Post by 40oz on Jun 10, 2017 9:47:05 GMT -5
There's a term called "the straw man" which is when two people are arguing over something, and one person refutes the others argument by addressing a contention that wasn't made in the first place.
Strawmanning is kind of a mainstream word that I see being used pretty often these days, and most people seem to be aware of what I means. I'm seeing a certain style argumentative tactic that is sort of a branch of the straw man but a little more complicated.
I often see arguments where the first person makes a bold or seemingly contentious statement, and a second one steps in to respond to that statement. When the first person responds back to clarify their statement in more detail, the second person proceeds to isolate the response and respond directly to the clarification out of the context of the original statement and effectively draws innaccurate conclusions based on it. The first person proceeds to clarify their clarification and tie it back to the original statement. The second person repeats the action of isolating the clarification out of context, making statements or drawing innaccurate conclusions in the response to it etc.
After so many back and forths, the conversation effectively breaks off into so many different threads that the first person is burdened with the task of controlling the conversation to dial it back to the original contention that raised the concern in the first place. The second person is only concerned with diffusing the issue as much as possible and getting the last word.
Is there a known word or term that effectively describes this kind of argument exchange? I feel a lot of retarded arguments could get stopped in their tracks if it could be identified right away instead of having to go on these ridiculous tangents.
Strawmanning is kind of a mainstream word that I see being used pretty often these days, and most people seem to be aware of what I means. I'm seeing a certain style argumentative tactic that is sort of a branch of the straw man but a little more complicated.
I often see arguments where the first person makes a bold or seemingly contentious statement, and a second one steps in to respond to that statement. When the first person responds back to clarify their statement in more detail, the second person proceeds to isolate the response and respond directly to the clarification out of the context of the original statement and effectively draws innaccurate conclusions based on it. The first person proceeds to clarify their clarification and tie it back to the original statement. The second person repeats the action of isolating the clarification out of context, making statements or drawing innaccurate conclusions in the response to it etc.
After so many back and forths, the conversation effectively breaks off into so many different threads that the first person is burdened with the task of controlling the conversation to dial it back to the original contention that raised the concern in the first place. The second person is only concerned with diffusing the issue as much as possible and getting the last word.
Is there a known word or term that effectively describes this kind of argument exchange? I feel a lot of retarded arguments could get stopped in their tracks if it could be identified right away instead of having to go on these ridiculous tangents.