What about when they say, “you’re strawmanning me!” and slightly change their argument? You believe their argument from two minutes ago was wrong, and that they are now intentionally misleading you so they can maintain their position and eternally shift the burden of disproof back onto you.
What about when they say, “you’re strawmanning me!”
Depends, were you strawmanning them? If so, say “you’re right, I was strawmanning”, if not say “no I’m not”.
More seriously, it depends what direction you want to take the discussion. I think it comes down to the same bifurcation I identify above (going vs not going meta). My “hot take” is that often you don’t actually want to emphasize the meta-issues you have with the other person, even if you think they’re doing bad stuff.
So, in your example, I think you can break it down like this:
Is the most important thing to you to highlight what you believe are the argumentative “moves” they are making? If so, do it, but make sure you really have a solid argument. Evaluate the strength of your argument as best you can based on what an objective, outside observer would think is strong, not just that you are really sure they are doing what you think they are doing.
If you aren’t going to fully “go meta” like in #1, which position do you want to try to get them to commit to?
If the new one, just accept their change, ask clarifying questions to lock it in, and go from there.
If the old one, it depends how they have framed it. You might have to slightly “go meta” by saying something like “I feel like you’ve shifted your position a bit”, or something of that nature.
That happens? Nobody has ever accused me of strawmanning them in my entire life. To the contrary, they usually agree with the strawman, so I give them a cowardly lion too and they journey together along the Yellow Brick Road down to the Wizard of Oz.
What about when they say, “you’re strawmanning me!” and slightly change their argument? You believe their argument from two minutes ago was wrong, and that they are now intentionally misleading you so they can maintain their position and eternally shift the burden of disproof back onto you.
Depends, were you strawmanning them? If so, say “you’re right, I was strawmanning”, if not say “no I’m not”.
More seriously, it depends what direction you want to take the discussion. I think it comes down to the same bifurcation I identify above (going vs not going meta). My “hot take” is that often you don’t actually want to emphasize the meta-issues you have with the other person, even if you think they’re doing bad stuff.
So, in your example, I think you can break it down like this:
Is the most important thing to you to highlight what you believe are the argumentative “moves” they are making? If so, do it, but make sure you really have a solid argument. Evaluate the strength of your argument as best you can based on what an objective, outside observer would think is strong, not just that you are really sure they are doing what you think they are doing.
If you aren’t going to fully “go meta” like in #1, which position do you want to try to get them to commit to?
If the new one, just accept their change, ask clarifying questions to lock it in, and go from there.
If the old one, it depends how they have framed it. You might have to slightly “go meta” by saying something like “I feel like you’ve shifted your position a bit”, or something of that nature.
That happens? Nobody has ever accused me of strawmanning them in my entire life. To the contrary, they usually agree with the strawman, so I give them a cowardly lion too and they journey together along the Yellow Brick Road down to the Wizard of Oz.
I’ve only have it happen with one person… but it happens every time with that particular person. I’ve mostly stopped debating with them.