Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
Try again, Lebell.
A straw man argument occurs when one ignores or distorts someone's position in order to discredit it or argue against the new (and weaker) position presented.
|
You can choose to redefine "a strawman" arguement as you wish, but if you look again, that is basically the definition that I presented. But unless your credentials match or exceed Dr. Stephen Downs, of the University of Alberta, I think I'll go with his definition and not yours. (link above. Did you read it?)
Quote:
Read the link, if you haven't already. You will notice that I don't attack or impugn LD's level of intelligence. LD intentionally claimed that my post (in the other thread) stated or somehow inferred that he was less educated by his use of the word "irregardless." My post didn't allege any such thing; hence, his claim that he "was ridiculed for [his] lack of education" as the basis for his inability to use the word "irregardless" despite his desire to is a straw man.
As for your claim that my recent post is an attack against the person:
Clearly, irrespective of the fact that calling someone on their use of a straw man argument to bolster one's claim is not a fallacious attack on the person's argument, my comment was a question rather than a statement.
edit: btw, I demonstrated the "proof" of a straw man (which you submitted):
when I posted this: [/B]
|
So.
Entering a debate with a definition of a word used improperly by another debater is not an ad hominim attack, especially if you put "tongue-in-cheek" in the post?
Ok, I'll have to remember that.
As to the rest of your post, whatever.
I'll let the readers of this farce decide who has better built their position since I don't see a point in continuing a "yes it is, no it isn't" discussion.