Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is that the case? He thinks that the fallacy is the refutation of the fallacy.
Yes, a strawman fallacy is when someone refutes a misrepresentation that the person refuting made. They created a misrepresentation (a "straw man"😉 of someone's point or argument and proceeded to debate against that (likely because it is easier to do so, as you said), rather than what their opponent actually said.
I still don't see the misunderstanding tbh.
Originally posted by NemeBro
"You claimed, and I can quote you on this, that the strawman fallacy is the refutation of a misrepresentation, which is a lot like calling a disease an 'antidote.'"Yes, a strawman fallacy is when someone refutes a misrepresentation that the person refuting made. They created a misrepresentation (a "straw man"😉 of someone's point or argument and proceeded to debate against that (likely because it is easier to do so, as you said), rather than what their opponent actually said.
I still don't see the misunderstanding tbh.
All the definitions of fallacy that I can find identify it as faulty reasoning or faulty beliefs based on unsound logic. It would make no sense to describe a logical refutation of something illogical with a word that means 'illogical reasoning.'
It's sort of like all the times people call Frankenstein's Monster "Frankenstein"
Originally posted by Bardock42i agree man i feel like a lot of the time people take shit too serious and are more concerned with how they look as opposed to trying to take into consideration what the other person is trying to say to them. any time i have pointed this out i've been greeted with a "you too" type of response because basically nobody is ever willing to lose face but i feel like if prompted i could easily point out examples of where i conceded a serious point and changed my mind cause my opponent actually had the right argument to make me do so.
I always found these kinds of thread childish. They seem to mostly crop up in vs. forums, which are already somewhat pathetic in their own regard.Threads on KMC, exempting perhaps the vs. forums, should not be structured like debates. They are discussions, people with different opinions voicing those, hopefully in an attempt to learn and improve. It's true that they often do devolve into a us vs. them, but in general I don't think what we do is debating in any real, formal sense.
Additionally I don't think that opinions are swayed in single debates, and emphasis on them is misguided.
Any wealthy KMC member could easily become the greatest debater on this website.
Firstly: gain knowledge about a lot of subjects hotly debated about here by reading hundreds of books rich with information on said subjects. Improve reading speed and comprehension.
Secondly: Pay an extremely successful author to train you how to create master essays.
Thirdly: Pay one of the most prestigious and eminent lawyers in the world to take you to advanced expert level debater. Lawyers are among the best debaters in the world.
Originally posted by Oneness
Any wealthy KMC member could easily become the greatest debater on this website.Firstly: gain knowledge about a lot of subjects hotly debated about here by reading hundreds of books rich with information on said subjects. Improve reading speed and comprehension.
Secondly: Pay an extremely successful author to train you how to create master essays.
Thirdly: Pay one of the most prestigious and eminent lawyers in the world to take you to advanced expert level debater. Lawyers are among the best debaters in the world.
I've achieved all of this and I didn't have to spend dollar one
Originally posted by RobtardIf you don't read you can't acquire the knowledge.
I've achieved all of this and I didn't have to spend dollar one
If you don't develop expertise you cannot become an expert, expertise can be self-taught, but more can be utilized when academic instruction is provided, and the best academic instruction comes from the experts.
You can't just know, nor can you be innately skillful; you can develop faster than others, that is called being a prodigy. Some prodigies are even quicker in development than others. However, without putting forth ample active effort, even the greatest prodigy is still in the dark. You did not put forth ample dollars and effort, you did not do enough, you cannot be that good.
Originally posted by Oneness
Thirdly: Pay one of the most prestigious and eminent lawyers in the world to take you to advanced expert level debater. Lawyers are among the best debaters in the world.
I have to argue with lawyers regarding contracts and contract law on nearly a weekly basis. So I win, right?
Originally posted by Oneness
If you don't read you can't acquire the knowledge.If you don't develop expertise you cannot become an expert, expertise can be self-taught, but more can be utilized when academic instruction is provided, and the best academic instruction comes from the experts.
You can't just know, nor can you be innately skillful; you can develop faster than others, that is called being a prodigy. Some prodigies are even quicker in development than others. However, without putting forth ample active effort, even the greatest prodigy is still in the dark. You did not put forth ample dollars and effort, you did not do enough, you cannot be that good.
But Robtard is that good
Originally posted by dadudemonYou're merely a computer programmer.
I have to argue with lawyers regarding contracts and contract law on nearly a weekly basis. So I win, right?
You are in a position to make a deal that mass-sells a product (system) in which you developed. In that situation you're likely to be able to acquire the know-how through the three-pronged method I proposed and be well on your way to becoming KMC's greatest debater.