>>88885071>Why the fuck does he care if someone is mad as something>disagreeing is acting superiorThat's not how it works
>That's /v/ level of strawmanThat's not strawman, that's ad hominem
And it's not even ad hominem as he actually addres the point.
>Someone post that cap on how to win any argument by phrasing things incorrectly, simulate stuttering and hyperbolizing one of the pointsDon't. This image miss the point so much it's unnerving. Imaginary discussion is perfectly valid. Plato used to do it in the Cave allegory, Galileo used it with Simpleton in "Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems".
In imaginary conversation, what matter is not how the opposite side is represneted, but the arguments brought. And if they are valid, then there is nothing wrong with it.
Bad representation of the opponent is only wrong if you do nothing else and don't present point of your own.
