I don't think some of those people being vetted already can be taken out of the argument.
True,the president can make an executive order but If his executive order has to do with vetting,how does talking about vetting make this a strawman argument.
Answer=no It does not.
Straw Man Arguments -
Logic & Propositions
Progression of what just happened:
A. You made a proposition.
B. I rebutted by showing it wasn't valid, and also that it was a straw man argument.
C. You attempted to answer my rebuttal... by sidestepping your own proposition (your point) and creating ANOTHER STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
When an argument isn't going well, we don't actually WIN by changing the argument.
------------------------------------------------------
Now: we'll analyze the above progression, and point out the problems in point C.
1. You originally made the proposition:
Trump's executive order broke the law
You supported this proposition with this premise:
Some people who could not enter the U.S. were "already vetted."
That was your argument as YOU stated it.
Trump broke the law, BY stopping some people that were already vetted.
We see this in your original statement below:
Okay,I will say that I would have to give him an "F"on that last order he gave,although I Do believe his aim was to make America safe,
I just disagree with breaking the law,
some of those people were already vetted.
2. I rebutted your proposition by clearly showing Trump's executive order did NOT break the law.
THIS REBUTTED YOUR ENTIRE PROPOSITION.
Your proposition was that Trump's order BROKE THE LAW.
Your statement that some people were "already vetted" was nothing but a PREMISE which tried to SUPPORT your proposition.. it was never your proposition.
Your "vetting" statement was NOT your proposition.
Your "vetting" statement, as YOU positioned it, was merely a premise to SUPPORT your proposition.
Your proposition, your WHOLE POINT, as YOU STATED IT, was that Trump broke the law.
Here is my previous argument, proving Trump did NOT break any laws, thus REBUTTING YOUR PROPOSITION.
1. It is not breaking the law for the President to issue an executive order, which his office has the authority to do... especially if the order is completely constitutional.
Even most of the President's critics have agreed this order is constitutional.
Keep in mind, constitutional rights DO NOT EVEN BELONG TO NON CITIZENS ANYWAY.
The constitution of the U.S. applies only to citizens of the U.S.
2. This executive order was only temporary in nature... it's a moratorium while security issues are reexamined.
3. This order included the ability for people to BY PASS IT COMPLETELY on a case by case basis.
4. Regarding people already vetted:
A. This executive order was enacted in order to set up NEW vetting processes, because the OLD ONES WEREN'T ALWAYS DOING THE JOB.
B. There is an ability for people to bypass the order on a case by case basis, if they feel they were already vetted appropriately.
3. After your proposition was rebutted (Trump broke the law), you claimed it was NOT REBUTTED, by actually CHANGING YOUR PROPOSITION to something else!
You now claim your proposition was the vetting issue.
Your proposition was NOT the vetting issue.
Your proposition as YOU positioned it, and YOU claimed it, was that "trump broke the law."
4. Now, your new straw man... completely changing the subject:
A. You shift the entire argument from "trump breaking the law", all the way to "vetting", and then further still to just "talking about vetting."
B. You THEN say we were MERELY "talking about vetting", and therefore anything I said previously about a straw man is invalid.
You created a NEW STRAW MAN by COMPLETELY CHANGING YOUR PROPOSITION to something completely ridiculous:
that "talking about vetting" is rational and is not a straw man.
The concept of "talking about vetting" was never a proposition in the first place.
Whether or not it's ok to "talk about vetting" was never brought up at all.
It was never brought up as a proposition, as a premise, as any kind of evidence, and it was never rebutted.
This is just a COMPLETELY ABSURD DEFLECTION.
We were NEVER DEBATING whether or not it was ok to "talk about vetting."
YOU JUST COMPLETELY CHANGED THE ENTIRE SUBJECT... CREATING A BRAND NEW STRAW MAN!
You JUST CHANGED THE SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ARGUMENT...
and PRETENDED THAT YOU DIDN'T!
seed_time_harvest,
You win.
If you want to completely change the subject whenever something isn't going well,
and then still pretend your talking about the same thing...
go ahead.
You win.
I can't do this.
This just makes me really tired.