Anyone Going To The World Cup?

[MDZ]

Interesting how Oliver lays the blame entirely on FIFA. It is not as if FIFA FORCED the Brazilian government to accept anything. Lula wanted that World Cup badly, as a monument to himself. The Brazilian people were told by Lula that private business were going to pick up the tab of the World Cup, including the stadium in Manaus.
Yes, FIFA is a corrupt organization, but the blame should fall solely on the Lula and Dilma administrations.

... and those two are probably responsible for Qatar 2022, too.

 

[camberiu]

... and those two are probably responsible for Qatar 2022, too.

Got some straw man fallacy, herr MDZ?

 

[EdRooney]

The Brazilian people were told by Lula that private business were going to pick up the tab...

Totally this is the usual line, we were told the same thing in Athens, and it has become a mantra of all neo-liberal politics: "We have to sacrifice everything in order to be attractive to foreign investors." The only surprising part is that after so many failures, people still keep buying it.

 

[EdRooney]

Just a note Camberiu: while I agree that the blame should be placed squarely on the Lula/Dilma administrations, a straw man argument is where one creates a fictitious opponent in order to destroy him. In this case, neither Fifa nor Lula are fictitious, so your "straw man" argument does not apply. I only bring this up because I have greatly enjoyed your discussions on this board, and since true straw man arguments are in fact prevalent here, it's best to keep our terminology as straight as possible.

 

[AdrianB1983]

Well, we should be getting ready because in 2030 the WC is in Argentina baby! ... wait!.... oh god...

 

[Joe]

Just a note Camberiu: while I agree that the blame should be placed squarely on the Lula/Dilma administrations, a straw man argument is where one creates a fictitious opponent in order to destroy him. In this case, neither Fifa nor Lula are fictitious, so your "straw man" argument does not apply. I only bring this up because I have greatly enjoyed your discussions on this board, and since true straw man arguments are in fact prevalent here, it's best to keep our terminology as straight as possible.

Both of you are incorrect.

1) MDZ's comment was not a Straw Man but a poorly executed attempt at sarcasm.
2) A straw man argument does not require a "fictitious opponent". It does need to be fictitious nor even a persona. A straw man is merely the misrepresentation of the opponent's argument with another argument (the straw man) that is easy to defeat, i.e. easy to knock over like a straw man. The only part of Ed's comment that is correct is that Straw Man arguments are frequently used in this forum.

Wikipedia give several examples, including this one:

An example often given of a straw man is US President Richard Nixon's 1952 "Checkers speech".[sup][11][/sup][sup][12][/sup] When campaigning for vice president in 1952, Nixon was accused of having illegally appropriated $18,000 in campaign funds for his personal use. In a televised response, instead of addressing the funds, he spoke about another gift, a dog he had been given by a supporter:[sup][11][/sup][sup][12][/sup] It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, six years old, named it Checkers. And, you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that, regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.
This was a straw man response; his critics had never criticized the dog as a gift or suggested he return it. This argument was successful at distracting people from the funds, and portraying his critics as nitpicking and heartless. Nixon received an outpouring of public support, remained on the ticket, and was elected by a landslide.

Another example would be if Ed same that Wikipedia is a bunch of hooey and not worthy of comment in an attempt to distract from his incorrect definition of a Straw Man argument. In this example, the Straw Man would be the accuracy of Wikipedia which would be easier to attack than to defend his totally incorrect definition of a Straw Man argument.

 

[EdRooney]

You're right Joe, my definition was inaccurate, but (here we go waaaay off on a tangent) your example of me challenging wikipedia as a source would not be a straw man either! I erred in saying it would have to be a fictitious person, which you correctly point out is not exactly accurate. A fake person would be a good example of a strawman but it's not limited to that: it just means creating any false argument and then destroying it. In this case challenging Wikipedia would be a valid argument, and not a strawman, if you depended upon it for your definition (and I would posit, Wiki's a pretty crummy place to base an argument on).

What we often see here on this forum is strawmen. For example, the 600-something post thread on O'bamacare was chock full of them: eg, "conservatives believe X and Y. Here's why X and Y are totally incompatible. Conservatives are stoopid!" where no one argued both X and Y. Either way, I probably shouldnt have even called out Camberiu on it, because it's too much of a red herring

 

[Joe]

You're right Joe, my definition was inaccurate, but (here we go waaaay off on a tangent) your example of me challenging wikipedia as a source would not be a straw man either! I erred in saying it would have to be a fictitious person, which you correctly point out is not exactly accurate. A fake person would be a good example of a strawman but it's not limited to that: it just means creating any false argument and then destroying it. In this case challenging Wikipedia would be a valid argument, and not a strawman, if you depended upon it for your definition (and I would posit, Wiki's a pretty crummy place to base an argument on).

What we often see here on this forum is strawmen. For example, the 600-something post thread on O'bamacare was chock full of them: eg, "conservatives believe X and Y. Here's why X and Y are totally incompatible. Conservatives are stoopid!" where no one argued both X and Y. Either way, I probably shouldnt have even called out Camberiu on it, because it's too much of a red herring

No actually my Wikipedia example is a correct strawman, even by your own reckoning. It is easier to knock down Wikipedia's credibility (as you would a straw man) than to defend your original incorrect definition of a straw man.

You're attempting another debating tactic: deflection. By deviously attacking my straw man example, you are attempting to deflect from your original incorrect straw man definition. I just blocked that deflection with the dexterity of Kobe Bryant.

Check mate sir.

 

[MDZ]

[...] poorly executed attempt at sarcasm.

Pffft

 

[EdRooney]

OK then let's look at a concrete example. The other day, we had that thread on Eduardo Galeano and his supposed recantation (too smashed to look up the link right now). I complained that all of the sources quoting him were secondary sources (all referring to the same NYT article), and there was no direct evidence of what he actually said to see if it jived with what the articles were claiming. Rich One in turn accused me of being a Camporista for imputing the source.

In this case, are you saying I was making a straw man argument? If so, I would have to say what you define as straw men arguments are not only valid, but they are about as good of an argument as one can get-- rightfully attacking an opponent's fallacious sources.