An iron man argument is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up an iron man”, begin with a weak argument, perhaps offerred by an opponent in debate, and then improve upon until it resembles something quite sensible, almost reasonable. Then proceed with the discussion by analysing and criticising the newly forged iron man. The iron man fallacy can be very productive, and I encourage everyone, including myself, to commit it more often.
Are you sure you’re not talking about a straw man?
I take it, friend kk, that you have never heard of the propter hoc, ergo post hoc fallacy?
The marshmallow creme man fallacy?
How is it a fallacy to take a weak argument presented by an opponent, strengthen it and then refute the strengthened version? Provided the argument is still essentially the same one, just strengthened somehow, I don’t see the problem. You’ve actually gone above and beyond the call of duty, so to speak. Only if you alter the argument significantly enough that it is no longer essentially the same argument, but still use your refutation of the reconstruted argument as a refutation of the different original, would it be a fallacy; but that’s not what you described.
That’s just it, in strengthening an argument it becomes essentially stronger, ergo different.
Interlocutor A presents argument S to interlocutor B; B strengthens S to S’ and shows it to be contradictory or whatever; then A, unconvinced by the counterargument, realizes S’s weakness and strengthens it to S’’ (saying “this is what I originally meant by arguing S”); this procedure continues until one convinces the other.
I believe this is what intplee meant by the fallacy being productive.
Well it’d only be fallacious if the argument was falsely attributed to the alleged originator (charitable interpretations aside.) In fact, it’s good practice to strengthen an otherwise weak argument, if one wishes to refute it.
-Jon
He’s talking about the opposite of what we call a straw man. Instead of misrepresenting an argument in order to make it easier to refute, one makes the opponent’s argument much stronger, I suppose in an attempt to show how great you are. It sounds silly to me but I guess if one’s bored…
No, it’s just good practice when you’re trying to address an argument to interpret it so as to give it the best defence possible, then refute it.
-Jon
I still fail to see why it is a fallacy, provided you make an honest effort to actually strengthen your opponent’s argument rather than subtly alter it or purposefully misrepresent it. If he objects to your “improvements” then you have a problem, whether because he doesn’t understand them or because you screwed up or deceptive, but only then. Even then I don’t think it qualifies as a fallacy.
Its just a play on words. The use of the word fallacy gives it symmetry with the term strawman fallacy.
This forum’s sense of irony may need a tweaking.
Excellent, I’m favoriting this thread 
I predict in 1 to 3 years, a set of disclaimer tags such as:
</>
</>
</>
and
</>
will become standard in forum software for better hallway vision.
This.
To the OP - I like to use that method when I’m not feeling too lazy. Your term for it is very appropriate. I think I’ll file that away for later use.
Yeah, but our sense of 'straw-ness" is pretty good!
[:P]
!