eli5 Whats a “Straw man fallacy”?
In: Other
A strawman fallacy is when someone *intentionally* constructs or misrepresents a person or argument with the purpose of countering the constructed argument or position.
Strawmen are used by parties (people) who are being *intentionally dishonest* to make someone else’s position or argument on a subject appear worse/weaker than it may actually be. This allows the person making the strawman to paint the opposition’s argument as unpersuasive (usually by claiming its stupid) and making their own position appear better by comparison (usually by claiming it as smarter).
One of the important elements of a strawman is the *intentional* dishonesty and misrepresentation. The *intentional* element can make it hard to detect a strawman and even allows them to be used as a defense against accusations of arguing dishonestly or in bad faith. Typically this is done by the person who made the strawman claiming they weren’t *trying* to misrepresent or deceive anyone, and that they actually just *misunderstood* the other party’s argument because it was so incoherent or poorly made.
Ex: You and someone you’re talking to have a disagreement about something. You both agree to get an unbiased party to weigh in on the discussion to see who has the better argument. When it comes time to explain your argument to the mediator the other person talks over you and claims your argument is something *different* than your actual position, either by changing the whole thing or replacing key parts (oversimplifying is a good example). The mediator hears this constructed version of your argument, thinks it sounds stupid, and then declares the other person has the better argument.
For a more concrete hypothetical, imagine the following:
Alice: Hotdogs are better because they’re easy to hold.
Bob: Hamburgers are better because they’re flat.
Alice & Bob: Lets ask person Clark who has the better argument.
Clark: Alright sure.
Bob: I think hamburgers are better because they’re flat.
Clark: Okay well…I mean they are flat, but I dont think that’s convincing. Alice why do you think hotdogs are better?
Bob: *Alice* thinks hotdogs are better because they’re cute and hamburgers are *impossible* to hold.
Clark: Wow Alice, that argument is pretty dumb, what does cuteness have to do with anything? Also, who thinks hamburgers are impossible to hold?
Alice: Bob is lying, I didnt say that and that isnt what I *meant* either.
Bob: I’m not lying, I can’t believe you’d accuse me of that. If that’s not what you *meant* then why didnt you say it in a way that wasn’t so nonsensical and convoluted?
In this hypothetical Bob misrepresented Alice’s argument which influenced Clark’s opinion, makes his own argument seem less bad by comparison, ‘pretends’ he just misunderstood while shifting the blame for the ‘misunderstanding’ onto Alice in a way that makes *her* seem stupid instead of him for failing to understanding, *and* he gets to act shocked at her calling him a liar which is generally considered a jerk move and makes Alice look *even worse.*
Latest Answers