Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Strawman Arguments

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Part of a series on logic.

==OBVIOUS EXPOSURE==
Find the problems in the refutations below:

A: Abortion shouldn't be legal because it kills a living human being.

B: My opponent is trying to argue that abortion is murder, but abortion isn't murder because fetuses don't have heart beats.

A: A fetus is only different from a baby in that it lives outside, not inside, the mother. Everything else is the same, and yet killing a baby is unlawful.

B: Fetuses and babies aren't the same! For several months, fetuses don't even have a beating heart.

==Lesson==
Strawmanning takes someone else's arguments, molds them into a more favorable shape for counter argument, and destroys this new structure. The problem is that the original arguments weren't refuted. Instead, a "straw man" was set up and torn apart.

Strawman Arguments are a type of casual fallacy.

==Formal Outline==
PRO
1. If A then B.
2. A.
3. Therefore B.
Resolution Affirmed
--
CON
1. Not C.
2. Therefore my opponent is incorrect.
Resoluton Negated.

==Your turn==
Doing something wrong intentionally helps you realize when you're doing it wrong unintentionally.

Straw-man the following argument:
Staying in power should not be the goal of government action. Even if manufacturing an external evil kept a government in control, is the government in control worth having? It is corrupt in that it has deliberately falsified information. It is abusive in that it has used unnecessary violence. It has become destructive to its own purpose, to protect individual rights. Such a government is best overthrown and replaced with a more righteous one.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 4:41:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't follow the example that wj provides. The refutation offered argues what constitutes a "human being." Whether or not a beating heart defines a human being is arguable, but it isn't a strawman.

An example of a strawman argument in the current news the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque. Obama asserted that religious freedom provides the right to build the mosque. Opponents, however, grant that there is a right to build the mosque, but that doing so would be unwise. Supporters repeat that the right exists, bt do not respond to whether it is wise. Supporters are using the strawman that there is nothing at issue but the right.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 4:47:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I suggest you post this topic in an active forum, like debate.org, misc, or politics, not education.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:48:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 8:41:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
==OBVIOUS EXPOSURE==
Find the problems in the refutations below:

A: Abortion shouldn't be legal because it kills a living human being.

B: My opponent is trying to argue that abortion is murder, but abortion isn't murder because fetuses don't have heart beats.

Assumes that only those with heart beats can be murdered.

A: A fetus is only different from a baby in that it lives outside, not inside, the mother. Everything else is the same, and yet killing a baby is unlawful.

B: Fetuses and babies aren't the same! For several months, fetuses don't even have a beating heart.

Ignores the fact that for some months, they ARE the same. A is probably talking about Late-Term Abortion when making that argument.