Straw man arguments and you.

[Jack DeBear]

I've noticed this type of argument being used almost constantly on these forums. This is concerning to me as straw man arguments interrupt constructive discourse and debate. I get the feeling that a lot of the people using them don't know that its even a thing, so I'm posting a link to this lovely education video by PBS's Idea Channel. Maybe we'll see fewer straw man arguments on the board, or maybe people will be able to call them out more when they see it.

All for the goal of productive constructive discourse between conflicting views of course.

Oh, so what you’re saying is we can’t even have discussion unless it’s how you want it to be done?

I hope those big grins are there to illustrate that you are literally making a straw man in your post.

That's not a straw man; that's active listening. It's an example of LANDM paraphrasing what they thought your were saying framed as a question so you have an opportunity to confirm the assumption or deny it and repeat or rephrase your original statement. It helps towards clearing up any misunderstandings.

[Jack DeBear]

There are plenty of examples of active listening in this interview by the much maligned Cathy Newman.

[CapitalB]

Its not. Also she agreed that it was a straw man made in satire (which flew over my head).

Active listening would be rephrasing what I said more simply not hyperbolizing it into a false black and white dichotomy.

[StraitTalk]

This thread had played out exactly as I hoped it would.

[Jack DeBear]

Its not. Also she agreed that it was a straw man made in satire (which flew over my head).

Active listening would be rephrasing what I said more simply not hyperbolizing it into a false black and white dichotomy.

First, who is 'she?' What is 'it?' And a reference to 'her' agreement please.

[LANDM]

This thread had played out exactly as I hoped it would.

Yeah, you really hoped that people would be killing each other here.




Nooooo, I can’t stop...

[rustled]

IMO, people are generally more interested in debate than discussion.

In one, the goal is to further understanding, and it is unnecessary to take sides although that does sometimes happen.

Most often here, though, it's about debate, which does require taking a side and trying to make a case for it, because it's more about winning and losing than it is about furthering our collective understanding. So it becomes about "arguing effectively" instead of about truly trying to understand others' viewpoints. (And being open to the possibility there may be nothing to argue about, because we all want best outcomes in the end.)

Deep thoughts ruining what's been a fun and interesting thread.
K. I'm outta here,

[Jack DeBear]