Originally posted by Original Smurph
My argument is this:If your straw-manning is successful and leaves your opponent with less capacity to convince than you, then it is a valuable, useful tactic.
What I'm more concerned about are cases where someone will choose not to waste time on refuting a strawman argument, and then be penalized because the judges actually thought they were ignoring an actual attack. An argument such as that would only be effective if you choose to waste time on it.
But what if the judges are actually so feeble-minded that they can't tell it apart from an argument that follows a logical line of reasoning? I can't base my arguments/tactics off of the assumptions that the judges lack basic reading comprehension.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeThen simply show that your opponent is straw-manning.
Sure.What I'm more concerned about are cases where someone will choose not to waste time on refuting a strawman argument, and then be penalized because the judges actually thought they were ignoring an actual attack. An argument such as that would only be effective if you choose to waste time on it.
But what if the judges are actually so feeble-minded that they can't tell it apart from an argument that follows a logical line of reasoning? I can't base my arguments/tactics off of the assumptions that the judges lack basic reading comprehension.
Just say "quote me where I said [strawman]"?
Suddenly your opponents are forced to reply to this, or else look like their ignoring an actual argument.
I'm only arguing for the validity of the tactic if it helps you win the debate.
srug
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Sure.What I'm more concerned about are cases where someone will choose not to waste time on refuting a strawman argument, and then be penalized because the judges actually thought they were ignoring an actual attack. An argument such as that would only be effective if you choose to waste time on it.
But what if the judges are actually so feeble-minded that they can't tell it apart from an argument that follows a logical line of reasoning? I can't base my arguments/tactics off of the assumptions that the judges lack basic reading comprehension.
Much to learn still you have, Padawan.
Originally posted by "Id"Ah.
Kris If you guys need an example of a rebuttal dressed in strawmans, Smurph last post in our match should do. 131fist
My debating style is being attacked by somebody who can be quoted saying:
Originally posted by "Id"
[b]And Team Smurph/Jake FumblesLets look at some of the inconsistent asininities, overlooked by team Dong.
[/B]
Clearly I've lost my touch.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeYou do not understand what we are talking about here.
I think you're the one who does not quite have a grasp on what is being discussed. Your job as a debator is to expose strawmanning when it occurs and not to assume it is evident.
Veteran debators understand that straw-manning, when used properly, can serve as a useful tool to weaken their opponent either through distraction or waste of time maneuver.
However, straw-manning done amateurishly, can and should backfire.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Sure.What I'm more concerned about are cases where someone will choose not to waste time on refuting a strawman argument, and then be penalized because the judges actually thought they were ignoring an actual attack. An argument such as that would only be effective if you choose to waste time on it.
But what if the judges are actually so feeble-minded that they can't tell it apart from an argument that follows a logical line of reasoning? I can't base my arguments/tactics off of the assumptions that the judges lack basic reading comprehension.
^
Originally posted by Starscream M
I think you're the one who does not quite have a grasp on what is being discussed. Your job as a debator is to expose strawmanning when it occurs and not to assume it is evident.Veteran debators understand that straw-manning, when used properly, can serve as a useful tool to weaken their opponent either through distraction or waste of time maneuver.
However, straw-manning done amateurishly, can and should backfire.
"Which is mainly that straw-man arguments follow a faulty line of reasoning. Logical fallacies should not strengthen one's standing in a tourney."
I'm presenting my qualms about using it as a tactic. Told you this once before, went right over your head apparently.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeI'm presenting my qualms about using it as a tactic.
this was your concern:
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
But what if the judges are actually so feeble-minded that they can't tell it apart from an argument that follows a logical line of reasoning? I can't base my arguments/tactics off of the assumptions that the judges lack basic reading comprehension.
and this is where smurph answers your concern...pointing out that your job is to expose strawmanning when it occurs and NOT to assume it is evident to judges.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
Then simply show that your opponent is straw-manning.Just say "quote me where I said [strawman]"?
And if you read all of it, you would have seen that I was also presenting a scenario where I did not want to waste time on straw-manning. By trying to convince the judges what they should be able to see themselves, I am wasting time. Hence my qualms about it. Straw-manning is not supposed to be some failsafe tactic where your opponent is forced to either waste time refuting it or suffer penalties for ignoring something that is not an actual argument.
Originally posted by Kris BlazeI understand that you don't want to resort to strawmanning yourself, which is a respectable position. (in case you didn't notice, I nominated you for most improved poster 🙂 )
And if you read all of it, you would have seen that I was also presenting a scenario where I did not want to waste time on straw-manning. By trying to convince the judges what they should be able to see themselves, I am wasting time. Hence my qualms about it. Straw-manning is not supposed to be some failsafe tactic where your opponent is forced to either waste time refuting it or suffer penalties for ignoring something that is not an actual argument.
I just think that strawmanning is not as effective a tool as you think it is and can be easily disarmed ala Smurph's post. But I understand your concern regarding it clouding a judge's decision and you do have a valid point actually.
Originally posted by Starscream M
I understand that you don't want to resort to strawmanning yourself, which is a respectable position. (in case you didn't notice, I nominated you for most improved poster 🙂 )I just think that strawmanning is not as effective a tool as you think it is and can be easily disarmed ala Smurph's post. But I understand your concern regarding it clouding a judge's decision and you do have a valid point actually.
It's the idea of being forced to acknowledge/spend time on such ridiculous tactics that I dislike so much. Which is why I'm glad our tourney host is more than capable of selecting good judges.....I hope 😎
Originally posted by Kris Blazeagreed...good debating deserves well thought-out judging.
Which is why I'm glad our tourney host is more than capable of selecting good judges.....I hope 😎
And just so you can breathe a sigh of relief, I'm removing myself from the judging pool. That's one less feeble-minded judge who follows the logic of juggernaut being more durable than galactus that you have to worry about. 😉