|Pages: 1 |
Posted 10/11/07 4:18:00PM
Just for clarification purposes....
A strawman argument is neither:
1) When a person argues against an argument that no one else is making AT ALL. (Which is sort of what Flashy is accusing BlueSkies of because nobody in this thread, at that point, had written off Ronda.)
2) When you attack the weakest point of a persons argument (Which is what BlueSkies is accusing Flashy of.)
#2 is just good argumentation. If you can attack the weak point in an argument, the whole thing often falls apart.
A strawman argument IS:
When you repeat someone's argument in an exaggerated way that makes it easier to knock down.
I say, "I think Fedor is the greatest HW in the history of MMA. In his prime he was unstoppable."
My opponent responds, "That's a ludicrous thing to say. There are several fighters in the UFC today that could beat Fedor. Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos would both crush that old Russian."
Note that in my original argument I wasn't saying that Fedor was the best CURRENT heavyweight in MMA. I stated that I believed his past accomplishments made him the HW GOAT. Almost no one would argue that the Fedor that's fighting today could beat the best guys in the UFC today.
Rather than dealing with my real argument though, my opponent chose to act like I was saying something else so that I would be easier to dispute.
Posted 1/25/08 3:12:00PM
i actually have Kaufman winning this bout..it's not hard to defend against a single attack submission..as Belcher has shown against Palhares..Kaufman will advoid falling into that position and letting Rousey clinch up and use her judo on Kaufman..as i remember Tate land' some nice punches on Rousey, who imo has no striking abilities..and if Tate didnt try to wrestler Rousey, she wouldnt have been caught..i think Kaufman will advoid the TD's and clinching up, find a home for the punches and end it with a tko late in the match..
|Pages: 1 |