The current meaning for strawman is something like this:
* (Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".
Basically, claiming the opponent is defending a similar, but much harder to defend position; another example is when someone says "I support abortion" and his opponent says, "So you like murdering children?". Abortion may or may not be murdering children, depending on how you feel about it, but now the other person is asked to argue for that, not abortion.
What Omni is doing is the old version of a straw man: arguing to lose. He claims to be for a side when he is really for the other side, and at the same time he argues like an idiot/against the side he claims to be arguing for. Basically trying to make Pro-Ban look stupid by claiming to be pro-ban and either posting stupid things that make no sense or posting against pro-ban. Get what I mean now?
* (Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".
Basically, claiming the opponent is defending a similar, but much harder to defend position; another example is when someone says "I support abortion" and his opponent says, "So you like murdering children?". Abortion may or may not be murdering children, depending on how you feel about it, but now the other person is asked to argue for that, not abortion.
What Omni is doing is the old version of a straw man: arguing to lose. He claims to be for a side when he is really for the other side, and at the same time he argues like an idiot/against the side he claims to be arguing for. Basically trying to make Pro-Ban look stupid by claiming to be pro-ban and either posting stupid things that make no sense or posting against pro-ban. Get what I mean now?
