straw man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.^{[1] [2]}

Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

Origin

The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside of courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness. ^{[3] [4]} Another is that a man made of straw, such as those used in military training, is easy to attack. Attacking a straw man can give the illusion of a strong attack or good argument. In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.

Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents position Y.
Thus, Y is a resulting 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 which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).^[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, 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 which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

Examples

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2009)

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates even when less flawed arguments could be found to support the same position.

• (Hypothetical) prohibition debate:

Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.

Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

(The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants").^[1]

• Political debate:

Person A: The war in Iraq is wrong.

Person B: You cannot convince me that liberty is a bad thing.

(B has equated A's opposition to the war as an opposition to liberty which is easier to defeat).

• A beach debate:

Person A: Nude bathing is healthy, and nude beaches should be permitted here.

Person B: No, that kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.

(B has misrepresented A's position as a call for sexual promiscuity, not nudity, which is what Person A called for. The escalation from nudity to sexual promiscuity makes the argument easier to defeat).

• A universal healthcare debate:

Person A: We should have universal healthcare.

Person B: No, because only communists believe in universal healthcare and communist countries are typically poor, which we don't want to become.

(B has falsely identified A as a communist and then refuted communism).

• School uniform policy debate:

Person A: School uniforms are good for keeping students properly dressed for school, making them easier to keep track of on field trips, and ease early-morning conflict with students trying to decide what to wear.

Person B: That's a great idea... if you're a Hitler-lover. You know, Nazis had school uniforms, too.

(B has equated A's idea with Nazism). This is also an example of Godwin's Law.

Debating around a straw man

Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.

1. Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself: Beach debate: There is no threat to morality with "free" sex. Sex for purposes other than procreation is something that shouldn't be tied to morality, shame, or guilt. (Note: A weakness of this retort is that agreeing to use the terminology of the opponent may deflect the debate to a secondary one about the opponent's assumptions).

2. Clarifying the original theory: I said evolution should be taught, not that I disbelieve in God. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man.

3. Questioning the disputation Why could it not have been created by random chance?. 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