Misuse of the Strawman Fallacy?

[SVPD]

Has anyone ever encountered the problem of debating someone where every time you poke holes in their position it's mysteriously a strawman?

I've had it happen a few ways

1. The unexplained strawman

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "Sometimes, but if parents don't take an interest, that will also be bad for education"
Them: "Strawman" (i.e. no explaination of why, just it's a strawman)

2. The "I didn't say it so it's a strawman even if it follows from my argument"

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "Sometimes, but if parents don't take an interest, that will also be bad for education"
Them: "Strawman. I didn't argue that it wasn't the fault of parents."

(no, but you did say it's the fault of teachers, without qualification. Therefore, one cannot assume you are recognizing problems with parents.)

3. The "You didn't repeat my argument verbatim" strawman

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "How do you come by the idea that it's the fault of teachers?"
Them: "I didn't say it was their fault, you're making a strawman"

4. The "You asked a question so I'll pretend it's a strawman to avoid answering

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "Are you saying parents have no fault?"
Them: "strawman, I didn't say that"
(no shit, that's why I'm asking. I've seen people try to say this is something called "approaching a strawman" too)

5. The "I'll hide part of my argument, then call your attack on what I said a strawman when I reveal the rest"

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "There's lots of problems with parents not taking an interest too"
Them: "You're making a strawman. I also think it's because of bad parenting"
Me : "You didn't say that"

[Darth Servo]

Has anyone ever encountered the problem of debating someone where every time you poke holes in their position it's mysteriously a strawman?

Every read anything by the Rabid Stupid Asshole?

But seriously, its not just the strawman. Inexperienced and/or illogical debators in my experience throw around all kinds of fallacy names when they don't apply at all. Its often when I've torn apart the logical fallacies in their arguments and they just parrot the words without really taking the time to understand what they mean.

[Justforfun000]

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "Sometimes, but if parents don't take an interest, that will also be bad for education"
Them: "Strawman" (i.e. no explaination of why, just it's a strawman)

What a nerve! They say a ridiculously broad statement that declares ALL problems with public education are the fault of teachers, and then when you give an example of more variables that skew their simplistic statement, they accuse you of strawmanning? First of all they don't even know the meaning of the word. You didn't strawman a damn thing they said and in fact it'd be pretty fucking hard to do since their original point sounds like a PERFECT example of a self professed strawman. It was so broadly vague and non-specific.

In any event, since you didn't try to make a grossly distorted caricature of their point and knock it down, you did not strawman a damn thing. You couldn't really distort it any further than what they said anyway! lol. All you did was bring in other factors that demand a more comprehensive look at the issue since they ignored parents as being a potential influence.

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "Sometimes, but if parents don't take an interest, that will also be bad for education"
Them: "Strawman. I didn't argue that it wasn't the fault of parents."

They are still wrong. Bringing in other variables as meaningful points in an argument does not in any way strawman their point. You would have to deliberately distort what they said into a more grossly caricatured and absurd statement that you smash down. These people are a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Send them a link to logical fallacies and tell them to bone up a bit before they use them.

Them: "Problems with public education in this country are the fault of teachers not doing their job"
Me: "How do you come by the idea that it's the fault of teachers?"
Them: "I didn't say it was their fault, you're making a strawman"

Jesus! They are getting worse! You simply asked them what led them to believe their statement is true. How the fuck can that be a strawman? You asked for an explanation of their exact words! Idiots.

[Darth Wong]

I've gotten the same thing when I say "if we subscribe to this logic, then A" and they immediately respond with "I never said A". But they did state an argument which relies upon logic that would lead to A, so crowing that they never actually said A is a distortion. That in my experience is the most common misuse of the Strawman Fallacy accusation. If there was some flaw in the logic through which I interpreted their argument to lead to A then they should point it out, but simply declaring that they never actually said A is bullshit.

Also, I like it when they say something but in a really positive way, and you simply re-phrase the same idea in a really negative way, and they interpret that as a strawman too.

[Justforfun000]

Yes, as a matter of fact two nights ago I was having a debate with two friends that are basically closet Solipsists. One is very anti-religion and thankfully doesn't go down that road in the normal sense, but he is partial to Buddhism, and ultimately when I was trying to nail him down on points he would keep coming back to the "But you don't know how I perceive reality, so you can't say I'm wrong because it's real to me." I HATE that argument. It's the kind of reasoning that makes you want to throw up your hands and say "Well then there is no point even talking to you because if you follow that logic, than nothing I say or can evidence can be considered objectively real."

What does he say to me? Can you guess?

"That's not what I said. I never said nothing can be real".

lol. Exactly what you just described. What's funny is they don't really seem to understand that their logic is flawed and that it's very easy to follow it down a path that leads to absurdity. *sigh*. It's amazing how even people that are actually intelligent are still vulnerable to poor comprehension of logic. I blame religious based ideas of "you must have faith" for laying the groundwork that leads to people who end up with this stumbling block. It can be hard to recognize and identify until a certain stage of bullshit detector is finally activated properly.

[mr friendly guy]

I've gotten the same thing when I say "if we subscribe to this logic, then A" and they immediately respond with "I never said A". But they did state an argument which relies upon logic that would lead to A, so crowing that they never actually said A is a distortion. That in my experience is the most common misuse of the Strawman Fallacy accusation. If there was some flaw in the logic through which I interpreted their argument to lead to A then they should point it out, but simply declaring that they never actually said A is bullshit.

.

I remember debating a moron on SB.com

Moron : The Minbari are bullies because they are more powerful than their opponents.

Me : by that logic the USA is a bully for taking on the Taliban

Moron : <insert differences in two situations even though they are independent of his original point>

Me : But you never mentioned those in your criteria.

Moron : You clearly misinterpreted my point.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

lol. Exactly what you just described. What's funny is they don't really seem to understand that their logic is flawed and that it's very easy to follow it down a path that leads to absurdity. *sigh*. It's amazing how even people that are actually intelligent are still vulnerable to poor comprehension of logic. I blame religious based ideas of "you must have faith" for laying the groundwork that leads to people who end up with this stumbling block. It can be hard to recognize and identify until a certain stage of bullshit detector is finally activated properly.

This is probably for several reasons, but I think one important reason is the subject simply isn't taught much, if at all, in highschool or grammar school. The only area in which I was exposed to any logic was a basic collge philosophy class, and even that was rudimentary. I wish they had taught logic when I was in school.

It might fix a lot of problems and raise the quality of discussion. I mean, the are many things I just don't know.

[Justforfun000]

This is probably for several reasons, but I think one important reason is the subject simply isn't taught much, if at all, in highschool or grammar school.

Oh I agree. In fact, you could even go so far as to say they almost deliberately teach AGAINST it when they do not actually educate you by using your own logic skills to arrive at conclusions instead of rote memorization. Their procedure of teaching is actually more faith based than logical. Teachers in my schools put out information as if it was gospel and it was to be memorized as right. There was no questioning of it.

[SVPD]

I've gotten the same thing when I say "if we subscribe to this logic, then A" and they immediately respond with "I never said A". But they did state an argument which relies upon logic that would lead to A, so crowing that they never actually said A is a distortion. That in my experience is the most common misuse of the Strawman Fallacy accusation. If there was some flaw in the logic through which I interpreted their argument to lead to A then they should point it out, but simply declaring that they never actually said A is bullshit.

I've had this done to me so many times it's ridiculous.

Also, I like it when they say something but in a really positive way, and you simply re-phrase the same idea in a really negative way, and they interpret that as a strawman too.

Been there, done that too.