Timeline for Opposite logical fallacy to "straw man"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2017 at 11:37 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/916990956007755776 | ||
| Aug 16, 2017 at 17:20 | history | protected | Mitch | ||
| Aug 16, 2017 at 17:09 | answer | added | GambitSquared | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 19, 2014 at 11:09 | vote | accept | Sideshow Bob | ||
| May 16, 2014 at 19:03 | comment | added | Oldcat | The defender can't set anything up. If he does, he is the attacker. If he discusses something different, it would be begging the question or a red herring. | |
| May 16, 2014 at 17:39 | answer | added | anongoodnurse | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 16, 2014 at 16:50 | comment | added | Sideshow Bob | @Kris What do you find nebulous about the concept I defined above? | |
| May 16, 2014 at 14:21 | comment | added | msam | both the straw man fallacy and what you describe are ultimately "non sequiturs". What you're saying is "if A then B. C, therefore B" (strawman is identical but B would be something negative, here it's positive) | |
| May 16, 2014 at 13:32 | comment | added | Kris | "... much greater irrelevance"? | |
| May 16, 2014 at 13:32 | comment | added | Kris | I seriously suspect if this is on topic on ELU. At least not until the OP can have a concrete concept and present it in a short phrase/ expression. Nebulous ideas do not have antonyms. | |
| May 16, 2014 at 13:30 | comment | added | Sideshow Bob | Good point that as an argument it's just as weak. But I think red herring usually implies much greater irrelevance to the topic than straw man. | |
| May 16, 2014 at 13:13 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I don't think your iron man = opposite of straw man idea really works. The thing about a straw man argument is that the act of using one can also be knocked down just as easily as the original false position it represents. But if we imagine the "reverse" technique, that would be knocked down just as easily for much the same reason (it's a misrepresentation). I suppose you could call it a red herring, perhaps. But whatever you call it, once identified it will fail, so there's not really any scope for describing it in a way that suggests it has any real "strength". | |
| May 16, 2014 at 13:11 | review | First posts | |||
| May 16, 2014 at 14:05 | |||||
| May 16, 2014 at 12:55 | history | asked | Sideshow Bob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |