Tactics used by talk show hosts to "win" their "debates".

[brian65]

Heres a very popular one:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[3] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

A straw man argument can be set up in the following ways, by:

   1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
   2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).[2]
   3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
   4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
   5. Oversimplifying a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.


* from Wikipedia

[cm454]

WOW!

Does #3 have Alan Colmes written all over it, or what?

[jimwalsh2001]

Talk Radio is about entertainment, i.e. provoking an emotional response.  The problem comes when the medium itself - and its critics - take it too seriously.

[brian65]

Talk Radio is about entertainment, i.e. provoking an emotional response.  The problem comes when the medium itself - and its critics - take it too seriously.

Gotta disagree.

Nationally syndicated Talk Radio, as it has evolved, is one of the major causes of our current accomplish-nothing Congress who now are simply concentrating on making the opposing party look bad and don't seem to give a damn about their constituents who may not have voted for them.

[mred]

Also say the caller is a "seminar caller" ....where do they have these seminars?  Please point out on that is ongoing or held recently? 

[brian65]

Also say the caller is a "seminar caller" ....where do they have these seminars?  Please point out on that is ongoing or held recently?

Yes, as if the fact that hundreds of thousands of people agree with a 'talking point' it somehow discounts any truth it might actually contain. Its easier to call them a 'seminar caller' and avoid the point all together.

[MikefromDelaware]

Talk shows are entertainment, but they also can be informative.  A lot depends on the host and how he/she runs their program.  Many take the approach of being argumentative as they try to get you "worked up" so you'll call in.  Some have agenda's, be they conservative or liberal, that in some ways are like a preacher.  A preacher has an agenda and that is to get you to become a believer in Jesus Christ.  So many radio talk hosts are simply "political preachers" as they are trying it get you to become a believer in either the Republican or Democratic parties. 

When I was doing a local talk show, I wanted my show to be both entertaining and informative on whatever topic we were discussing.  I'm a registered Independent, a moderate who leans right.  One week I might agree with President Bush on some topic and the following week disagree with him on some other issue.  I might agree with the Democrats one week and disagree with them the following week.  I didn't and don't today march in "lockstep" with either party.  I welcomed callers who had a different opinion or spin than mine as quite often I might have not thought of the issue in those terms.  So I never attacked an opposing view, I might disagree with them, but always strived to have a civil discussion.  Some would say that isn't compelling radio, but during my time slot my show had double the listeners as our competitor during that time slot. 

As my show aired on Saturday nights it wasn't a prime time or a major money maker for the station due to when it was aired.  With a Saturday night show though, I wanted to help bolster the entertainment side of the show, I'd run a trivia contest at the beginning of the show, using various types of music, sound clip from a movie or TV show, or a question trivia (each week was different).  Interestingly, the station wouldn't allow me to get a sponsor so I could give away prizes like a $10 coupon for free pizza, etc.  So I simply created what I called "The No Frills Trivia Contest".  The listeners would call in to out smart me on the trivia so they'd get the official bragging rights that they out smarted me that week.  The phones always lit up.  It amazed me week after week how folks would call in to not win any prize, but to get their name on the air that they out smarted me in the trivia contest.  When the correct answer was given all sorts of crazy sound effects would go off as mass pandomania would break out.  Many of these callers would say that they'd never call a talk show, but felt comfortable in calling in to guess at the trivia (these were generally women who'd say that aged 30's-40's).  So my trivia contest added a extra entertainment level that a lot of folks seemed to enjoy.  After the trivia, we'd have our first spot break and then we'd get "serious" and "solve the problems of the world" for the rest of that hour.