Or is it simply absurd because no one in their right mind would consider that acceptable logic? Now of course when you discredit by switching your pears for pineapples in an argument youre no longer validated again. But if you can manage to equally and fairly represent the same logic and the concept itself is absurd there is a good chance your logic was absurd to begin with and perhaps you need to reevaluate your position. What do you think?
Posted on: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:44:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015