Why are neo-conservatives and Bush supporters so in love with the "straw man" argument?

Question

Am I the only one who has noticed this?

If you don't know what a straw man argument is, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Basically it is when you avoid debating your opponent on what they actually believe and instead misrepresent their position with something much easier to fight and then attack THAT fictional POSITION.

Kind of like when Democrats say "we need a new strategy in Iraq" and instead of arguing that, Bush says "We ain't gonna cut and run"

It's sort of subtle and it fools dumb people into misunderstanding what people and parties real positions are all the time. It basically degrades the level of discourse to kindergarten grade arguments.

Anybody have any idea why every conservative here seems to rely on this pathetic tactic instead of debating real issues?

Answer 1

Speaking as an ex-debator, I know the value (or lack thereof) of the Straw Man. Simply put, it is the rhetorical vehicle of choice for communicating a message to the largely ignorant masses.

They run it because it works. It works because the majority of Americans are not smart enough to figure it out, or they don't care enough to even try. First impressions are everything.

That's why people are more likely to call Kerry a "draft dodger" even though he actually served and Bushie got a free ride and went AWOL without having to be held accountable for it. But when the evil empire plants the rhetorical seed of the straw man, people eat it up. That's all they remember is the first thing they heard.

Evil works.

Answer 2

Well Ry RY I will tell you this.... I just started this question thing. I cannot tell you why you find that many people on the Conservative side of the Isle are Straw men.

However, the position of "We need a new Strategy in Iraq" is not a solution and it is not a strategy. There is nothing to argue, and there is nothing to debate. Stating that we need a new strategy in Iraq is like saying the sky is blue unless it is cloudy then it is the color of the clouds. What would you like to see the government do. Leaving Iraq is not a strategy either it is retreat, and accepting defeat. Where do you want the war on terror to take place? In Iraq and Afghanistan (the Arab world) or in Miami where as I write this there is a package filled with C-4 in the port? Because I assure you this. If the democrats pull the troops out of the Arab world the war will come here and you daughter will feel it when she goes to school in the morning. Look what happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza. When they pulled out of Lebanon, When they pulled out of the northern portions of the West Bank. The terrorists followed them.

Like I said I have just started this program today and have not had the privilege to debate much here. I have found that there is no real way to reply to others in the same question thread once you have answered the question.

Answer 3

I don't think that it is a misrepresentation or a pathetic tactic to believe and respond to the suggestion of "a new strategy" by Democrats as actually meaning "leave Iraq as soon as possible."

I don't think that I am mistaking subterfuge for an attempt at discourse at all.

I think it is also pathetic and misleading to try and represent that particular statement by the Democrats as an attempt at discourse or dialog, when they made perfectly clear in all of their campaign platforms and speeches what they would do about the situation in Iraq if elected.

Answer 4

Republican viewpoints deal with reality far more than Democrat ones do. Take the last election for example, every Democrat campaigned on the "F Bush" ticket, and it worked. They didn't mention how they were going to handle the war on Iraq or any other issue, there was not one scrap of substance in their platform, they catered to the "we hate Bush" crowd. And, sadly, it worked, mostly because Bush dug his own grave for his party. But still, the only point that they stuck to was insisting that they re-deploy the troops to America, and ever since they won they haven't even talked about that. In fact, I dare any Democrat to tell me what their party plans on doing now that they control the legislature. I'll be amazed if it happens.

Answer 5

1st YOU need to learn what a straw man argument & not be so condescending as to publish a link to wikipedia.

2nd if you are making an acusation you should give a specific example to support your claim. Your example is not only factually wrong, but would not be a straw man if it were.

3rd liberals make at least as manuy straw man arguments as conservatives. Most common is "Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11". While this is true, it doesn't mean that taking him out was a bad idea.

Answer 6

I think you answered your own question...
"...it fools dumb people into misunderstanding what ...real positions are..."

The vast majority of the population doesn't understand logic or debate -- they go on emotion. The straw man tactic by definition goes for emotion at the expense of logic, and so it's appealing to those who want to get an emotional response without having to actually debate reasonably.

Answer 7

I ask thoughtful questions all the time and I have yet to see more than a few liberals on this site able to answer them.

I will debate any liberal on any issue any time.

Answer 8

Regretfully, it's because people fall for it; i.e. Swift Boat Vets vs Kerry, 9-11 & Iraq, WMD & Iraq, family values vs gays, etc.
Same techniques used by Nazis (all the problems in our world are due to the Jews) & Commies (we built that wall for security).

Answer 9

singling out one group or another by saying only they do this shows the inability to see past party lines. hence giving away any chance of credibility.

Answer 10

Like when the liberals call us stupid because "we think Saddam had something to do with 9/11"? Although no Republican I know of has ever said this, and no conservative I know has ever believed this?

Actually, many, if not most of the liberal attacks on conservatives are of the 'strawman' variety.