Immigration - Gumball Example - Fallacious

[Drewbot]

Is this a fallacious argument?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE


I think this video is a Snow Job, trying to defend a Straw Man.

Straw Man is that he says "Some people believe US immigration is a tool to help relieve poverty in the world" (I have honestly never heard or read that this is a goal of US immigration)

Then he uses all these props, and ridiculous gum balls to make a total Snow Job of the argument.

Do you agree with my assessment? or do you see some other problem?

 

[Garrette]

I got about as far as his straw man reason (the one you gave) and realized it was all based on a lie, so I stopped.

 

[marplots]

That is pretty sad, actually.

Somehow, this guy is arguing against improving the lives of a million people. Tough argument to make on moral grounds. Quite the propaganda trick to pull off.

Good idea though, making them gumballs. Gumballs don't pull at my heart strings in quite the same way as actual people do.

 

[Resume]

I like me a good gumball.

 

[trvlr2]

I like me a good gumball.

...Even, y'know, those odd colored ones?

*nudge*nudge*

 

[marplots]

Since watching this last week I've come up with my rebuttal video. It would show a jar containing 325 gumballs labeled "United States." I'd then add two gumballs to it and say, "OK, see you in a year."

ETA: On another note, the meta-conversation might be about what it means to rebut/debunk an argument like this. There's a fallacy lurking on the skeptic/critical thinker side.

When I detect flaws in an argument, I am tempted to then think I've made some sort of counterargument, or given support to the opposite side of the issue. This is wrong on my part. Busting a bad argument does not, by itself, construe a good argument for anything else. Even though it feels like it does.