When I was a kid, my older brother and I used to engage in all sorts of debates, such as if God exists. I would typically be the one left fuming while my brother laughed in my face, but only later on will I learn about the strawman fallacy and how immature people use it to easily boost their egos.
I recently wrote a page about Stefan Molyneux's UPBARPSE and how it's filled to the brim with tautologies that are meant to make him seem like a great, infallible thinker. I also mentioned how he snickers at his critics, which is an underhanded tactic to avoid giving respect to people who might have an objection to his ideas. Wait, you're meant to respect your critics? Yeah, because it's only by showing respect that we can learn anything from the other side in the debate. If snickering is all the emotion you're getting from the other person, then you're dealing with a strawman debater.
Debate is the best possible way to air out grievances and get a reality check, for free, but only if both sides show respect and patience. Respecting the other side means assuming it has the best possible intentions, which also makes the debate an enjoyable and nuanced one. In Stefan's case, he'd be setting up his critics to discuss UPBARPSE, a messy book that unnecessarily incenses the reader and invents its own terminology to prove the existence of UPB, a dreadfully vague concept. My conclusion on that page was that Stefan was intentionally baiting readers of UPBARPSE to indefensible positions, mocking them to boost his ego. In this I actually recognized the same tactic my brother would employ, namely one I came to realize is called "strawman".
The person using the strawman tactic will go through the following process: 1) misread the other person's stance, 2) redefine the other person's stance, 3) include a ridiculous or indefensible position (strawman) in the other person's stance, 4) attack the strawman and 5) proclaim victory. For example, I wrote a page on alkaline diet and mentioned that Rational Wiki termed it "light on science" because apparently some guy was digging up coral and selling it as an alkaline diet supplement.
I also mentioned that Rational Wiki conceded how foods in the alkaline diet are healthy but that the diet itself is bad because of this Bob Barefoot guy who apparently got in huge trouble because of marketing his coral calcium. On the website selling coral calcium there is a single mention of the word "alkalinizing" but that's all it takes for Rational Wiki writers. See how it works?
Anyone who doesn't catch the strawmanning in action will try to debate the Rational Wiki to defend alkaline diet, not realizing he now has to defend Bob too, which is simply impossible and makes any argument very easy to defeat. 99.99% of alkaline diet could be valid but because of that arbitrary 0.01% inclusion, meaning Bob's supplement, the entire diet is proclaimed invalid. Obviously, this kind of trickery has to be covered up somehow, usually by evoking strong emotions of disgust, anger, fear, paranoia and so on but also by omitting facts. A serious debunking of alkaline diet or any other stance would be exhaustive, which strawman arguments never are.
Look at my analysis of UPBARPSE – I wrote a 10,000-word analysis on a 50,000-word book just to prove to myself what it is, which is why I speak with such authority when I describe it. Why can't Rational Wiki writers do the same? Attempting to discuss this problem with Rational Wiki writers will get you laughed at six ways to Sunday; they're in an echo chamber designed to distort and amplify words so debate is impossible, which is an innate problem of most online platforms.
Proving something is hard. I mean, really hard. For example, can you prove that you're alive right now? When you think about it, being alive means having a pulse (a working heart), a set of brainwaves (a working brain) and regular breathing (a working set of lungs). So, to conclusively prove you're alive, you'd have to get an EKG, EEG and PFT (pulmonary function test). These tests would have to be done on calibrated machines by certified personnel and would presumably only be valid for a month or so; maybe now you're no longer alive? How about comatose patients? Are they alive, dead or something in between?
Each piece of data points towards a conclusive proof, increasing our certainty. We can never be 100% sure we're alive, but let's say each test provides another 1% towards the conclusion. You can also think of your own tests, such as whether you empathize when you see a wounded animal. The key point here is that the strawman wins if he makes you feel insecure and uncertain; you win if you remain steadfast, no matter what proofs you use. You don't need officially sanctioned sources if you're debating someone using the strawman tactic, you only need something you are certain of.
Therefore, a strawman debater that tried to convince you you're not alive could be countered with, "I empathized with a wounded animal 6 years ago, therefore I was alive back then and when I think of the memory I still feel the same thing, therefore I am alive right now". You don't need 100 pieces of data; it only takes one that you're absolutely certain of to create a strong debating position. When you find it, don't let the strawman debater change the subject, keep bringing the debate back to where you feel certain.
Just to prove that you're alive would require a barrage of tests, which is why we typically don't require EKG, EEG and PFT before we start a discussion with others – we often run on positive assumptions without any proof. Strawman debaters exploit the fact that a typical person is too generous with his assumptions and then inject a slightly different but not quite the exact same idea into the debate while demanding extreme amounts of proof that they aren't willing to gather themselves.
A strawman debater is always exacting and nitpicky for his opponent but doesn't measure himself with the same standard. If this goes unnoticed, the process is repeated. By slowly shifting the topic of the debate, the strawman debater comes to familiar grounds where he's carefully rehearsed his answers, usually various zingers and gotchas meant to, again, humiliate, confuse and enrage. To combat this, first look for data in any debate.
Our brain can assume things and keep working without having any proof but strawman debaters evoke doubt in underlying facts to grind the person's mental processes to a halt – is this really how it's meant to be? A strawman debater doesn't care about sharing data or having a pleasant chat, but only about winning. Countering this requires that you start gathering data in any way you see fit to arrive at a set of proofs that help you feel certain. It doesn't have to be a proper scientific study, but simply a data-gathering process of some sort. You might read an academic article on the topic and mention it in the debate or just look up some sort of official website. Whatever it is, this data should eventually help you become certain about your stance, not to convince the strawman debater, but to recognize one.
When in a debate, try presenting the data you've gathered while mentioning the source, not to feel mega-smart, but to emphasize we don't know everything and that it's OK to learn from other sources. If you're dealing with a strawman debater, you'll notice there's no acknowledgment of your data and no addition of data; you're the only one who's done any research and come up with any numbers. Listen to the response to your data presentation and based off of that you'll immediately know who you're dealing with. What you want to listen to is the tone, not any words in particular.
Humans have a remarkable ability to deliver words in different ways. The other day I saw the actor that plays Joffrey in "Game of Thrones" asked to read "my God, it's sunny outside" in his normal voice and as a villain. The reading as a villain is remarkable because it shows how a subtle set of vocal changes and even different body posture dramatically change the way we see that person. You should be aware that we constantly communicate with other people in this way and that a strawman debater is anything but calm, respectful and patient but that it's not necessarily intentional, even when repeated over years.
In my case, I remember my older brother strawmanning me by simply repeating back what I said in a mocking tone of voice. You can actually download a Talking Tom smartphone app that repeats back whatever was said in a chipmunk voice; debating my older brother felt like debating Talking Tom. There was nothing to be gained from that kind of energy exchange except pain and anger. The response to that kind of approach is to realize the other person is mocking you for the purpose of scoring easy wins by invoking insecurity and then just point it out. I used to think he's mean but now I realize he might have just had trouble reading verbal and facial cues.
Point out that you're being mocked. Say, "I feel x, y and z." Show an appropriate facial expression because some strawman debaters might have autistic tendencies, meaning they can't read subtle vocal cues. Demand an apology. Refuse any further debates until apology is delivered. Do not explain yourself more than once. That's it, do not engage in arguments with people who set out to twist your words, mock you and humiliate you, just present your data and see what kind of tone you get in response.
Debates aren't meant to be won, they are meant to be shared. Like a pleasant chat with an old friend, a debate should help us share data about any given aspect of life, not just shriek at others online and in person until they yield and we can feel satisfaction. As long as we're sharing data in a calm, friendly and respectful manner, we're all winning because we're replacing assumptions with actual proof of how the world works, which does what? Reduces uncertainty. That kind of a debate is a marvel to behold because it calms us down. Strawman debaters always have an adversarial attitude because that's how they vent emotionally, by stirring up drama and then having the chance to lash out. It doesn't have to be malicious, either.
I actually found myself delivering a lot of anxiety to others through my vocal cues, namely by having a tense, high-pitched voice that overloaded them with emotionally charged information. I'd wait for someone to say "Hi" and then start with a barrage of ideas to the point the other person had no way of engaging in a conversation with me. It took me a while to realize I was driving people away, all because apparently I felt the need for validation. I wanted people to say "wow, you're so smart" but all they did was tolerate me and shook their heads when I was finally gone. This problem was caused by plenty of factors but once I adopted the attitude of doing minimal work, the solution became apparent – talk less.
So, I did an experiment – what if I talked less than the other person and only when I got a reply? The test conversation had a splendid result, because now I was no longer verbally pounding the other person, but actually had them engage with me on their own terms. For the first time ever, I felt the other person wanted the conversation to continue and that I didn't have the need to fill the silence, which was possibly due to the fear of fatherly disapproval and abandonment. Without even realizing, my anxiety was causing me to strawman the other person by inputting my words into their side of the conversation, all the while thinking I just had a great conversation, which was in reality a monologue that left people feeling drained.
All the advice I can give you on dealing with strawman debaters just so happens to resolve anxiety and comes down to one point: don't waste your time. If the other person seems disinterested, find another to talk to. If you feel degraded, say how you feel, listen to the response and again don't waste time. I believe so many useless endeavors can be cut short by simply realizing we're spending way too much energy for a far too low return.
Gather and present facts. State the source, even if it's only something you heard or saw. Don't jump to the conclusion and don't force your conclusions on others because there is often a lot of emotion beneath any conclusion; this emotional investment makes us selectively blind to the facts and the world around us. Be kind to the other person and observe the response you get in return. Don't take anything personally since some people carry a lot of trauma and emotional baggage with them but don't try to fix them either.
What are you getting out of a useless online Twitter debate? Typically, nothing. Why do it then? Read a book, pet a dog, ride a bike or do anything else that will ultimately have a net positive return on your life rather than wasting your time trying to shout into the abyss. All you have to do is find a single person that understands this principle of a calm, relaxed exchange of ideas and data to have great debates that you'll be remembering for the rest of your life.