Boards›Discuss the Boards

Dude has a point.

CominTowardsYa·12/6/2019, 10:02:57 AM·4 votes·3,794 views

Dude makes a point I disagree with.

I explain why I disagree with the point dude makes.

Dude: "STRAWMAN

I explain what a strawman is, and demonstrate how it is not a strawman.

Dude: Not falling for this bait.

This is essentially what any debate becomes on these here boards.

Let me break it down barney style for you guys on the forums that use terms like ad hominem and strawman I see these all the time.

**Ad hominem: **

Person A says they were chat banned for toxicity and says they were wrongfully banned.

Person B says you deserve the ban.

Person A explains that he was in a game with a 4 man group who all trolled him, and goaded him into saying something back to them, and they all reported him.

Person B says you're toxic, your argument is invalid.

This is an example of an Ad Hominem.

Just state what your argument is, and that attacking you is not going to strengthen their side. The Argument in itself is not based on who is making it, but the content thereof.

Strawman

Person A says I think Riot should stop perma banning people for chat related issues.

Person B says your idea sucks because we shouldn't allow criminals to go unpunished online.

This is an example of a Strawman.

Why is this a Strawman?

Because someone said something, then a distorted version of it was attacked leaving the person unable to defend their original point.

How to counter this. Clear language.

Ask the person why they believe the distorted version they proposed, and point out exactly what you said, and why their version is not what you said.

Point out and explain it. Don't just use the word "Strawman" and think you have done something marvelous. You haven't.

If you want to be here and discuss on the boards, you need to know what you're talking about, and be clear, not just say stuff, tuck tail and run like a coward.

Glad I could help you guys out.

[garen-swing]

11 Comments

BBKong12/6/2019, 2:31:15 PM5 votes

You're forgetting all the times people have made points, you refuted them, they say "that doesn't really refute my point because ___" and you just argue that it did refute it regardless of multiple people saying that you're wrong. Majority is not always right but there's always a reason that they're the majority

Not trying to be rude, at least you're actually having real arguments on here as more people should. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I've seen people do this to you and others. But I've also seen you actually make one strawman argument and refuse to admit that you're wrong about something. Lots of the time things you debate about on here from what I've seen and partaken in, are just opinionated things that have valid reasoning on both side, and there are no words in the world that could change the other person's mind. This doesn't mean they shouldn't happen, but when it's an argument that seems to be going nowhere, it's not crazy for people to make a snide comment and then stop arguing.

Like I said, this does happen in a lot of threads on here. But to act like any time someone attempts to call you out they're wrong is a little off, and that's the vibe this post gives.

All in all, yep this does happen on the boards and it sucks, but sometimes people are also just delusional about the fact that they must be right. Evens out a little.

ranga11612/6/2019, 12:11:35 PM4 votes

HAHAHA

CharDeeMcDenniz12/6/2019, 6:07:44 PM2 votes

[slayer-pantheon-popcorn] [slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

SirTauntsALot12/6/2019, 1:58:23 PM1 votes

{quoted}

Dude makes a point I disagree with.

I explain why I disagree with the point dude makes.

Dude: "STRAWMAN

I explain what a strawman is, and demonstrate how it is not a strawman.

Dude: Not falling for this bait.

This is essentially what any debate becomes on these here boards.

Let me break it down barney style for you guys on the forums that use terms like ad hominem and strawman I see these all the time.

**Ad hominem: **

Person A says they were chat banned for toxicity and says they were wrongfully banned.

Person B says you deserve the ban.

Person A explains that he was in a game with a 4 man group who all trolled him, and goaded him into saying something back to them, and they all reported him.

Person B says you're toxic, your argument is invalid.

This is an example of an Ad Hominem.

Just state what your argument is, and that attacking you is not going to strengthen their side. The Argument in itself is not based on who is making it, but the content thereof.

Strawman

Person A says I think Riot should stop perma banning people for chat related issues.

Person B says your idea sucks because we shouldn't allow criminals to go unpunished online.

This is an example of a Strawman.

Why is this a Strawman?

Because someone said something, then a distorted version of it was attacked leaving the person unable to defend their original point.

How to counter this. Clear language.

Ask the person why they believe the distorted version they proposed, and point out exactly what you said, and why their version is not what you said.

Point out and explain it. Don't just use the word "Strawman" and think you have done something marvelous. You haven't.

If you want to be here and discuss on the boards, you need to know what you're talking about, and be clear, not just say stuff, tuck tail and run like a coward.

Glad I could help you guys out.

[garen-swing]

Hey mate. Logical fallacies are great. But I don't expect people on this board to understand them. PC culture has taken over. Logic is lost.

TrulyBland12/6/2019, 6:20:31 PM1 votes

Completely agree with your examples. And it's definitely a good idea to try to educate people on these things.

However something I'd like to add:

You seem very focussed on specific arguments. But neither ad hominems nor strawmen have to be about specific arguments. They can also be found when people try to attack more general stances, like support for a system that is in place. Also, while it is common for a strawman argument to be built around a distorted version of somebody's argument, it doesn't even have to be that. Some people built strawmen that are in no relation to anything that was said.

To give a handy example of each:

If people generally support the banning system, it would be an ad hominem to point out their hypocrisy, rather than any flaw in the actual system. In fact, this particular kind of ad hominem falls into the more specific category of the "hypocrisy fallacy".

If now people come and point out flaws in your argument, and you then accused them of, I don't know, only supporting the banning system because they enjoy a false sense of moral superiority (without them actually even having said that they support it), then that would be a strawman and an ad hominem.

Keep up the good work. You wouldn't believe how many people falsely accuse people of such fallacies. Worse though, a lot of people inadvertently use these fallacies. Maybe threads like this can also help educate those people.

SirTauntsALot2/12/2020, 9:34:20 AM1 votes

{quoted}

Dude makes a point I disagree with.

I explain why I disagree with the point dude makes.

Dude: "STRAWMAN

I explain what a strawman is, and demonstrate how it is not a strawman.

Dude: Not falling for this bait.

This is essentially what any debate becomes on these here boards.

Let me break it down barney style for you guys on the forums that use terms like ad hominem and strawman I see these all the time.

**Ad hominem: **

Person A says they were chat banned for toxicity and says they were wrongfully banned.

Person B says you deserve the ban.

Person A explains that he was in a game with a 4 man group who all trolled him, and goaded him into saying something back to them, and they all reported him.

Person B says you're toxic, your argument is invalid.

This is an example of an Ad Hominem.

Just state what your argument is, and that attacking you is not going to strengthen their side. The Argument in itself is not based on who is making it, but the content thereof.

Strawman

Person A says I think Riot should stop perma banning people for chat related issues.

Person B says your idea sucks because we shouldn't allow criminals to go unpunished online.

This is an example of a Strawman.

Why is this a Strawman?

Because someone said something, then a distorted version of it was attacked leaving the person unable to defend their original point.

How to counter this. Clear language.

Ask the person why they believe the distorted version they proposed, and point out exactly what you said, and why their version is not what you said.

Point out and explain it. Don't just use the word "Strawman" and think you have done something marvelous. You haven't.

If you want to be here and discuss on the boards, you need to know what you're talking about, and be clear, not just say stuff, tuck tail and run like a coward.

Glad I could help you guys out.

[garen-swing]

You can't bait me dude!

Salty Mc Feed2/12/2020, 10:03:20 AM1 votes

My favourite is the "I ignore everything or most of what you just said" fallacy, a term that I just invented but applies almost everywhere on the boards.

[slayer-jinx-wink]