[OJFord]

Not GP but IMO it's a lazy and boring way of disagreeing. Declaring something 'a strawman' on HN is so common and not entirely done I think (not that I'm particularly familiar) with technical accuracy, it's like screaming 'fake news' with a veneer of intelligence.

GGP comment here was maybe better than most for actually relating the alleged fallacies to what the parent had said directly, but I think it'd be better/politer/more honest good discussion to phrase it like 'this is not the same because blah blah. This kind of argument is known as a blah fallacy.' or not even mention the fallacy, because does it really matter? Unless that's what you want to talk about instead of the actual topic.

It's a bit like saying 'I went through your comment looking for grammatical errors: 1) split infinitive, e.g. blah; 2) missing possessive apostrophe, e.g. blah's blah not blahs blah, ...' versus talking about the content instead and perhaps politely mentioning it. Just a bit 'ha, got you'.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

For anyone reading this, just note that when you employ these tactics the value of accuracy gets lost.

Because that's often what these things are, a test of the values considered important. If accuracy is not important, by all means, don't point out the flaws but rather concentrate on making the other person feel good. Just understand what it is you're doing.

But ask yourself this: How do you arrive at the truth if pointing out inaccuracies is not valued? At that point, why are you even engaging?

Something to think about.

[OJFord]

I'm not saying don't point out inaccuracies, I'm saying there are less combative ways of doing that than 'here is a list of the named fallacies in your argument'.

[uxcolumbo]

Thanks.

I think you're right, this style of discussion can appear confrontational and focusing on scoring points.

I didn't see it at first - I was just parsing the words without imagining how it might be perceived.