CRT Part II: Defunding the Military

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 10:57 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: A Fred Toast move is when you either twist someone's argument, or downright ignore the actual points trying to be made, only in order to win a debate.

Here's a couple of silly and exaggerated examples off the top of my head...

Me:  I actually really like Jersey Mike's.  It's close to my work so it convenient, and it's not terribly expensive.

Fred: This guy actually thinks Jersey Mike's is better than buying meat from the butcher and making it at home.
--------
Me: Kyler Murray is better than you think.  His numbers in 2020 were somewhat similar to Lamar Jackson in 2019.  I know the passing TD's weren't as high and TD/INT ratio needs to improve but he did throw for more yards.  He also rushed for more TD's, while only finishing a 100 or so yards less in rushing.  He's a pretty interesting player to keep an eye on.

Fred:  You really think Kyler Murray is an MVP QB?  If you think this guy is a top 5 QB like Lamar Jackson was in 2019 then you're nuts.  You clearly know nothing about QB's if you have him in the same tier as Rogers.

Well, this is a bit confusing (though I do appreciate the effort to define).  If you are going to call this a "Fredtoast move" then I would expect an actual Fred toast example.

What you seem to be describing here is what's generally known as a strawman fallacy. We do see this sort of thing in this forum, when people substitute their own statements or terms for another poster's, and then "refute" the changed statements/terms as if they were the original poster's. But Fred was hardly the worst offender in this regard, not by a long shot. 

Also, probably 50-60% of this substitution arises through misreading/misunderstanding, and not ill will. 

No one wins a debate by ignoring points actually being made, at least substantive ones. If that occurs then, again, there is always possibility of misunderstanding, and a poster can restate the ignored point and ask that it be addressed. The tricky part comes when people ignoring points accuse others of doing so, or people twisting arguments accusing others of doing that--and without offering any explanation or example. 

It's the follow up--or disruption of that--which really tells us whether ignoring/twisting has occurred, and whether it is intentional. 
People genuinely interested good faith dialogue will take time to sort out misunderstandings, re-examine terms, ask and answer questions, and generally hear the other side out. People acting in bad faith, seeking simply to obfuscate or otherwise disrupt dialogue, will shift to ad hominem or otherwise work to disrupt/dismiss/disqualify any clarification, re-statement or other efforts to clear up misunderstanding.