I’ve read the definition, I’ve tried to figure it out, I feel so stupid.
In: 1656
It’s an argument one makes against an imagined position the second person doesn’t hold. Usually done because the imaginary position is easier to argue against.
For example, if I tell you “people should drink more water”, you going on a tirade about how “the other drinks shouldn’t be banned”, would be you making a strawman argument.
Imagine you are simultaneously debating an opponent, on, say, whether coffee is a soup, and also fist-fighting them.
They argue “it’s something edible steeped in hot water until the water takes on its flavour”, and take a swing at your head.
You reply, “OH! so you think any liquid is a soup? Well milk is not a soup so therefore you’re wrong”, and at the same time, you punch a big scarecrow made of straw that’s standing next to them, instead of your actual opponent.
Your argument is sound, but it’s not actually addressing the thing they’ve said or anything anyone really believes. Your punch absolutely demolishes the scarecrow, you knock his head clean off and he falls over. But he’s not a real guy and you’ve not actually punched your opponent.
Maybe thinking about it literally will help.
What is a strawman? It is a bunch of straw stuffed into a person’s clothes. Like a scarecrow, if you’ve seen the Wizard of Oz, but without magic animating it.
Have you ever tried to push over a bag of straw? Super simple. Anybody can do it, because the straw doesn’t do a good job of standing up in the first place.
But if you were watched from far away, by somebody that doesn’t know it’s a bag of straw, you could pretend that it’s a bag of cement or steel or something heavy. You can pretend that you are strong and did something impressive.
A strawman argument is dressing up something easy to counter (a bag of straw or an exaggerated/tangential argument) to look like what you are arguing against (looks like an opponent or your debate target to an onlooker) so that it’s easy to knock over and look like you are winning the argument.
Basically misrepresenting the other person’s argument and then “defeating” that argument, since you misrepresented their position it makes it easy to rip apart like a straw man since you are dismantling a position that they don’t actually hold. https://youtu.be/appAq7fQzSg
A strawman argument is a fallacy in debate where you assign a position to your debate opponent that they do not hold and debate against that statement instead of the actual statement. For example, in a debate about whether or not cats should be allowed outdoors, if someone in favor of letting cats outdoors says “my opponent says that cats should not get any playtime” that would be a strawman. It’s changing the opponents position from “cats shouldn’t be let outside” to “cats shouldn’t be allowed to play at all.” It’s a way to appear like you’re winning an argument against someone without actually arguing against what they’re saying.
It’s creating a fake opponent, with “views” you’ve created for them, that you can completely destroy with your own arguments. Bonus points if it bears ANY resemblance to anyone you’re actually arguing with, but history has shown that it’s entirely optional, because your supporters most likely don’t know what your opponents viewpoints actually are, so they’ll just take your word for it.
If your argument is rock solid but I’m to much of a bitch to admit I’m wrong than I’ll reframe your argument so it makes you sound like your actually arguing for something different that is easier for me to attack.
Thank you all so much! This was so helpful and you were all so nice about it!
Background- it was first said to me when I was working at an orthodontist office and he said I was too nervous during consults and wasn’t selling enough braces. I said that asking and video taping the consults and then having him pick every bit if it apart with me for an hour after each one was just wrecking my nerves; plus the patients always felt pressured when asked if I could record the session so they were put off and I was nervous and that just wrecked the sales process. He told me that was a strawman argument.
Basically, it’s an argument where you ignore what someone is actually saying. Instead, you build a fake “strawman” of their beliefs. It looks related, but it isn’t their argument.
These strawman arguments are built weakly, so you can easily knock them over, but they aren’t what is actually being said.
They can take the form of someone’s words being taken out of context, by adding minor details that weren’t in the original argument, or just straight up pulling an argument out of your rear that was never said by anyone.
For example, take the argument against prohibition:
A: We should relax the laws restricting beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
A had never said that they should remove all laws on alcohol. That wasn’t what was said. It was a belief made up by B so that he could easily knock it over.
Strawmaning is a popular “fallacy”, or flawed form of logic. It’s especially popular in politics. Look no further than the American political climate to see the Boogiemen each side has built for eachother.
Edit: Because of an unintentional false equivalency.
By “boogieman” in the above sentence, I’m referring solely to the beliefs toted by said political stereotypes, not the stereotypes themselves.
An example, courtesy of u/KrayKrayjunkie ‘s comment below:
“All lefties are terrible communist that want free everything”
“All conservatives are secret KKK members that learn how to make nooses in their spare time”
Example:
Me: I think I enjoy Spaghetti more than I like Steak
You: “WTF you must be a Vegetarian then! How can you say you hate steak?!”
That’s the strawman. I never said I was a vegetarian, nor that I hated steak. I simply stated I enjoy Spaghetti more than Steak, and you twisted my words into saying that I don’t eat meat.
Latest Answers