Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [1]
Lindsay's argument was that he had opted out of "personhood" in 1996, which made him "a full liability free will flesh and blood living man". The Supreme Court of British Columbia rejected his claims, commenting that "The ordinary sense of the word 'person' in the (Income Tax Act) is without ambiguity. It is clear that Parliament intended the ...
A straw-man (or straw-dog or straw-person) proposal is a brainstormed simple draft proposal intended to generate discussion of its disadvantages and to spur the generation of new and better proposals. [1] The term is considered American business jargon, [2] but it is also encountered in engineering office culture.
Straw man – an argument that is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Studia humanitatis – humanistic studies deemed indispensable in Renaissance-era education; rhetoric, poetics, ethics, politics. Syllogism – a type of valid argument that states if the first two claims are true, then the conclusion is ...
When asked straightforwardly by Dawkins whether, for example, he believes in a literal Virgin birth, Peterson gave a masterclass in straw man arguments posing as answers, eventually conceding ...
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms: As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
The evidence and the arguments gave both judges pause, experts said. “The divestiture buyer was found to be gravely deficient. This blew apart the fix,” Kovacic said.