Lately, it seems like a lot of people who like to jump into threads and start vigorous (and somewhat hostilely-tinged) debates are resorting to the same old cliche: "the straw man."
"Nice straw man!"
"That's a straw man argument!"
"Can you say straw man?"
"Straw man alert!"
My challenge to all you would-be debaters is to stop accusing people whose opinions you disagree with of erecting a "straw man."
Spell out your argument and what you mean specifically. What is the thing with which you truly take issue?
Straw man has become a copout of sorts for people who cannot offer a genuine argument on the facts. It is like saying "I don't understand your argument and therefore it's a false one and you're using a straw man!"
It's also like writing an adolescent angst poem that relies on a bunch of clunky abstractions such as "love" and "hope" and "broken hearted" rather than using concrete imagery, like "the ivy twining 'round the balustrade" or "the gaping birdcage door" or "the weighted branches scraping the sidewalk." In other words, ambiguous terms like love mean something different to everyone. Give us a picture so we can understand what "straw man" means to you.
You simply can't have a healthy debate if one side resorts to abstract cliches rather than concrete debatable points. Can you imagine in court, "I object your honor! That's a straw man!"
Perhaps people who accuse others of resorting to "straw men" think it makes them sound intelligent because it forces the other person to come back and say "What are you talking about?" to which the "straw man" user can retort, "What? You didn't understand my really cool ambiguous phrase that every politician uses to try to take down his opponent?"
I challenge you to banish the straw man from your vocabulary (no offense to scarecrows anywhere; I love "Wizard of Oz"). I am, however, weighing the idea of responding to "straw man" accusations with, "I'm sorry but that's just a tin man response."