48 thoughts on “CRITICAL THINKING – Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]”

  1. Ahhhh now I get why โ€œa womanโ€™s right to choseโ€ is a straw man. Awesome video man.

  2. I think the last example with politician switching object is Equivocation (ambiguity) fallacy.

  3. I refer to IT now as "THE LAW of NAUGHT". Before, not at all. ๐Ÿ˜‰๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜€๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿค”

  4. This was a great video! Thank you so much for posting! I really liked the clear examples you used. ๐Ÿ™‚

  5. I don't know if it's known or sourced but the first half of the video is from Informal Logic, by Douglas Walton

  6. i just said i disagree with censorship on social media. and got called a conspiracy theorist. the craziest straw man i have encountered yet haha.

  7. You wouldnt believe how many people make this fallacy, mostly when they are trying to insult you

  8. I disagree with your position that all straw men are bad. Scarecrows do a useful job in farmers fields.

  9. Perspectives are more or less a desirable outcome. Logically limited to just that. "The existence of God",is a fallacious fiasco, for instance,when in reality it is driven by a sense of belonging and community.

  10. Lol, you bring up darwin evolution doctrine as an example? not fair.

    it's the same as you bring up any other religion doctrine that require faith to believe it even you never seen it with clear evidence.

    Which mean for the believers it's an absolute statement. And it causing cognitive dissonance for they who hold that believe system.

  11. So strawman can only be made by someone replying. If I give my opinion, without it being a response to someone else, it cannot be a strawman?

  12. Strawmans have themselves become the biggest strawman in history, half the time someone brings up a "strawman" they themselves are using the "strawman" as a strawman. Basically a double strawman. If you didn't use a strawman, they will create and imply you made an imaginary strawman in your argument. If you point out the fact someone used a strawman, they themselves will say that you are strawmanning. I don't know if learning about strawmans made people smarter or just fueled the fire. Strawmanning has become a form of cognitive dissonance to make people look smart and factual, if you were even a little bit philosophical in your argument, they will say you are strawmanning when you never intended your philosophical statement to be taken as fact. Many people will insert imaginary strawmans into your argument, and no matter how many times you reformat your argument, they will claim you are still strawmanning, but if you use a strawman to say they are right and you are wrong, then suddenly they will consider the very strawmans they were opposing as fact. So I guess if someone tells you that you are strawmanning, use a strawman to prove THEIR point right, then when they bite the bait, point out what they did, of course they won't reflect on this and then continue to say you are strawmanning. Also, an argument you intended someone to understand as not a fact, is usually just a metaphor, don't attack it as a strawman, strawmans are metaphors sold as fact, metaphors are simply metaphors when they are sold as being logical opinions. I often use philosophy, metaphors and analogies in an argument, but they are not intended to be taken as 100% fact, and people call them strawmans when they aren't, I simply sell them as ideas which may be right, if I sold them as being ideas which are 100% right, only then would it be a strawman. You can even mention a hundred facts, but if you say one thing intended to be viewed philosophically, they will toss your 100 facts down the drain and shout "Strawman!" ignoring every other point you made and focus entirely on your "Strawman". I'm sure the people reading this must think I'm strawmanning, but they themselves have strawmanned simply by reading this argument.

    So, really, who cares about studying how to argue, arguing is dirty business and always will be. Argue and debate with yourself, in your own mind. People who argue ethically are also usually the biggest losers, since they admit to the possibility of themselves being wrong, which is a huge weakness. Winning an argument is all about logical fallacies and intimidation, the ones capable of admitting they might be wrong though, are usually right.

  13. That's bullshit. In order for the second argument to be a strawman, the first claim must be factual or relevant or make sense in general. You see, the strawman argument is actually true while the original claim is nonsense to begin with. People are not going to stop drinking beer regardless of any debate.

    You see, I could claim that the moon is made of blue cheese and the moon monster rapes and pillages at midnight. What argument can you have if not a strawman?? The original claim is baseless and bullshit to begin with.

    I could claim that the US should ban guns. All arguments against this are strawman. Since gun ownership is protected by the constitution, and the attempted removal of firearms would result in civil war, and the physical removal of all guns is an impossibility due to the vast number of owners, it is a bullshit argument and not fit for debate.

    You cannot have a strawman argument against a claim which is invalid to begin with.

  14. 0:36 isn't that a fallacy she is making that just because advertiser present their products now all of a sudden they need to be banned? While she never said people will never give up drinking beer, the advertisements also never claimed underage should drink beer.

  15. I think this is the worst fallacy, not only your arguments are "debunked" but you get also a bad image.

  16. this reminds me of the jordan peterson debate with cathy newman where cathy kept misrepresenting peterson's positions

  17. What about statements that imply a second premise by explaining the implicaion is that strawmanning? Example: Following God is good and God is the truth (this implies not following God is bad and therefore nonebelievers are bad and ignorant of the truth)

  18. Wait… isn't Maureen's original argument to ban alcohol ads on TV a straw man fallacy to begin with? While advertising might encourage underage drinking, there is nothing to say that it's was the TV ads, thus the attack on TV is the straw man. Her actual response should have been to stop advertising. Period. Singling out TV is only valid if the first statement was advertising on TV has a heavy influence on children. Then made the second and third statements.

  19. "Humans are different from apes because they are obviously smarter"
    FALSE. I reject that assertion via the YouTube comment section counterargument.

  20. The argument on evolution was lame. The argument may not disprove evolution but you canโ€™t prove it either. It is only a theory and not a fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *