Seriously..WTF is wrong with these Retards

[Chadrone]

Let's ask chatgpt

Short answer: yes—this is a textbook strawman, with a few other rhetorical fallacies layered on top.
Why it’s a strawman A strawman misrepresents an opponent’s position so it’s easier to attack.

It's not a strawman because I didn't misreprsent an opponent's position.

I reprsent it in a way that is not flattering and all churched up the way you wine moms desire it to be.... but it's not a misrepresentation.

"it's not what you said it's HOW you said it!!" ...... and that's why it triggers the fuckin' shit out of you Karencrats so badly, that's why you focus on the histrionics and avoid the message at all cost. Just like women.

I say it like it is, and it gets you every fuckin' time.

 

[Wilson23]

what crazyness will happen next

War.

 

[Chadrone]

War.

The most based comment you've made.

 

[ll74]

It's not a strawman because I didn't misreprsent an opponent's position.

I reprsent it in a way that is not flattering and all churched up the way you wine moms desire it to be.... but it's not a misrepresentation.

"it's not what you said it's HOW you said it!!" ...... and that's why it triggers the fuckin' shit out of you Karencrats so badly, that's why you focus on the histrionics and avoid the message at all cost. Just like women.

I say it like it is, and it gets you every fuckin' time.

Methinks you protest too much.

Let's ask about your reply-
His defense boils down to:
“I exaggerated on purpose, generalized on purpose, and insulted on purpose — therefore it’s not a strawman.”

I like this guy

 

[Chadrone]

Methinks you protest too much.

Let's ask about your reply-
His defense boils down to:
“I exaggerated on purpose, generalized on purpose, and insulted on purpose — therefore it’s not a strawman.”

I like this guy

^^ an actual strawman.

Saying things in a way you don't like, doesn't make them a misrepresentation.

Words mean things. Exaggerations, generalizations and insults don't make something a strawman.

So you can stay mad about HOW I said something, like the fuckin' Karen you are.....but you cant' say I was wrong.

 

[OralAllOver]

So there was a "rebellion" in LA justifying military in police roles. National Security requires us to grasp Greenland. International drug dealers threaten NatSec, but domestic drug consumers do not. Nor does Putin. TikTok was threat to NatSec, then it wasn't. Wind turbines a threat to NatSec. Now the NY Times, the Grey Lady, a threat to NatSec.

This is Emperor Caligula caliber psychosis. ANY American who stands by this lacks love of country and has a big hole where integrity used to be

 

[ll74]

^^ an actual strawman.

Saying things in a way you don't like, doesn't make them a misrepresentation.

Words mean things. Exaggerations, generalizations and insults don't make something a strawman. A misrepresentation does.....

So you can stay mad about HOW I said something, like the fuckin' Karen you are.....but you cant' say I was wrong.

And this one leads to

What’s actually happening
They say:
“They keep redefining ‘strawman’ as ‘saying things rudely.’ That is not what the word means.”
Good. That’s correct.
But that’s exactly the point you’ve been making, and it doesn’t rescue their original statement.
The unresolved issue is accuracy, not tone.

 

[Chadrone]

And this one leads to

What’s actually happening
They say:
“They keep redefining ‘strawman’ as ‘saying things rudely.’ That is not what the word means.”
Good. That’s correct.
But that’s exactly the point you’ve been making, and it doesn’t rescue their original statement.
The unresolved issue is accuracy, not tone.

More strawmans.

The tone is all you have to complain about. That's why you didn't come back with evidence of lefty Democrat nationalism and rejection of islamic Jihadis......because you don't have any....because I'm not strawmaning.

You guys are globalist who 100% support and protect the intifada. That's why you and your kids run around chanting "from the river to the sea!!" while waving Hamas/Al Q flags..........with rainbo hammer and sickle stickers on your Che T-shirts.

You just don't like HOW I point it out by calling you a bunch of globocommie jihadi ass lickers.

 

[ll74]

More strawmans.

The tone is all you have to complain about. That's why you didn't come back with evidence of lefty Democrat nationalism and rejection of islamic Jihadis......because you don't have any. You guys are globo-commies who hate America and 100% support islamic Jihadism in the USA violating it's people.

The reply

The one-paragraph reply that ends it
If you want to reply once more, this is logically airtight and hard to spin:
You’re doing exactly what a strawman is: attributing extreme, categorical beliefs (“100% support jihadism,” “hate America”) without evidence and attacking that invention.
This isn’t about tone — it’s about you asserting positions I never claimed and cannot defend as universal. That’s misrepresentation by definition.
If they respond with more insults after that, the debate is over in any meaningful sense.

 

[ll74]

More strawmans.

The tone is all you have to complain about. That's why you didn't come back with evidence of lefty Democrat nationalism and rejection of islamic Jihadis......because you don't have any. You guys are globo-commies who hate America and 100% support islamic Jihadism in the USA violating it's people.

Just an aside - you're literally arguing with chatgpt.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Round'em up, ship'em out.

 

[Chadrone]

The one-paragraph reply that ends it
If you want to reply once more, this is logically airtight and hard to spin:
You’re doing exactly what a strawman is: attributing extreme, categorical beliefs (“100% support jihadism,” “hate America”) without evidence and attacking that invention.

That's not what a strawman is. You're trying to conflate terms to fit your bullshit....cut the spin son.

The extreme categorical beliefs are self evident and the Democrats are open about them. That's why you so often try to pretend you're not a Democrat when pressed to own what you vote for.

This isn’t about tone —

It absolutely is.

it’s about you asserting positions I never claimed

You claimed to be a Democrat numerous times.

That comes with baggage same as those of us who voted for Trump. People don't get to be ultra-MAGA and then pretend you don't support closing the borders, deporting ALL the illegals and bombing the shit out jihadis.

Democrats don't get to be democrats and pretend they aren't globocommies who want to globalize the intifada.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I wonder what she says to her white husband after she bans whites from her administration and social events. He must be a cuck.

No one wonders why you talk about black men fucking your white women and cuckolding so much, betacuck.

 

[ll74]

The reply-

The shortest possible response that locks this down
If you respond again, keep it to this and stop:
A strawman isn’t about tone or baggage — it’s about attributing beliefs someone hasn’t stated and then attacking them.
You keep asserting extreme positions as “self-evident” without citing any official or universal claim. That’s attribution, not evidence. Identity isn’t proof.
Anything beyond that just feeds the performance.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Round'em up, ship'em out.

Your president ships out the wrong people, shit for brains.

You racist idiots put the cart before the horse and fucked it all up.

 

[DeluxAuto]

about attributing beliefs someone hasn’t stated and then attacking them.

He would average less than one post per day if adhered to this.

 

[ll74]

That's not what a strawman is. You're trying to conflate terms to fit your bullshit....cut the spin son.

The extreme categorical beliefs are self evident and the Democrats are open about them. That's why you so often try to pretend you're not a Democrat when pressed to own what you vote for.




It absolutely is.



You claimed to be a Democrat numerous times.

That comes with baggage same as those of us who voted for Trump. People don't get to be ultra-MAGA and then pretend you don't support closing the borders, deporting ALL the illegals and bombing the shit out jihadis.

Democrats don't get to be democrats and pretend they aren't globocommies who want to globalize the intifada.

Short summary of reply-

1. They’re just denying the definition, not refuting it
2. “Self-evident” is doing all the work — and it can’t
3. Identity ≠ belief (this is the core logical error)
4. They keep proving the strawman while denying it

 

[Chadrone]

The reply-

The shortest possible response that locks this down
If you respond again, keep it to this and stop:

You're not in control of this interaction.

A strawman isn’t about tone or baggage —

Exactly, that's why what I did wasn't a strawman.

it’s about attributing beliefs someone hasn’t stated and then attacking them.

Yes.

You keep asserting extreme positions as “self-evident” without citing any official or universal claim. That’s attribution, not evidence. Identity isn’t proof.
Anything beyond that just feeds the performance.

Your denial of your policy stances because your so embarassed of them doesn't make them go away.

The evidence is ya'lls behavior. You REFUSE to deport anyone for any reason, ANY form of border or immigration security of any kind is RACIST NAZISM!! REEE!!!

You always protect Jihadis and their jihadi behavior, there is no level of jihadi barbarism that you won't deflect for and defend. Poor poor jihadis are always 100% the victims because muoozlemz wonderful and perfect, only whitee BAD!! only christian BAD!! Just like when niggers do an armed robbry or home invasion and get popped....you always defend them, and want their victim prosecuted because the poor nigger was just looking for a sandwich on their way to church at 2am.

Always pushing left, individualism and freedom of ANY KIND must be stamped out for PROGRESS!!! EQUITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!! and then you pretend you're moderate. LOL

You're just like every other democrat. A model example in fact. A blue haired Karen with a rainbow hammer and sickle tattooed on their face thinking that's normal and moderate.

 

[Wilson23]

The most based comment you've made.

Well, the POTUS is certainly talking about it, and it would be craziness, wouldn't it?

 

[Chadrone]

Your president ships out the wrong people, shit for brains.

Yea he should be deporting Democrats like you.

 

[ll74]

You're not in control of this interaction.



Exactly, that's why what I did wasn't a strawman.



Yes.


Your denial of your policy stances because your so embarassed of them doesn't make them go away.

The evidence is ya'lls behavior. You REFUSE to deport anyone for any reason, ANY form of border or immigration security of any kind is RACIST NAZISM!! REEE!!!

You always protect Jihadis and their jihadi behavior, there is no level of jihadi barbarism that you won't deflect for and defend. Poor poor jihadis are always 100% the victims because muoozlemz wonderful and perfect, only whitee BAD!! only christian BAD!! Just like when niggers do an armed robbry or home invasion and get popped....you always defend them, and want their victim prosecuted because the poor nigger was just looking for a sandwich on their way to church at 2am.

Always pushing left, individualism and freedom of ANY KIND must be stamped out for PROGRESS!!! EQUITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!! and then you pretend you're moderate. LOL

You're just like every other democrat. A model example in fact. A blue haired Karen with a rainbow hammer and sickle tattooed on their face thinking that's normal and moderate.

I haven't been involved. You're arguing with chatgpt
_---
At this point the exchange has crossed out of argument and into assertion-by-insult.

What they’re doing (mechanically)
Declare dominance

Assert conclusions without proof

These are absolute, categorical claims applied to an individual without evidence.
Substitute caricature for policy They never cite:
a law,
a platform plank,
a vote,
or a specific statement you made.
Instead, they argue against a constructed character.

Why this is still a strawman (definition, no spin)
A strawman is present when someone:
assigns a set of beliefs to an opponent,
those beliefs are not actually held or stated in that form,
and then attacks those beliefs.
It does not require:
politeness,
your “control” of the interaction,
or denial by the accused.
What they are doing now is a compound fallacy:
strawman (invented beliefs),
ad hominem (identity-based attack),
guilt by association,
and burden shifting (“disprove my caricature”).
Calling it “self-evident” or “behavior” does not convert rhetoric into evidence.
---

Fun to watch

 

[DeluxAuto]

Yea he should be deporting Democrats like you.

Law-abiding patriots? While he's a convicted felon?

Your typical anti American bullshit is noted, you piece of shit mongoloid.

 

[Chadrone]

Short summary of reply-

1. They’re just denying the definition, not refuting it
2. “Self-evident” is doing all the work — and it can’t
3. Identity ≠ belief (this is the core logical error)
4. They keep proving the strawman while denying it

I'm not trying to refute the definition.

It can, you can pretend democrats NEVER say/do any of the things that they say/do all day every day but we know you're full of shit.

Identity = belief when you identify as a particular ideologe.

Nobody is moving the non-existent strawman. You just don't understand the consept of a strawman Karen, a tone/how something is said, doesn't determine if it's a strawman.

You can hate the tone all you like....facts are still facts.

 

[ll74]

I'm not trying to refute the definition.

It can, you can pretend democrats NEVER say/do any of the things that they say/do all day every day but we know you're full of shit.

Identity = belief when you identify as a particular ideologe.

Nobody is moving the non-existent strawman. You just don't understand the consept of a strawman Karen, a tone/how something is said, doesn't determine if it's a strawman.

You can hate the tone all you like....facts are still facts.

They say:
“I’m not trying to refute the definition.”
But then they assert a rule that directly contradicts it:
“Identity = belief when you identify as a particular ideology.”

That is not how belief attribution works in logic, philosophy, or political analysis.
It’s a new rule they’re smuggling in to avoid the strawman charge.

2. “Self-evident” still isn’t evidence
They say:
“It can [be self-evident] … we know you’re full of shit.”
This is argument by assertion + social validation, not proof.

3. Identity ≠ total belief set (this is the decisive failure)
Even if someone identifies as a Democrat, it does not logically follow that they:
oppose all deportations,
support jihadism,
reject all border enforcement,
oppose individualism,
worship “equity of outcomes.”
Those are compound, absolute claims.

4. “Tone doesn’t determine strawman” — correct, but irrelevant
They’re right about one thing:
“Tone/how something is said doesn’t determine if it’s a strawman.”
Agreed. And that’s never been your claim.

 

[Rightguide]

"Extradentary assertions rewire extradentary proof."

How have Somalian immigrants benefitted people living in Boston?

...or anywhere else?