As much as I like the lack of moderation some times I have to agree with you on that, especially for AMC. As I mentioned more or less my pompous self didn't like the other thread being closed... I can see why now. Reminds me of a thread about neo-nazis and a group they had/have here at RIU, some guy mentioned Voltair's quote... as if there are new 'valid' arguments any neo nazi could make that would justify allowing them to discuss their hate against... Well, not that different from people trolling up this thread without valid arguments.
Oh wait... that some guy is the mod of AMC... woops... (edit: meant no disrespect there CW..., made that clear in that topic I hope).
Speaking of valid arguments. The straw man was just an example of many fallacies that can show so easily when someone is talking out of his ass. A few examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Maybe a bit too much but in particular people should read the informal fallacies, let me copy a few
to easily show it's worth reading. Before that, let me add that in dutch the synonym for fallacy is 'thinkerror'
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[16]
Correlative-based fallacies
Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[17]
Fuck... I could copy and paste the entire list and it would all apply... instead I'll grab the last one on the list:
Personal Attacks ("Argumentum ad Hominem")- the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent
Socrates - "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
Spock: "Reverting to name-calling
suggests you are defensive and therefore find my objections valid.
For the dumbasses that based on the later conclude that anyone namecalling finds the objections valid I will add that that usually only applies if the namecalling comes without any valid arguments...
Warning: once you learned the above fallacies (in the link that is) you'll never believe a politician again.
Upside is you'll smell bullshit a mile away.
And does your dumbass realize that those educational institutes themselves publish facts on the internet too.... 
Mexican key lime tree is loaded with fruit about to turn yellow!
