First, a straw man is 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument'.
For example, if you said that LeBron was a very good role model and I said, "A society where sports stars are viewed as role models will result in students never learning to become doctors or teachers," would be a straw man. Saying that other athletes donate to charity is a 'mitigant' -- I'm assuaging the credit LeBron gets by pointing out that he's not unique in this regard.
So, just for clarification, assuaging Lebrons donations makes him less of a role model? If anything, the other athletes who's donations we're comparing to Lebron may very well also role models. Not to say of course that charity is the end all be all of being a role model, but saying "well Lebron's not the only one who donates" defeats the argument that "Lebron is a good role model" how? Not to mention other examples posted of Lebron's charity which most athletes may not necessarily match, and is definitely outside of "NBA Cares". It feels like you wanted to take a dig without really answering the original question; perhaps in fairness that doesn't necessarily make it a straw man, but I don't see what was gained by going here. Which leads to this:
Second, I never argued that the man couldn't afford a 30k square foot house because obviously he has. My point is that is vastly more space than a family needs and it's completely unnecessary -- it's a massive waste to build, maintain, heat and cool a palace like that. 'Don't use more than you need,' shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.
I do believe I used the word "superfluous", which I had assumed meant in finance as well as use of space. Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to double down on. I don't know much about Lebron's personal life (definitely not more than a Cavs fan anyway), but relatives I have that don't have a house nearly as big as Lebron's love to host guests, whether it's family like me or for parties.I'd assume Lebron is doing something similar, especially on a large scale. If he's not doing anything close, then yea, maybe I'd agree he doesn't need a house that big. But again, that's the beef? "WELL OMG WHO NEEDS A HOUSE THAT BIG???" That alone doesn't constitute "superfluous", that's just applying sensibilities and trying to pass it off as an argument. Some people invest in houses, other in cars, at least a house as an asset doesn't depreciate as fast. It just feels nitpicky to use this and say "see he's not a role model".
Third, while I appreciate your Googling specifics of LeBron's charitable contributions (and I'm sincere -- I do appreciate you putting the effort to find out facts rather than resorting to unsubstantiated generalities), saying that LeBron's foundation plans to do something that will total $40m over it's lifetime doesn't prove that LeBron is spending more than 1% of his income on charity.
a) Maverick Carter has claimed that LeBron's contract with Nike is >$1b. James' lifetime NBA earnings could be >$300m. He'll earn hundreds of millions in other endorsements, business deals, investments, etc. Even after tax, LeBron will probably end up with lifetime earnings of well over one billion
b) Just because it's LeBron's foundation doesn't mean that he's the only contributor. Nike, for example, may donate. Friends may donate -- we don't know what % LeBron will contribute
Given that, did I undershoot with 1%? Almost certainly, so I'll retract that statement. Based on what you posted, my guess is he's closer to 5%. But given LeBron's public desire to own an NBA team, it's clear that he's intent on amassing a fortune, not donating one.
None of this is a bad thing -- this isn't meant as a criticism -- my only point was there are many more people who give back in larger ways, let's celebrate them more. It's funny that people are getting so upset that I said a MSF doctor was more admirable than LeBron James. Should I take I retract that statement, too?
I only wanted to point out what I found through looking at one page of google. I think we can both agree that Lebron donates much more than that, and especially much more than $862,000 a year. Everything else I can only shrug at; I mean, of course it's not only him putting money at his foundation, and we can squabble over how much his Nike contract is actually worth. I mean, if it's really for the entirety of Lebron's life, I don't see how 1 billion is that farfetched, especially depending on how his Nike brand really is once he retires (does he win more titles, get more reg season MVPs, stay out of trouble/bad PR etc?)
I find the line "intent on amassing a fortune, not donating one" strange; you definitely can't give away what you don't have. Even if he wouldn't donate a fortune, him amassing it (especially through owning an actual NBA team) means he'd still be able to give away much more than he is now. As I said, I'm an aspiring accountant and can tell you there's only so much you can give away in your lifetime (though a pretty high amount) without heavy estate taxes regardless, and I'm sure Lebron's aware of that.