Don't care how much you want to prove a point

There's a fallacy.  One that's entirely unacceptable.  It's called the Straw-Man and it comes in many forms.

Here's an example:

Person 1 - I support capital punishment.
Person 2 - Person 1 thinks everyone who goes to jail deserves to die.

See what happened there?  Person 2 manipulated Person 1's words into something he never said, in order to make the speaker look foolish.  That's why they call this one the "Straw-Man", because you essentially make up a person (a straw man), and start attacking it to make people think you're attacking someone else.

Question everything you hear, read, watch... everything.  Cause this bad boy comes up all too much.  We want to prove points so badly that we do ourselves the disservice of not even trying to understand one another.  People tend to just listen for anything they can argue against, then argue against it without offering a charitable reconstruction of their opposers words.

I was reading today, and a writer named Bereano criticized other writers for offering a utopian vision for a different kind of society.  He - actually - goes on to say this:

But utopian means "nowhere."


Let's just forget the fact that utopian doesn't mean "nowhere".  That's absurd.  It means an ideal state in which everything is perfect.  But like I said, let's let that one slide.  We shouldn't, but we will.

The fact of the matter is, he offered no charitable reconstruction of the opponents' viewpoints.  He just changed what the word meant, and continued with his arguments.  Why all this charitable reconstruction business?  Why bother?  Well, if you're debating, the purpose should be to figure out what is right, not to figure out how to sound right.  If you misunderstand your opponent's view, you might as well just stop talking.  Cause you're arguing against a wall.

I know what you're thinking.  "But haven't you just done this?  You took an isolated part of his text, offered no context, and went on with your argument."  The difference is that I read it.  It has some interesting points, and that's what makes it so disappointing.  It's peppered with snarky, childish, blindly pessimistic aims towards debate.  It misleads anyone uncritical enough to overlook these fallacies, and it disinterests anyone critical enough to notice them.  Arguing - against - a - wall.

If you could just do me one favour today, please.  Try to understand what people are saying.  Make sure they understand what they are saying.  Only then will you find something to argue for.  Don't change words around to sound right.  It eats my soul.

Stop it.