[drjimmy]

When you argue against the “they have to be corrupt” statement, that’s a classic fallacy known as straw argumentation. You built up the argument yourself so you could argue against it. Why are you resorting to troll like behaviour and provacateur tactics if your intellectual position is so secure?

It isn't a straw man if the man actually exists. To deny that plenty of Freepers have said the Supreme Court is corrupt is to be blind to the many comments that have been posted every time this issue comes up. Talk about not being secure, you resort to name-calling when someone points out the truth.

[Kevmo]

If a person does not use that argument, then bringing it up to argue against it is a straw argument.

I see you didn’t bring up the argument that zer0bama might be afraid of a misspelling on his longform birth certificate and it would prove embarrassing, so he’s expending 6 figures worth of resources to hide that misspelling. And, of course, that argument is completely bogus, here’s how... see how that works?

So why are you defending the usage of straw argumentation? Isn’t your intellectual position secure enough that you can use legitimate reasoning?