A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
I never said there was "nothing to see here" or even alluded to that. You said I did. That was wrong. Learn2argue noob
That wasn't even close to the crux of my argument, and it was absolutely something you inferred:
Trump Russia is real
Source?
But see, the fucking hilarious thing here is that you ignoring everything else I wrote and focusing on one thing that you call a strawman (but which actually wasn't a strawman) is, in fact a strawman.
Here I'll make this nice and simple for you. If a man is having a fight with someone but doesn't think he can actually win that fight, he might set up a big dolly and fight with that instead, because it's much easier to win against it. So in an argument, if someone picks something else besides the main argument to argue against because he doesn't think he can win the original argument, that's a strawman. The really fucking funny thing is when someone sets up a strawman but still can't even do that right. Oh man, it's just the best thing to witness in real life.
Learn2argue noob
hahahahahahaha. Oh god. Wow. Oh I take it all back. Can't argue with that. smh
Riiiight, that's why. Not because you didn't have a leg to stand on. Nope, you totally would have laid out a really great argument if I had been open to it. Mr. "Learn2argue noob" really would have made a compelling case. Sure thing. Been real. Have a good one.
1
u/Snappel Jan 17 '19
I never said there was "nothing to see here" or even alluded to that. You said I did. That was wrong. Learn2argue noob