Strawman Fallacy

argumentum ad baculum

(also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick)

Description:  When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.

Logical Form:

If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.

Example #1:

Melvin: Boss, why do I have to work weekends when nobody else in the company does?

Boss: Am I sensing insubordination?  I can find another employee very quickly, thanks to Craigslist, you know.

Explanation: Melvin has asked a legitimate question to which he did not get a legitimate answer, rather his question was deflected by a threat of force (as being forced out of his job).

Example #2:

Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my summer at Jesus camp?

Dad: Because if you don’t, you will spend your entire summer in your room with nothing but your Bible!

Explanation: Instead of a reason, dad gave Jordan a description of a punishment that would happen.

Exception:  If the force, coercion, or threat of force is not being used as a reason but as a fact or consequence, then it would not be fallacious, especially when a legitimate reason is given with the “threat”, direct or implied. 

Melvin: Boss, why do I have to wear this goofy-looking hardhat?

Boss: It is state law; therefore, company policy.  No hat, no job.

Tip: Unless you are an indentured servant (slave) or still living with your parents (slave), do not allow others to force you into accepting something as true.

when the statements are in dialogue form, how should I address the conclusion and premises?  

Just look for the conclusion first, then everything that comes before the conclusion can be the premises (how many you make are not all that important). You won't always be able to construct a syllogism but you will be able to parse the dialog into its meaningful components. For example,

P1. Biden said "The oil industry pollutes. Significantly."
P2. Biden said, "It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time."
C. Therefore, Biden is going to destroy the oil industry.

P2 is the most relevant. What is "over time"? If this is four years, then Trump's conclusion is reasonable. If it is eight years and Biden wins reelection, it is also reasonable. What is "destroy" exactly? It is a loaded word, but it is not unreasonable to use in place of "Phase out," especially in politics.

If Biden is referring to carbon-neutral plan by 2050, the in practicality, the oil industry would be affected somewhat by Biden, but certainly not "destroyed." Of course, any following president can change the mandate and "save" the oil industry.

Trump should have said something like, "A Biden presidency will hurt the oil industry."  I would call Trump's statement a clear strawman fallacy .

I viewed Trump’s statement as reflecting history (Obama-Biden) did destroy the oil industry, and they did it in a mere eight years, and those who do not study history are bound to repeat it. They were talking somewhat past each other using “weasel” words such as “over time.” Politicians do that.