eli5 Whats a “Straw man fallacy”?
In: Other
Consider for a moment what a physical “straw man” is — it’s a human figure, sure, but it’s weaker (because it’s made of straw and not flesh and bone) and easier to defeat (because it can’t fight back — it moves as you direct it).
This is the essence of a “straw man argument” — it refers to a deliberately mis-represented position that you argue against because it’s easier than the actual position.
The strawman fallacy is presenting a caricature of a view, criticizing that view, and then claiming you have refuted the original view.
For example, suppose there’s a proposal to raise taxes on highest earners. If someone argues “They want to make it so everyone has equal income, and [insert some reason this is a problem]”. That’s a strawman, because that wasn’t actually the proposal.
Person A makes a statement supporting an argument/opinion.
Person B replies with a counter-argument that doesn’t address Person A’s argument. Or addresses a different argument.
Person B proceeds to victory dance while ignoring Person A stating they make no sense.
Example:
“This explanation is a good example of a straw man fallacy.”
“No it isn’t, an ad hominem attack is better. You have no idea what a straw man fallacy is you idiot!”
TL;DR – The straw man fallacy is countering an argument the other person didn’t make. So you create a straw man (your own imagined argument) and counter it instead.
Basically, it’s an informal fallacy where one person tries to refute the other’s point but instead of staying on the exact topic, they instead refute some other disconnected point (or seemingly connected point but not really).
The disconnected point they refute is the “straw man” here, which is where it gets the name, because it’s “like the bad arguer is fighting a straw man, instead of fighting me on my topic”
Google for examples if the above is unclear. Basically the person tries to subtly shift the topic, making a left turn and refuting a different argument but trying to make you THINK they actually refuted your point directly with that.
Similar to whataboutism, which is sort of a deflection strawman, where you deflect from the argument by pointing at another bad actor or situation and say “What about that?!? Is that okay????” Like if someone is talking about President Three doing something bad and a fan of Three says “what about president two! They did worse!” And you say “uhh, sure… but we’re talking about Prez 3 right now… stop changing the topic”
The use of a straw man can change the nature of a debate by refuting an argument other than the one which was originally being debated. This moving of the goalposts in a debate is what defines a straw man. https://youtu.be/appAq7fQzSg
A straw man argument is where, instead of arguing against someone with an opposing view, you invent a “straw man” that represents the opposing view, but you provide the argument it’s making.
Let’s say I say that I prefer steak over other meats, you then argue “Why do you hate bacon?”. I never said I hated bacon, but now I can’t actually have a discussion about my meat preferences because you have created this false argument that has completely sidetracked the original statement.
The straw man fallacy is when you argue against a position by distorting the position into something that’s easily defeated. You point out how the distorted view is wrong or bad, and then declare victory over the original position.
One example is the argument against abortion access. The “straw man” could be that pro-abortion people enjoy killing babies. Of course it’s awful to enjoy killing babies, therefore abortions are bad. By itself it sounds convincing, but it ignores the real reasons to be pro-abortion, and that no-one (or not everyone, at least) who is pro-abortion enjoys killing babies.
Pretending somebody said something dumber than they really said, and then criticizing that instead of criticizing what they actually said.
If you say it can be bad for one’s health to eat too much sweets, and I reply “Really? You think I’ll die from a candy bar? Ridiculous.” then I’m using the strawman fallacy.
The straw man fallacy occurs when an opponent responds to your argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or completely made up version of what you said and then argues against it instead of your original actual argument.
Example 1:
You: I think teachers deserve better pay considering how hard the work.
Opponent: OP wants us to give teachers million dollar salaries! That’s crazy! We can’t afford that!
Example 2:
You: I prefer pizza to tacos.
Opponent: OP hates Mexicans! OP is a racist!
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