Strawman - Definition and Examples
Contents
Definition
Someone distorts or caricatures an opponent’s arguments or views, and then attacks the weakened version rather than the real argument.
Margaret: “We have to do something about greenhouse gases. The government should raise vehicle fuel efficiency standards to cut down the amount of CO2 we release over the next 20 years”. Roger: “Margaret’s solution would be a disaster. It would kill the economy. How would people get to work without cars?” Roger claims that Margaret is proposing measures that would eliminate cars. Margaret has not said anything equivalent to that. It’s a strawman.
A positive message from the Strawman: the importance of being charitable. Showing that a strawman version of a position we oppose may win a debate, but it is unlikely to move us toward the truth. If we can show that even the strongest version of a position we oppose is flawed, we may make progress. So good logical and critical thinking leads to the principle of charity: When representing an argument that you do not agree with and are attempting to evaluate, it is important to represent that argument in a way that is reasonably faithful to the argument as it is made by the originators, and as strong as possible.
Ad h is a Latin word that means “**against the **”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments.
Examples of an Ad H attack
Example 1
|
|
This clearly shows how a person is attacked instead of being addressed for or against his argument.
Example 2
A classic example of Ad H logical fallacy is given below:
|
|
It means.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9131
Compare to Reduction to Absurdity
- The Strawman Fallacy.
https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/
strawman
The Straw Man Fallacy The straw man fallacy involves creating a false argument and then refuting it. The counterargument is then believed to be true. By misrepresenting an opposing position (and then knocking it down) your own preferred position appears stronger.
Example A local politician plans to expand the municipality’s cycle network and to add several new speed cameras in densely populated areas. Their opponent says, “They want us all to give up driving forever. They’re punishing the honest car owners and commuters that help pay these politicians’ salaries.” By arguing that the proposed changes are an attack on motorists, the opponent has knocked down the position much more easily than if they tried to address the actual concerns the proposal is dealing with – in this case, a spike in fatalities due to traffic collisions and pollution levels.
Note: Don’t confuse a straw man argument with a straw man proposal . A straw man proposal is a popular problem-solving concept where you start with a half-finished idea and deliberately “poke holes” in it to get to a better final product.
Unlike a straw man argument, a straw man proposal is an effective process when it is used with clear and honest intentions.
gen:
The Straw Man Fallacy
Introduction
The straw man fallacy is a type of argument that goes something like this: “All X are Y, so therefore, [X and Y] are the same.” This is not only a logical fallacy, but also an example of bad reasoning in general. In this article we will cover what the straw man argument is, how it works and how to spot it when you see it.
What is a straw man fallacy?
A straw man fallacy is a common logical fallacy that involves attacking an opponent’s position by misrepresenting what he or she has said. The straw man fallacy also refers to the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument, which consists in showing that it could be accepted by him if one withdrew some part of it.
The first step in identifying a straw man argument is recognizing those parts of your opponent’s position that you can easily refute, because they are most likely not representative of his overall point. In other words: If you find yourself unable to refute every statement made by your target audience member (and therefore feel free to discard them), then this is probably someone who has committed the straw man fallacy!
Another way for us humans with short attention spans like ourselves who don’t have time for long-winded lectures but still want our readers’ attention nevertheless given more than enough information about why we should care about our planet earth before sending them off into space alone without any kind support system whatsoever…
How to spot straw men in argument?
Look for the argument. The first step to spotting a straw man is to look at the original statement, and see if it’s been distorted. If you can find these distortions, then you know that someone has made up a straw man argument in order to mislead people.
Check out what they’re saying: Once you’ve found your target statement, take some time to read through their entire argument before deciding whether or not it’s valid. This will help avoid falling into any fallacious traps that might be waiting in ambush!
Check out evidence: Make sure there aren’t any holes or weaknesses in their logic by looking at all available evidence from both sides (or from multiple sides).
The Straw Man example: climate change
The straw man argument is a form of logical fallacy that occurs when someone misrepresents another person’s argument in order to make it easier to attack. It’s often used in politics, where it can be used as an attempt to distract people from the real issues at hand by creating false dichotomies between two sides of an issue (e.g., “You’re either with me or against me”).
For example: climate change deniers like Bjorn Lomborg argue that there isn’t enough evidence yet for global warming, so we shouldn’t worry about it too much yet—a position which implies that carbon dioxide emissions are not harmful for humans and nature alike. In response to this argument, environmentalists might point out how Lomborg’s research has been cited by Republican politicians as proof that climate change isn’t real; if you listen closely enough into their speeches or read through their websites’ FAQ section on global warming (and who doesn’t?), these same Republicans will usually claim they believe human activity contributes significantly toward increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere while also claiming they’re committed protectors against its effects!
Other straw man common examples
Here are some examples of straw man fallacies in popular culture and politics:
Straw men in politics. The most famous example is probably when Richard Nixon made his “Checkers” speech, where he said that if you don’t have a dog, you can’t be for equality for all Americans. In fact, no one has ever been against dogs or equality for all Americans (although there may be some people who are against dogs because they don’t want to walk them). However, this example is still an example of using a straw man argument because it doesn’t apply to everyone who is against dogs—it applies only to those who claim not having a dog means being against equality for all Americans.
Straw man arguments in advertising: A good way to think about this kind of fallacy would be through an analogy with advertising campaigns. If someone sees an ad on TV and thinks “Wow! This product must be great!” but then finds out later that it was poorly made or doesn’t work at all… Well… That’s pretty much like using a faulty piece of evidence as part of your argument!
The straw man argument is a common logical fallacy.
The straw man argument is a common logical fallacy. It’s also known as the “straw man fallacy,” which can be defined as “a form of misrepresentation in which an opponent’s position is represented as more extreme or absurd than it actually is.”
The straw man argument can be broken down into three parts:
The original claim
Your refutation of that claim (aka, your counterargument)
Your opponent’s response to your argument
Conclusion
The straw man fallacy is a common logical fallacy that occurs in argumentation. It involves creating an extreme version of an opponent’s arguments to make them look unreasonable, like for example claiming that someone supports everything without any conditions or constraints.