The Strawman argument/fallacy

An explanation of the Strawman argument. 

Apparently some people don't understand this. 

Full url:

https://youtu.be/v5vzCmURh7o?si=s8rZPc3i307bLcH8

Shortened URL(same video): https://tinyurl.com/3nnfma7s

Our resident MAGAs may not necessarily understand the term, but they're very familiar with the tactic. It's childish and stupid, so we see it from them most often when their positions are weak and they know it. Boilerman absolutely loves straw man arguments. Miller and Tom use them fairly often as well.

I call them something a little different. A straw man argument is basically "Why do you/do they say/think that?" when no expression of that statement or though has actually been made. So I view it as a "Do you still beat your wife?" question, which I use a Sesame Street character's question to illustrate: "Why are there purple giraffes on the moon?" So I call straw man arguments "purple giraffe questions."

No matter what you call them, straw man arguments are based on false premises. The rather foolish tactic is to get the opponent to accept the false premise, either tacitly or explicitly.

So "Why did Biden invite fifty million murderers and rapists to invade America and open up taco trucks?" is a purple giraffe and a straw man. 

Traditionally the straw man argument is when one is unwilling or unable to refute their opponents actual argument so they erect a strawman version of that argument that is more easily defeated. 

Example:

Argument: I don't think the ten commandments should be required in classrooms because it violates the Constitution. 

Redponse: It sounds like you want to prohibit Christians from going to school or practicing their religion. I don't want the government telling people that they can't practice their religion. 

I think what you were saying sounds more like the loaded question fallacy or begging the question. 

Yeah, perhaps so. I kind of lump it all together because both straw man and loaded question arguments are based on false premises and as such, cannot be answered directly. That's the element of "power" in such an approach.

The intent is to deflect attention from the real topic by "forcing" the target to disprove the false premise. The deflection in your example is to ignore that the basis of the question is "required." And then the straw man responder accuses the person stating his opinion of a desire that he never expressed.

To illustrate why I view that and a purple giraffe question as essentially the same, here are a few real-life instances about that very issue:

Why do you liberals hate God so much?

I thought you liberals believed in the Bill of Rights. You're telling Christians that we can't practice our religion?

Why do Democrats always want to control our classrooms?

After this crap-blizzard is done, the goal is achieved: those who object to the posting of the Ten Commandments are put on the defensive. Even more importantly, the crux of the original argument is lost in the shuffle (if the purple giraffe people are successful): namely, that it violates students' freedom of religion to overtly display religious totems and screeds in their classrooms. It may not affect adults as much, but for a grade-schooler, such displays are tantamount to commands.

Once the straw man is overcome, the ultimate argument is that no civil right or freedom is absolute; the line of demarcation is when someone else's right or freedom is impinged upon.

And to return to an oft-flogged topic, THAR AWL RAPISTS AND MURDERERERS is a purple giraffe, while "Why do liberals want America to be invaded by rapists and murderers?" is a straw man. Not really much difference. But I get your point about the distinction.

Yeah and regardless of what we call it all examples violate what I call "the rules of rational argumentation."

Sometimes people do this consciously sometimes they do it subconsciously. 

Well, the Turd, Miller, Tom, and Boiler do it pretty much all the time, so I think it's a conscious realization of how flaccid and weak their arguments are.

Though, Trump seems to often prefer an outright, stupid lie. I just saw an interview where he was asked what he would do about rising grocery prices. He said that grocery prices were going down. The interviewer, if she had had any integrity, should have just laughed and ended the interview.