Don't have a mock strawman argument this long. If you have a point to make, just make it. Don't write up a whole argument that includes weak responses so you conveniently 'win'.

Would Plato's 'The Republic' qualify also an overly long strawman?

I think you missed the point of the comment to which you're responding.

Also, why are you telling people how to have discussions?

>Would Plato's 'The Republic' qualify also an overly long strawman?

Yes, it's designed to illustrate a point and not engage someone in a discussion.

The comment I'm responding to just had a bunch of misrepresentations of people he/she disagrees with.

>Also, why are you telling people how to have discussions?

It's not a discussion, it's a lecture buried in a fake conversation without facts.

> Also, why are you telling people how to have discussions?

It seems like he thinks their argument is dishonest strawman and manipulative. The discussion is usually improved by people pointing that out, as it makes such argumentation less likely.

The problem is that he only thinks this, with hardly anything to back it up, and doesn't discuss the substance. He merely talks about his impression of the discussion.

The reply is correct, many discourses can also be considered "one sided", such as Socratic dialogues. However, it is also very possible that the commenter feels it's that way because they are biased to one or the other side of the debate themselves. I am not even sure which side they considered the strawman.

No, he's not the only one. Most of the arguments used are not the strongest possible arguments but are in fact extremely flawed, precisely in the ways you took them apart. fancy that.

You are wrong. I didn't mean to start a discussion. I meant to illustrate how people largely talk past each other yet make very good points overall. Both have ideological and pragmatic elements. Both make good points.

The fact that you think I took apart one and the other wasn't taken apart probably implies more about where YOU are on the political spectrum.

These are the actual arguments that people use. For example "China is one of the most authoritarian countries" is a great rejoinder to all the progress they have made using central planning. You may think it takes the position completely apart - since there is so much evidence lately of China's citizen ranking system and facial recognition and jailing dissidents, very reminiscent to the USSR, and China's history with Mao and so on. But it isn't such a slam dunk as you think. Because yes it is authoritarian but many people are OK with it the same way they are OK with anti terror laws here. They give up freedom for a temporary safety and prosperity, to quote Benjamin Franklin. But that is just one side of the story.

Or for example you may think "You support billionaires" is easily taken apart with "No, billionaires are the result of government." Which is pretty straightforward as most billionaires (in Russia for example) are in fact the result of government favors and being well connected. Libertarians are definitely arguing for eliminating coercive power structures and helping promote an environment where more can compete without coersion or licenses.

But I assure you that the other side's arguments are strong as well, you just dismiss them because they don't trigger in you all the supporting baggage that they would if you actually HELD that position.

In short you are reading a lot of your own bias into it. None of these arguments are slam dunk.

You didn't start a discussion. You lectured with a strawman conversation.

Why don't you respond to specific points yourself? I did have a mock argument because these aren't real people but all those are real (and relatively strong) arguments from both sides. The ones supporting IP are actually FROM Ayn Rand for example, paraphrased to include a reference to "you didn't build that".

>> "Well maybe if you abolished drug patents innovatio could come from all over the world instead of the chilling effects we have today. Open source beats closed in the long run and Open source Drugs would beat big pharma in the long tail whose plight isn't even worth pursuing for these guys. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants, why is medicine different than science?"

Literally no new drugs would be produced if there was no guarantee of sole distributor for some X number of years. What country has "open source" drugs?

Seems like a great place to nationalize the means of production! Why not? Economic incentives are inherently at odds with helpful medicine. If it helps too much you can't make money off it!

Modern day big-pharma would have shelved the polio vaccine in place of a daily pill one must take for the remainder of one's life.

Error, wrong, incorrect. Modern day big-pharma developed vaccines such as HPV. Current market forces incentivizes "best" treatment (heavily regulated of course as it should be). Don't spew false facts to try to push an agenda.

> Modern day big-pharma

the polio vaccine was released in 1955. My thought experiment literally cannot be "error, wrong, incorrect."

I'll solidify my thought experiment to Valeant. Valeant would have bought the polio vaccine, hiked the price, and reported significant growth in returns while the disease was not being eliminated.

Not to mention your assumption a pharma company created the first polio vaccine is false - it was developed at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine with heavy backing by the U.S. government.