ok, we can disagree on that then...
"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
You said Trump wants "successful endorsements" which you equate to "want[ing] a winner." Kampfer pointed out this is not really "winning" and implied in that criticized Trump for endorsing a loser (even a possible winning one). You even say you don't disagree but accuse him of erecting a straw man, which wasn't really the case. A straw man is typically used to deflect an argument entirely, not generate further discussion along the same lines particularly with one who fundamentally agrees in the first place.
LOL that's not a straw man, it's argument in principle.
It had zero to do with Oz and Trump, but was a much larger philosophical discussion....hence, yes, straw man.
Maybe someone else will discuss this with you, as I said I don't disagree with the larger premise.
I'm not looking for discussion, I'm saying your assertion "straw man" was incorrect.
ok, we can disagree on that then... "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
You said Trump wants "successful endorsements" which you equate to "want[ing] a winner." Kampfer pointed out this is not really "winning" and implied in that criticized Trump for endorsing a loser (even a possible winning one). You even say you don't disagree but accuse him of erecting a straw man, which wasn't really the case. A straw man is typically used to deflect an argument entirely, not generate further discussion along the same lines particularly with one who fundamentally agrees in the first place.