Ask a Nuwaupian, What is a Straw Man Argument?

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Question: Ask The Nuwaupians, What is a straw man argument?

Answer: They have no knowledge of this because their teacher never spoke or wrote on it.


The Straw Man argument is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a bad drawing of a person to hurt the person.


Here's an example of a Straw Man argument by a Nuwaupian calling himself "Isa ElMahdi"


Omar Shah: York said this when it came to cuneiform in Ancient Egypt and the Pharaoh's pages 20, 21 

"Since the marks looked like wedges this form of writing became known as Cuneiform which was the language of the Annunaqi.  The Annunaqi originally spoke Nuwaubic, and as time passed on this became known as Cuneiform, later as Ashuric, Syriac, Akkadian etc" ...... Many linguists say that Cuneiform is just a script. Cuneiform was also a SPOKEN LANGUAGE, and from this LANGUAGE came ...Adamic, which later became the languages, Ashuric/Syriac Arabic and Aramic Hebrew.....In Pa Tama-reye Renaat (The Egiptian Names)

Page (46) says: 

Ques: So what is the original language?

Ans: The original languages were not Latin and Greek, nor Arabic and Hebrew. All of these are products of the Ancient Egiptian Mystery Language "Nuwaupic".....

York lied again! The language of ancient Egypt (kemet) was Mdw Ntr the language of Sumer was called Eme.gir  The Akkadian language was called Lisanum Akkaditum.... No where is there mention of a "Nuwaupic" language in any of these regions neither is there a glyph or sign that corresponds to this word. There was no such thing as a "ancient Egyptian mystery language called "Nuwaupic" which birth all other languages.

Next is the response from a Nuwaupian/York advocate, Isa ElMahdi,

 Isa ElMahdi: "The Blackheads is what the Sumerians called themselves"

Here's the start of the Straw man Fallacy,  right there!  We see that the topic and issue is related to what the language is called or not called, yet this comment by Isa ElMahdi speaks about what name a people called themselves. What the Sumerians called themselves is irrelevant to the topic.  Isa continues the straw man argument by stating,


Isa ElMahdi: "The Nuwaubic sign is to be found in the Merotic dynasty"


this is irrelevant.  The argument clearly said,

"neither is there a glyph or sign that corresponds to this word!"

This argument is speaking about the word Nuwaupic, NOT individual signs. The signs used for Nuwaupic were selected just as anyone can select signs of any script to use for a constructed language.  This is a deceptive form of presenting an argument because the implication is that because Nuwaupians chose to borrow hieroglyphic symbols that there language is the same as the language for which those symbols were originally created. 


Omar Shah: Isa ElMahdi show where there is mention of a "Nuwaupic" language in any of these regions or a glyph or sign that corresponds to this word, post your evidence.  Also, please show us a tablet that confirms that "The Annunaqi originally spoke Nuwaubic"? Please cite the tablet and line.

Isa ElMahdi: "Omar, you dont know that the sumerians reffered to themselvers as Blackheads? "

Again, he went back to what the Sumerians called themselves which is NOWHERE in the topic argument which speaks about what the languages are called.  Again, this is an ignorance in knowing how to argue as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the specifics of an argument and what is being asked. 


Other Examples of the Straw Man Fallacies: 

A straw man argument can be annoyingly effective because in response you often have to spend time clarifying what your position isLet's say you believe genetically engineered crops should be more regulated, and your opponent believes genetically engineered crops should be less regulated. Your opponent could use the straw man technique by saying something like,

"If we take away the farmers' ability to grow genetically engineered crops, if we eliminate that option, people will go hungry, no crops at all, people will starve to death. Unlike my opponent, I choose to use the technology available to us and save lives."

In the above statements, the opponent has argued against eliminating genetically engineered crops instead of against simply increasing regulation. He's put up a straw man fallacy with,

"no crops at all, people will starve to death "  so he can knock it down.


Another example:

Maybe you're arguing with a friend about global warming. You think the government should raise fuel efficiency standards to cut down the amount of C02 we release over the next 20 years. Your friend thinks cars have nothing to do with it, and as you argue, he says something like

"Our cities are built so that we have to drive cars. Your solution will kill the economy. How would people get to work without cars? It'll never work."

At that point you can't wait to shout out  "When did I say we had to get rid of cars? That's not what I said at all!

Your friend has thrown out a straw man argument. He's responding to an extreme version of your proposal that's easier to shoot down than your real proposal. He's arguing against the extreme idea that we need to get rid of all cars because it's easier than arguing against the moderate idea that we need to raise fuel efficiency, and this is the norm of what Nuwaupians do when replying to a question or in an attempt to debate.


Video's that may assist in understanding the Straw Man Argument.