Straw man.html



A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.¹ To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.¹ While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.²

The term is derived from the practice in ages past of using human-shaped straw dummies in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy, sometimes dressed in an enemy uniform or decorated in some way to vaguely resemble them. A trainee then attacks the dummy with a weapon such as a sword, club, bow or musket. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is therefore not a realistic test of skill compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.^{citation needed} In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.

Reasoning

Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.¹
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).²
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.¹
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

Example

Alpha: Nude bathing is healthy and nude beaches should be permitted here.

Bravo: No. That kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.

Bravo has misrepresented Alpha's position as a call for sexual promiscuity.

Debating around a Straw Man

Strictly speaking there are three ways to deflect a straw man setup.

1. Using the terms of the straw man, and refuting the theory itself. (Beach debate: "Free sex does not threaten morality. Think about all those people who wouldn't get born if sex wasn't free. Doing that would be immoral.")

(Note: The above retort uses a strawman fallacy itself. The disputant has not claimed that sex in general should be restricted, only the type of sex that they regard as immorally "free". That is implicitly sexual activity motivated by lust not for procreation. There is also a presumption here that birth control is inherently immoral.)

1. Clarifying the original theory ("I said evolution should be taught, not that I believe in the big bang.") This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man.
2. Questioning the disputation ("Why could it not have been made in 6 24-hour days?")

See also Debate

See also

• List of fallacies
• Ad hominem
• Straw man proposal

References

External links

• The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
• Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments