By dismissing my argument as worthless without even trying to address it, my opponent has committed the pooh-pooh fallacy.

More on reddit.com

As someone who used to teach writing, I'd say this is a reasonable assessment on the part of the professor. It's not that you can't describe things like this, it's that you're skipping a step. You're telling the reader the emotion without describing context. My question for you would be, how are the skyscrapers pleading? By answering that question, you will "fix" the sentence. You could try something like: The skyscrapers jutted through the ocean of dust, like the outstretched arms of a drowning man pleading for an empty world not to forget them. Or: The skyscrapers jutted through the ocean of dust, headstones for an empty world long forgotten. It's a slight difference, but you're telling the reader in your original version that the skyscrapers are sentient / emotional things. That's crazy, right? It's doubtful that's what you meant; instead, you were looking to evoke an emotional state. So, use description and take logical steps toward describing the emotions with simile or metaphor. More on reddit.com

Being true doesn't equate to having meaning.

More on reddit.com

A strawman is a distorted version of someone's actual argument. Someone makes a strawman in order to purposely destroy it, and then they act like they beat the actual argument the strawman came from. It's like if an argument was a boxing match, but instead of fighting the other guy, you made a scarecrow based on him and then gloated when it fell apart. Except you didn't actually win, because you weren't actually fighting the guy. Here's an example. Alice: "We should get a dog, not a cat." Bob: "Why do you hate cats?" It's super simplistic, but you can see how Bob skewed what Alice was saying. Instead of engaging with whatever reasoning she might have, Bob is arguing as if Alice said "I hate cats." The fake argument ("I hate cats") is a strawman. Edit: It's also worth noting that we've all unintentionally made a strawman somewhere in our lives - it's just another logical fallacy the brain gets into. However, it's also entirely possible to intentionally and maliciously strawman an opponent's argument to manipulate people into siding with you. EDIT 2: Holy shit, this blew up. Thanks for the awards, y'all. Also, a couple things: My example's not very good. For better examples of people using strawmen in the wild, look for any debate surrounding the "War on Christmas." It goes something like this: Charlie: "We should put 'Happy Holidays' on our merchandise because it's more inclusive than 'Merry Christmas.'" David: "I can't believe Christmas is offensive to you now!!" Hopefully this example better illustrates what an actual strawman might look like. Note how David has distorted Charlie's argument from "because it's inclusive" to "because I'm offended." I've also been getting a few replies about strawmanning and gaslighting. They are not the same, but they are related. Gaslighting is a form of abuse where the abuser twists the victim's sense of reality, making the victim question their perception, their reasoning, and even their sanity. Strawman arguments can certainly be used as a gaslighter's tactic, but strawmen are a logical fallacy and gaslighting is a type of abuse. More on reddit.com