Strawman debates and forum topics

There are strawman debates and forum topics created, such as abortion v. homosexuality, or illegal immigration v. slavery, which exist as fallacies of misrepresentations or exaggerations of an opponent's argument to assume advantage over that opponent rather than the proposition of debate and forum topics that truly represent district differences in approach to society's many problems. in the latter case, both proposals may be beneficial, but one may be more beneficial than another, and that is an argument that suits proper use of either formal debate, or open-season forum  topics that could be the norm of this site's endeavors.  It takes people more dedicated to the free exchange of ideas for the benefit of most or all the people rather than a petty argument between opponents whose aim is strictly to gain advantage over a weaker opponent by belittling the opponent more than making valid argument for their burden of proof. Thoughts? Is this a better site by the strawman approach, or honest, direct discussion of not necessarily opposing ideas [but they are valid, too], but ideas which may have superior results over others?

Sometimes what one side believes actually is what they call the strawman.

Both wings of politics have many mainstream media strawmen they uphold.

A classic example of the right wing is they accuse all immigrants of being criminals and I do not mean simply for being illegal immigrants.

Your example itself is a strawman, for, first, not all "right wing" people do that, and, second, those who do only accuse illegal immigrants of being criminals - not "all immigrants".

When did I say all right wing people do it?

I said illegal immigrants and excluded being an illegal immigrant from the accusation. Often they are assumed to be sexual assaulters and more.

I think sometimes Users 'want to debate a person, who actually believes the Strawman.

Extremists 'do exist.

Other times, maybe they think the Strawman they constructed is an honest depiction of the other side,

And it's only by debating the Strawman, they might learn real other side was something different.

I don't think people are 'usually 'trying to make Strawmen. Maybe.

One can always ask for debate to be altered into less of a Strawman in the comments.

But not necessarily opposing ideas, are good too.

I say give the people what they want,

Though 'official tournaments, are probably better with more balanced debates.

Well, you said this:

If I said, "A classic example of Jews is they are greedy...", then it would be very clear to everyone what I meant. If I wrote "some of them", rather than "they", then it would be a different matter.

As for the illegal immigrants, this is the full sentence, with the relevant part highlighted:

I am not being unnecessarily pedantic here. We are talking about strawman debates, and one great way to strawman someone's position is to omit important details. This way you get to make them come across as buffoons making indefensible statements without having to commit to attributing positions to them that they do not hold.

As for me, I prefer to engage with real arguments and take on the strongest version of my opponent's position. In this case, for instance, something you omitted was that the reason they attribute highest crime rates to illegal immigrants than to the general population is that they have demonstrated by their willingness to move into a country illegally that they have a lower regard for the law. Having committed one offense, they have demonstrated their statistically higher propensity to commit offenses in general. I do not know if the crime statistics support this theory or not, but, at least, it is a reasonable conjecture to make.

I personally am a fully open borders guy. But it seems to me that not engaging honestly with valid objections to your position does nothing to strengthen or validate it.

And that's a much of a myth as the left wing claim of Trump being a Putin puppet.

Face it, everyone generalizes to make a point, making the point only a point of absurdity.

I should have read your # 6 before posting my #7, because yours is eloquent. Well done.

Well said. Have to agree.

Your # 2:

MyCaesar's #3 explained it by your generalization, which clearly has the reader assuming you mean all, not some, and you actually say "all immigrants" when that is not the case. It should be said "some immigrants," specifically,  if only because we do have immigrants who enter the country legally, but it's not even just that. However, to say not all illegal immigrants are not criminals, they are all criminals because it is illegal just to cross the border without checking in with border patrol to verify their legal right to be here, such as with a visa or a green card. Criminal is criminal, I don't care what JoeBiden thinks, because he usually doesn't. [Note I said, "usually" which does not imply "always," does it? See how important such qualifiers are?

I dont get it, I said both wings do it and gave an example.

Nearly everyone leans towards one wing in general.

There's an outlandish conspiracy theory floating around that first lady Melania Trump is really a Russian spy.

As "evidence," internet commenters pointed to a chat she'd had with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a dinner for last year's G-20 Summit.