The Strawman Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2014
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/donateidea
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideachanneltwitter
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideachannelfacebook
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideachannelreddit
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideachannelirc
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Become better at arguing! We dive into the Straw man fallacy and show you who to avoid it.
Watch the Logical Fallacy playlist:
bit.ly/1wpuCcU
Watch the whole playlist in one video:
bit.ly/1ymvrEH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ 08-dream-of-autumn-nig...
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.subtitl.us
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Want some more Idea Channel?
Are Video Games About Their Mechanics?
• Are Videogames About T...
How To Create Responsible Social Criticism
• How To Create Responsi...
What Do Hot Sauce Labels Say About America?
• What Do Hot Sauce Labe...
Does Pop Culture Need To Be Popular?
• Does Pop Culture Need ...
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hfil34ayaEU/mqdefault.jpg)
oh my god it's every youtube argument ever.
EVER.
Amoranta Swiftmoon There are quite a few Facebook argument that are like that too.
You would say that. Youre the kind of person that believes anything theyre told.
Believing anything youre told, like this person does, is wrong because...
... Youre an idiot. And your skin colour / gender / sexuality discounts your opinions.
I know right
I feel that strawman is probably the most common fallacy I see in arguments. I wonder why.
maxwell10206 No one wants to confront the truth.
maxwell10206 I think it's because it often is also an appeal to emotion. It can give the impression that you really shot down their argument and destroyed their point of view which people often latch on to and experience it as the more correct argument because it feels more righteous or something. People are generally so emotionally driven when it comes to forming opinions and beliefs, we are full of cognitive biases.
I think it could be people cannot understand everything. The argument needed to be simplified. People have limited time and resource. A computer scientist isn't necessarily will be well versed in astrophysics. Or a corn farmer about chicken husbandry. Debate often made for the benefit of the audience that often time aren't as informed as the debater. Limited time and resource.
Oh so basically anyone who doesn't voice your points in your preferred way is attempting to strawman them? Nice try Mike.
Oh the irony :-D
The Strawman Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
It's not about saying things the way someone wants (that as nothing to do with it).It's about missing the point of the argument that is being made, AKA what you just did with that comment intentionally or not.
th-cam.com/video/cGZkCPo7tC0/w-d-xo.html
*smug laughter
Win an argument? Good one. No one ever really wins an argument because no one wants to lose an argument. Therefore people will always find more stuff to drag the argument on, or simply say "Forget it, you don't understand" or something that ends the argument without anyone really winning, just both sides kind of going off lukewarm if not upset at the whole thing.
It's dream stuff to think that anyone would ever admit that they were wrong, and that you've managed to change their point of view with your clever rebuttals. I see people arguing on a daily basis, and 99% of the time it ends up in an unsolved mess of a dead-end.
ablationer when making an argument on the internet, your goal really isn't about looking for your opponent to concede there argument.
Like you outlined the internet isn't exactly constructed to allow for a formal debate, and the participants aren't always interested in having a far debate . But you can still win the argument in the eyes of the audience . Which is typically the case of a well constructed retorts. The key here is to know when to stop engaging, i.e. make your argument as clear as possible in the first post and only engage again if it's to clear up a point. never engage in a long debate a best your wasting your own time, at worse it can disengage anyone in the audience that might have consider your point valid.
+darksahdowofthewolf you are a retort *snickers*
@@darksahdowofthewolf And this is the spoiled heart of pseudo-intellectualism. Instead of actually looking for people you can communicate better with or improving your social skills, you idiots waste everyone's time by playing King of the Hill in arguments.
It's a sad thing when the name of intellectualism is used as a way to claim dominance instead of seeking mutual understanding.
sometimes a au scenario happens were they come to a agreement and give up but that's how most of my arguments end.
In many arguments people try to claim I am using fallacies, but I can spot multiple in their own argument. It seems to be usually best to not argue with people and just cite evidence. If they have a problem, just cite more evidence. You can try to reason with people a bit, but if they are showing to be unreasonable, just give them the evidence if you have any and move on.
There's something called a Steelman, which is when you create a representation of the argument so to better understand it. So you can accuse someone of making a strawman when they are trying to make a steelman but in order to prove it's a strawman you have to deconstruct it and take it apart as if it were straw. And usually you can do that by reiterating your point/argument. In otherwords simplify it, make it solid and to the point, sometimes you will have to repeat yourself in order for them to understand. So you can create a steelman for yourself to tear their strawman asunder.
Finally remembered to use this in an argument on the internet. Thanks, Mike!
So would an example of this be a man trying to say his opponent wanted guns to be banned even though the opponent wanted gun regulation. The man simply made this argument in order to make it easier to argue and ultimately to make his opponent look bad?
Conservatives are well known for logical fallacies
Ryan Walsh Overwhelmingly liberal, but yes sometimes conservative.
colin3ds well, one side kills unborn babies so there’s that.
All leftists are rot, and they want sole ownership of guns. So they want "More gun regulation" and will never stop wanting to "Regulate" away the rights of real humans.
@@JasonGodwin69 I can’t tell if you are joking or not
I'm currently studying for a critical thinking test that's on fallacies, and all of these just popped up in my subscription and i'm so happy right now. Thank you!
i know its 9 years late but how was the test
you guys are great and these short videos are some of the best stuff in youtube keep doing it please , i want to have better arguments
Thank you very much. I've been having trouble understanding a straw man fallacy. Mostly because I couldn't spot it even after rewatching a particular video.
I am so glad that you've made this series. I'm a total atheist but THANK GOD! Now I can use these things when trying to solve arguments on the internet!
learn the fallacies well though. Don't be a fallacy bully.
ichiboku1 what is a fallacy bully?
elazer twist
Point proven.
elazer twist just as people use fallacy to try to further discussions other people like falsely using fallacies in conversation to sound superior and therefore win the aargument through fancy words and shutting down the conversation
skudzer1985 so by not knowing a term that makes me said thing? what kind of logic is that?
I love, Love, LOVE YOU for making these videos! SOOOO going to use them! :D
Have you guys noticed that up until he names the fallacy, all the videos are the same exact clip? Like if you play two and sync them, it's word for word, pause for pause and intonation for intonation exactly the same? Very efficient there Mike :P
If you look at his shirt, the lighting changes because there's a cut at 0:09. But I only noticed it because I saw your comment.
Plus these falicies can each be made into one of those really cool confusing plot twist, confusing processes movies.
THIS IS AWESOME i never understood the concept until now
Perfect for the impending doom of the holidays table. This year, we are staying on topic. Game, set, match!
Thank you so much! I've found this video very helpful! And you talk the same exact awesome way as Vsauce duuuude! Keep the quality content coming! :D
Came here to work on my english paper, found a great channel with interesting content :D
If you wish to see this fallacy being committed, just take a leisurely stroll through any anti-feminist forum/video.
Or if you really want to see it, look at any Anita Sarkesian video.
Ha! Your Strawman example is a Strawman.
holnrew Anita rarely commits fallacies. I don't doubt she has probably committed one or two, but I have yet to see one. Could you perhaps give specifics?
No one in these comments has committed a strawman so what is going on?
***** That would not be a strawman. That would be a hasty generalization.
Very cool video, have seen this virtually everyday, between car guys, Android vs Apple discussions, vape shops/devices, and now I have something to call it, because it happens so often, its frustrating to discuss with people that do this constantly
This is an excellent presentation. Well done
If someone wrongly calls a strawman statement is that a strawman in itself?
No :-) A strawman occurs when some person A tries refuting a strawman as a means of refuting person B. If Person B says, you're committing a strawman and he is in fact wrong about that, he has simply made an error. Person B is not trying to refute person A's main claim when he points out a potential fallacy.
In fact that is a fallacy in itself. If you notice someone committing a fallacy, that does not mean you have refuted what they said. Noticing someone making a fallacy is nothing more than noticing an error in thinking. But the person who makes an error in thinking may still be right in the end.
That would actually be a red herring. See www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#RedHerring
Since a false strawman is used only to distract from the actual argument, then it is a red herring.
jordypoe
Well, straw manning is misrepresentation, so there could be some cases where that would be true, but that would probably be rare.
I've actually seen someone calling someone else's argument a strawman statement with a strawman statement
These videos are great! Will they be making one with for a slippery slope fallacy?
Pbs.... im so happy you made a good video like this... you arent dead to me anymore
This is what the youtube comment section is made of.
Yup.
All the way.
Onision.
I am confused by how straw mike's is over simplifying regular mike's argument, especially after watching Mike's video on social criticism in media. Mike DOES seem to be saying that creators HAVE to show violence as being heinous. If they don't, they're being irresponsible. So I don't see that as a straw man.
Mike is saying that bad stuff should be put into a context that shows it's bad, while Straw Mike is ignoring the "context" element of that point to make it appear as though Mike is saying any time someone is shown with a gun on TV, they have to pause, turn to the camera and say "remember kids, I'm an actor. Gun violence is no joke. Stay safe!" He also implies that Mike is saying that without such a moment, guns should never be shown on TV. He then connects this "point" that Mike never made to censorship in media, which the initial argument was never about. In this way, Mike is talking about the context of actions we show in media while Straw Mike is talking about what we can and cannot show.
Rathayibacter Toxicus If that's the case, I think Mike is strawmanning his critics with this video. Mike explicitly talked about the problems in distancing the reproduction of violence from the message that it is bad. So his critics would have to be pretty dim to think that's what he was advocating. And isn't Mike saying violence shouldn't be shown unless it is shown in a context that makes it explicit that it is horrible? That seems like his point to me, that just "reproducing" violence is irresponsible.
Well, the thing about a strawman argument is that the person using it doesn't need to misunderstand the argument, they just need to make other people misunderstand it. But yeah, you're right- Mike says that violence needs an appropriately toned context, not that violence is inherently bad or corrupting or anything.
I use this fallacy all of the time lol
(My friend Chris says something smart) Me: "You're gonna get smacked today, Chris."
Chris: "Who's gonna smack me?....Nobody."
Me: "OH! So now I'm a 'nobody'!?!?"
Chris: "Whattt? That's not what I meant."
Me: LOL
That's not a true fallacy!
Get it? Because no true sctosman fallacy?
:)
No true scotsman would ever make a logical fallacy
(I need someone to respond with a strawman claim, please)
So if we're going to go along with this...
Will people please stop saying that Libertarians are selfish and just want people to stay alone in their houses. Its a perfect example of the straw man fallacy.
Placing all wrong judgments under a few fallacies allows for the misunderstanding of the problem. The idea about libertarians is a stereotype. This is a problem of over generalization, not making their ideas dumbed-down. If I were to place a logical fallacy, I would use the ad hommenem fallacy because the person saying that would use it in the context of an argument about a libertarian ideal to prove it wrong.
Prove it wrong.
Perhaps, not all of them, but how in any way does that = giving loads of my money to governments?
Businesses wouldn't abuse the system in a Freemarket society, because the natural laws of interaction prevent it from happening. Would you go to a company if it charged loads, gave it's workers terrible conditions and gave large amounts to their CEO's?
No but food would probably be cheaper anyway because there would be no tax. No taxes of any kind for that.
There are also friendly societies that can help you out if you are down and out, far more effective than 'food stamps'
Why should a business need to provide healthcare? That means that they would have to get new healthcare if they got fired?
Well currently half the men on our side fighting in Afghanistan are Private. And police forces in America are already pretty crap and militarised, whereas the private police force in Detroit its being very kind :)
A logical fallacy should never be "Used" to "Win" and argument. If anything it is a self-policing tool for you to make sure your own argument is solid. Don't just throw around the title of it like a hammer. Actually explain how you feel they are wrong and try to avoid using the fallacies term name. Be thoughtful.
Straw man is about ignoring complexity, which is what politics is all about. Every single political party ignores complexity, even yours. I'm not a libertarian, in fact I'm so far on the other side it's hard to see your point of view... but we will never see eye-to-eye and compromise if we are arguing to win.
Politics is the art of what you can get done, not the art of what you wish to be done. If you put others in a box they are likely to do the same to you. Actually listen and try to understand, when you do that a remarkable thing happens. People will recognize that and in turn listen back. They best thing we can do is build a world which we can all talk, without shaming. Where we can admit we are wrong without others questioning everything because of that. Where we can say "Oh, well I may have to do research on that." or "I don't have time right now to pull some number, can we table this or move on to another point?" without the other side jumping down their throat. Basically making discussion not about who can most exhaustively persist through and rather about actually trying to learn and figure out solutions for everyone.
No, I was not sent a link by someone... you pretentious PBS person. In fact, I wished to educate myself... personally and of my own volition. Thank you though, for your videos about sophistry and whatnot... I truly appreciate your condescending views.
+
you are very smart
Sapere Aude dont be racist
effkanurr you're a ray cyst.
Stop taking things too literally. Not everything addressed to the viewer is a personal attack, you dolt.
1:55 Sadly, there are plenty of people out there who insist that an argument getting unfocused & aggressive is the ultimate fun.
a lot helpful , thank you
I watched this in class! Thanks!
Actually, TH-cam sent me a link to this video because I am subscribed to your channel, so thanks buddy.
*sigh* this is every conversation i have with a console gamer:
me "wow does this game will look amazing on PC"
console gamer "PC ELITIST SC4M U SPENT $4000 ON A GAMING PC THAT BARELY BEATS MY XBAX!"
me: "no, actually i spent $800 on it and it gets higher than 30 fps @1080p
console gamer "BUT 30FPS IS MORE CINEMATIC"
(and this is the point of no return)
Although not all are over inflated airheads like the one i was describing.
2:00 no some just want to win, come on now 😅
Also thankyou for the explanation.
I came here via TH-cam search after watching a vidoe essay that used this term, and I needed a refresher.
A moment of "wait what does that mean again"
I just used this as link in a comment on a video on tiktok so thank you
Most excellent! Thanks for that wonderful job ! God Bless Much Love ©®
This is a really good explanation
A verey usefull video... I will use this often.
Out of all the fallacies in your series, I believe I am susceptible to this one the most. >~< Oops!
Yeah, but I should be allowed to have any sort of argument as long as it's my opinion..
Oh, wait.
are these videos being sent out to specific idea channel commentaries?
I think they're general use links for the internet. :P
Straw Mike actually made a really good point that Mike is now just dismissing as a fallacy. Where's the video for people who dismiss a valid point because they think someone is using a strawman fallacy when they aren't? Someone link this video to that video.
I work with a guy who does this CONSTANTLY and every time I find myself going "how did we get here?"
This is a super helpful video- I've linked it a few times now. Religious people tend to hate it the most lol
The Straw Man fallacy is every twitter cancellation.
0:09 seconds in and he’s clearly a mind reader😂
Thank you and awesome.
Mike: Helpful yes, but scary. I can see how easy it is to fall into that trap without even realizing that you're doing it.
Could you do one on the apply to nature falacy...that one is just way too common an is never talked about
Anti Gamergate is pretty guilty of this
*****
If you don't think Anita Sarkeesian has an impact on the gaming community, then you haven't been paying attention.
If you think there isn't any corruption in gaming journalism, then you haven't been paying attention.
If you think that neither of those things have any effect on how games are produced, then you haven't been paying attention.
*****
Again, you haven't been paying attention. The change in the games themselves would take years, but the change in the community is obvious. Just go to 4chan, Reddit, or any other forum and talk about sexism in video games. You will start a huge flame war, which never would have happened before. We've gotten to the point of developers themselves saying 'up yours gamers,' and this legitimizes the idiotic attitudes of both extreme reactionary pop-culture feminists and developers with a mental problem like Phil Fish when both of them abuse their intended demographic. That's simply not acceptable.
AAA companies make games according to reviews and sales, if the reviews change, then the games themselves will also change, stop kidding yourself.
And Ash, my Username is in reference to the fact that many refuse to be skeptical of their own religious ideologies. It's the exact opposite of a holier than thou attitude and if you bothered to get to know me, then you would know that already.
Thank you for resting my case.
*****
Have you seen the Australian censorship of video games? That's more like what's actually going to happen. If the government doesn't like a video game, they'll ban it.
Dev time for a AAA company is usually 4 years minimum. Don't kid yourself.
Ignore the problem and it won't go away, simple as that.
***** HEY, DONT DISS MIRRORS EDGE! THAT GAME'S AWESOME!
+mrpenguinice Unfortunately Mirrors Edge is a brilliant game caught in the cosmic shitstorm made by stereotypes of the publishers.
The problem solving method of Reductio Ad Abusrdum ( I reduce to absurdity) is widely used and is also widely accepted , if an we point out to someone they've created a strawman and instead of admiting defeat , what if he goes on to state he reduced the arguement to it's basic principle to refute the arguement , which is essentially Reductio ad absurdum ?
I just so a post in my Facebook newsfeed and this was the first thing to come to mind. It was someone sharing a Vegan page's photo and claiming that vegans are promoting bestiality.
Which... is incredibly warped and twisted and... I hope that this video helps them.
If said person sees this comment, hello.
Straw man fallacies make arguments funny and exciting though. Unproductive....but exciting!
So does speaking in tongues, but they are both poor ways to transmit ideas.
"If you're gonna win an argument, you wanna win against what the other side actually thinks, don't you?"
Ha ha, as if that's gonna happen in an internet debate.
Thanks for the helpful video.
+Noah Johnson OH SO NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT OTHER VIDEOS ARE STUPID AND THEY JUST WASTED THEIR TIME? JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE AS GOOD OF VIDEO AND AUDIO QUALITY? HUH? ARE YOU DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEIR CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES AREN'T AS GOOD? IDIOT!
+Noah Johnson So this is what happens when people with split personality disorder have Google+ accounts...
Andrew Mcilveen It was supposed to be a straw man fallacy *omg facepalm*
Perfect!!!
Cathy Newman: "So, you're saying that....."
Yay! This video!
When the "fallacy" itself is also a fallacy
He used a strawman to defeat his "strawman"!
I think the world might have got me back to the channel because it was the next channel I went to on my phone.
Thank you..
Well said.
Strawman Mike is actually right and he responded to Mike's point in a good way.
Cap
Great video
THANKK U!!!!!!
What if someone claims you are using a strawman argument when they didn't understand you were making a hypothetical on the logic they are using as an example of bad logic and/or incorrect definitions of words? Not many people seem to really talk about the people who try to claim fallacies in other peoples arguments but don't understand the argument.
Love these, but Strawman Mike is nightmareinducing xD
This dude gives me Ray Williams Johnson vibes with his background
I got the most hilarious request from a Creationist that was asking me to explain to him how life evolves from a simple cell into a complex multicellular organism... His request was (verbatim) _"Make it short and precise. I dont want alot of unnecessary information to divert. The point"_
He wants me to boil down and simplify a complex process such as primitive single cellular life evolving into complex multicellular life... This would require me teaching him Evolution in it's entirety.... Yet he wants a boiled down, simplified explanation...
He doesn't really care about the answer, as he doesn't believe Evolution anyway and he isn't interested in learning about it, he just wants me to assemble him a strawman so he can attack it later on in the debate (criticize the simplified explanation).
This is an example of someone trying to bait you into creating a strawman that they can use to attack!
+Doom2pro After resolving that by saying "I can't", I'd probably ask him/her/it, "Have you ever considered that God made evolution, perhaps", just to hear his/her/its response.
+Stan Ly This guy likes to move the goal posts quite a bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if he rejected the idea immediately because Evolution doesn't work in his mind and his Creationism makes more sense.
He stopped replying to me after others (even some Christians) were saying I was mopping the floor with his arguments, which wasn't that hard, he recycled the same flawed argument over and over.
Ohh well, it was fun while it lasted :D
Doom2pro Did he say why he didn't think Evolution worked?
Thanks bro
Straw man (birth certificate)
*HITS SUBSCRIBE SO HARD COMPUTER WINCES*
thank you for saying what i haven't been able to explain to my ivy league graduate boyfriend who is clearly using his superior intellect to give me that "whaa?" expression on my face day in and day out. I think his end game is: less discussion = more time for football. le sigh.
*are you straw manning me right now?* 🤔
People who use the term "Strawman" fail to see the bigger picture.
Links are now more than likely censored here in the free market. 😂
The concept of the strawman fallacy is so vague I try to pretend it doesn't even exist. For every example someone is giving in the comments, someone else is saying, "well, not exactly..." And since no one seems to know what it means or exactly how distorted something has to be to consider it a strawman, when a person uses the term it often just makes them look worse.
Straw mike is unsettling
wonder if i can use this video as a comment on another one of the videos in this channel.... a lot of strawmen happen here...
But how could one go about making sure any scene in a movie is shown in any specific context you can name without being censored to some degree?
The problem with your example is that you never made an argument to begin with. As you said, you simply stated a preference as to how you view the "responsible use of media." You never prescribed some course of action or consiquence based on this. If you were to then say "therefore, 'unresponsible' use of media should be forcibly banned," then it would be an argument.
unless if it's an enthymeme.
in which case, it's still vague and doesn't hold that much weight. Though I guess it's usually safe to assume that most enthymemes made by people in "public" (political) discourse carry the conclusion that a government should take some sort of action.
I just learn that is even a thing and I'm going to take a guess that this is a very popular fallacy isnt it?
Very. Just watch any political debate. You can literally count the number of seconds before an argument turns into a straw man attack.
Either i am really self-centred or most of my classmates are strawmens
Heh TIL that there is something just as common as lying.
And that would be that everyone also has strawman arguments.
the david bowie album in the background.
i looked this up for school ya batch lol
I came here because I heard so many people use the term Strawman Argument without explaining what it means.
You know what I hate the most about the strawman fallacy? It's when people try to strawman your arguments so that they can say you've been strawmaning them.
Hilarious reaction gifs lmao lol xddddd i don't think i would have understood this concept without those😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Actually Straw Mike's last part of the argument feels like a straw man tactic.
"Oh, so we should just let authors do what they want?"
It actually feels like straw Mike advocates for the freedom of authors to rely on the audience (may God forgive me) media literacy
Strange to see the D Plan in the background of a video.
The Straw Man I hate above all others is "At the end of the day". In one off handed phrase we are magically teleported thew time to the end of a persons argument were your just supposed to agree and kiss as you watch the sun set hand in hand.
Makes me want to vomit when I hear TV news talking heads use it. Gross :/
Could you make these falicies into awesome stories like avatar, kick ass, edge tomorrow, white house down, assassins creed(assassins creed and white house down are really similar, white house down is just assassins creed in a two hour version, but their still very different(not just times).), the rest of the assassins creed series, the bioshock series, the dead space series, firefly, doctor who, 3 days to kill. Basically try and get into that sort of cool/realy cool stories so I can memorize them and use them. Plus I really do need to use them. Two huge problems. One in my house. The other. How do I say this anywhere. The second the government and other people did. Its almost impossible to get away. But not IMPOSSIBLE.
Also watch all those. But mostly edge of tomorrow, the whole assassins creed series, whole bioshock series and the doctor who series starting with Rose and the dead space series. And LISTEN. Because what they say is huge. Listen then think about each second. Then you can see the world. I don't just mean see it. I mean see some of the complicated stuff in the world. And probably see why you made your TH-cam channel(hint bioshock). Plus the stuff in there can make you better.
I think being able to recognize people who strawman (on purpose), is incredibly helpful. You do not want them in your life. Toxic.
It's funny that in internet debates, people wrongly call out the straw man fallacy.
What's the fallacy called when you substitute one thing for another. Example: "Shooting xxx was very bad." Yeah, well shooting yyy was a lot worse than that!" End of argument. What's that called?
A fallacy in which one attempts to refute a very weak version of the other side's position.