Strawman Arguments 

Strawman Arguments (I call them Stickman Arguments, sometimes) are arguments in which someone who you are debating takes your points and twists them to get ground on you in order to form a refutation in which they are correct.

Person A: *Signs on to start a topic saying:* For anyone out there who questions God because God doesn't always answer your prayers, the truth is: God doesn't help us because we have free will.

Person B: That's an unsound argument because it has no ground to stand on and it is overused. It's like saying, "What if I'm right and you're wrong and you go to Hell?" to an atheist.

Person A: We're not talking about Hell, therefore your refutation has no grounds.

Person B: Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else

Person A: You're going to burn in Hell for not believing in God!

Person A signs off.

Person B facepalms.

Strawman Arguments by Life's Outcast Of Death April 3, 2009

straw man arguement 

A locical fallacy in which the arguementative point is made into a caracature of it's original point. Extremely effective because it's not based on facts, but lies and assumptions. The burden of proof then lies in the defense, not the offense. Especially effective when the defense isn't allowed to offer objection. Popularized by right wing talk radio hosts Rush and Hannity.

Step one: Build the straw man. Ignore facts and make outlandish lies/slander. Redefine the facts. "liberals want to take your guns away and turn the U.S. over to the U.N."

Step 2: Knock down the straw man. "That flies in the face of everything we Americans believe in."

Step 3: Connect step 2 to step 1. "Only a communist would think of something like that."

Step 4: "Negate" your opponant by opposing the conclusion in step 3. "I hate those liberal communists. If they think us right-wingers will sit quietly while they destroy the country the're dead wrong."

Rush and Hannity can't argue the facts, so they have to make up the "evil liberal agenda" and then appear patriotic by opposing it.

straw man arguement by spot December 6, 2004