Wrong. I don't think you know for sure what those terms mean. But putting that aside for now, I want to say that my response defeated your argument in that its answer clearly exists outside the dichotomy you present as a whole for my entire experienced reality. It is neither a strawman nor a red herring. I don't know how you would use those labels here if you knew what they mean.
My argument was about the dichotomy of an "organic world" (no wide spread hidden mechanisms of control) v. a "completely controlled world" (complete wide spread hidden mechanisms of control).
You suggested that was a "false dichotomy." I said. "maybe" or "maybe not." I conceded a partial "maybe" because, as I stated, there may have been a transition time between "organic" to "inorganic" (fully controlled). Though even that transition doesn't negate it as a dichotomy (the premise of two distinct states or counter points), in fact it helps support it as presented.
The point is, there is a true dichotomy within the framework of the argument that I have presented.
I then provided supported statements to show that it was in fact a true dichotomy because (the supporting premise being) that if there is a hidden mechanism (TRULY hidden from the masses), it would turn into a binary situation by its very nature (thus a true dichotomy).
Now, that's a premise, but I provided argument and a supporting link (with ridiculous amounts of supporting evidence, though it is a bit of a read) that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt. You may not believe me, as is your prerogative, but you can't reasonably claim that it is false if you DON'T HEAR THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED.
My argument (clearly stated) was about control mechanisms. Obviously I was talking about beliefs controlled by the PTB, social systems, laws, governments, all forms of institutional information (media, school, etc.), etc.. That is a category. Clearly your feelings about your child are outside of those mechanisms (at least directly). By attempting to put interpersonal feelings about your child into the category of the domain of my argument you craft a categorical error. In this case, your purposefully contrived categorical error shoved one element into a different category of elements, which then became a strawman and a red herring, as shown:
Strawman
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Clearly such a categorical error as you presented was a strawman.
Red herring
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.
Since your "argument" was clearly an attempt to misdirect from my point, your "argument" was a red herring.
as a whole for my entire experienced reality
If there are two categories of control (unhidden and organic v. completely and hidden inorganic) and the second is "proven false," that's fine. I used to believe that too. That doesn't mean that my argument as presented was false. It just means that one of the points ("there exists an hidden complete mechanism of control") can be shown to be false (or reasonably assumed to be false from the evidence). That is a fair argument, and you can provide supporting evidence. It's STILL a true dichotomy, it's just a false premise (if shown sufficiently).
However, if there exists enough evidence to support it, then it's a reasonable argument. If the evidence is overwhelming, it becomes ludicrous to doubt it (beyond a reasonable doubt).
You are welcome to go down that rabbit hole or not, it's your choice. But if you're going to do so, use actual logic and evidence, not contrivance or pure speculation, to support it.
The love between my child and I is engineered by those in control? They do a good job and I'll keep subscribing.
That was a conflated argument (a strawman and a red herring) purposefully sidestepping everything I said, and you know it. Why bother?
Wrong. I don't think you know for sure what those terms mean. But putting that aside for now, I want to say that my response defeated your argument in that its answer clearly exists outside the dichotomy you present as a whole for my entire experienced reality. It is neither a strawman nor a red herring. I don't know how you would use those labels here if you knew what they mean.
My argument was about the dichotomy of an "organic world" (no wide spread hidden mechanisms of control) v. a "completely controlled world" (complete wide spread hidden mechanisms of control).
You suggested that was a "false dichotomy." I said. "maybe" or "maybe not." I conceded a partial "maybe" because, as I stated, there may have been a transition time between "organic" to "inorganic" (fully controlled). Though even that transition doesn't negate it as a dichotomy (the premise of two distinct states or counter points), in fact it helps support it as presented.
The point is, there is a true dichotomy within the framework of the argument that I have presented.
I then provided supported statements to show that it was in fact a true dichotomy because (the supporting premise being) that if there is a hidden mechanism (TRULY hidden from the masses), it would turn into a binary situation by its very nature (thus a true dichotomy).
Now, that's a premise, but I provided argument and a supporting link (with ridiculous amounts of supporting evidence, though it is a bit of a read) that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt. You may not believe me, as is your prerogative, but you can't reasonably claim that it is false if you DON'T HEAR THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED.
My argument (clearly stated) was about control mechanisms. Obviously I was talking about beliefs controlled by the PTB, social systems, laws, governments, all forms of institutional information (media, school, etc.), etc.. That is a category. Clearly your feelings about your child are outside of those mechanisms (at least directly). By attempting to put interpersonal feelings about your child into the category of the domain of my argument you craft a categorical error. In this case, your purposefully contrived categorical error shoved one element into a different category of elements, which then became a strawman and a red herring, as shown:
Strawman
Clearly such a categorical error as you presented was a strawman.
Red herring
Since your "argument" was clearly an attempt to misdirect from my point, your "argument" was a red herring.
If there are two categories of control (unhidden and organic v. completely and hidden inorganic) and the second is "proven false," that's fine. I used to believe that too. That doesn't mean that my argument as presented was false. It just means that one of the points ("there exists an hidden complete mechanism of control") can be shown to be false (or reasonably assumed to be false from the evidence). That is a fair argument, and you can provide supporting evidence. It's STILL a true dichotomy, it's just a false premise (if shown sufficiently).
However, if there exists enough evidence to support it, then it's a reasonable argument. If the evidence is overwhelming, it becomes ludicrous to doubt it (beyond a reasonable doubt).
You are welcome to go down that rabbit hole or not, it's your choice. But if you're going to do so, use actual logic and evidence, not contrivance or pure speculation, to support it.