I’ve read the definition, I’ve tried to figure it out, I feel so stupid.
In: 1656
It’s where you argue against a weak caricature of your opponent’s argument (a man made of straw), and then push it over in false victory, as though you had defeated the argument/person at full strength.
Just watch any political debate (or any politician discussing a colleague on “the other side”) then look into their actual political stances and statements. The concept will become pretty clear after a while.
In a debate, your opponent addresses a point you didn’t actually make, or evidence you aren’t discussing.
“I oppose this tax because it places a disproportionate burden on the poor”.
A strawman would be “why do you hate rich people”.
That’s a pretty obvious example, strawmen can be very subtle as well.
“I oppose drilling in ANWAR because of the environmental impact on the porcupine caribou”
“My opponent is in favor of drilling in Alaska as long as we make allowances for wildlife”.
“I love cats.”
“WhAt dO yOu MEaN yoU hAtE dOGs?!?! They are intelligent and loving and man’s best friend!”
Person A: I’d rather have a dog than a cat.
Person B: Why do you hate cats?
Is a classic example of one.
Her: I think we should get a cat.
Him: I think we should get a dog.
Her: Why do you hate cats?
Synopsis: instead of debating the merit of one’s statement, they argue against an easier to attack target (a man made of straw will be easier to knock over than a man made of steel). Sometimes this is done intentionally to obfuscate the argument. Sometimes this is done because the person genuinely doesn’t understand the argument the other is making and assumes the other person actually holds the strawman position.
You’ll see this A LOT in political discussions because it is way easier to score points with an audience by misrepresenting their opposition in the worst way possible.
Person 1: “The NRA is an association that is more focused on lobbying using foreign assets than they are focused on gun safety and proper use of guns.”
Person 2: “OH, so you just want to take all my guns away huh? You dirty liberals are all the same.”
Person 2 either can’t see the nuance in person 1s opinion or refuses to see it, so instead of arguing what was actually said Person 2 makes up what they think Person 1 is in their head and argues against that.
There are a number of answers here that I don’t think quite capture the nuance of a strawman fallacy. It’s not that you’re arguing against a “fake” view, or incorrect interpretation of someone’s argument, but it’s when you argue against a specific caricature, or extreme version, of the argument. These typically focus on a corner-case or exception that the original statement, if interpretted charitably, would have excluded.
You argue against an example that is very easy to argue against, and trying to use that to invalidate the entire argument.
As an example, lets imagine I make an arguement that people with criminal records should not be discriminated against when it comes to getting jobs when they are out of prison. My argument is that after release, the person has paid their debt to society, should not continue to be punished, and rejecting them from jobs and opportunities based on their past creates a feedback cycle that leads to recidivism.
Now, you come back and say “It is completely ridiculous that someone convicted of embezzlement should be allowed to get a job as a CFO of a public company. They have proven that they cannot be trusted, and allowing them to have that job puts the entire company at risk.”
Now, *obviously* the come back is correct, but it’s arguing against an extreme corner-case, and not the actual argument that was being made.
Lots of people have already answered your question. But you might find [this infographic](https://landing.athabascau.ca/file/download/3023897) helpful.
its basically when you make up an argument that no one is making and then defeat it to create the illusion that youre “winning a debate”
Latest Answers