Straw Man fallacy
A straw man is a dummy person who is often used for military training for shooting targets. It is easy to target an opponent who is made of straw instead of being a real person who can fight back. The straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. It occurs when someone misrepresents, exaggerates an opposing argument or chooses an easy target to attack and discredit.
The straw man fallacy can be of different types, like
- Taking an opponent’s words out of context
- Distorting argument by oversimplifying or exaggerating it
- Fabricating claims that the opponent never actually made
- Changing small but important details in the opponent’s original argument
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person A asserts proposition X.
- Person B argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
For example, consider the following arguments
- A: We should relax the laws on beer.
- B: No, if people get unrestricted access to intoxicants, they will seek instant gratification and lose their work ethics.
This is a typical straw man fallacy as person A never asked for unrestricted access to intoxicants, which is disputed by person B. In this case, B has exaggerated and misrepresented the claim of A.
Similarly, consider the following argument.
- Person A: “We must enforce school uniforms on students because it promotes discipline.”
- Person B: “So, you wish to control every aspect of students’ lives and turn them into robots?”
Here, B has exaggerated the claim, as A has never suggested controlling every aspect of a student’s life.
Let us consider the following argument, which is frequently used in politics.
- Politician A: The police must stop false encounters with people accused of a crime. The people should be punished by the courts and not by the police.
- Politician B: So, you want the murderers and terrorists to roam on the streets?
This is a clear case of strawman fallacy since Politician B has misrepresented the claim of Politician A, who never stated that murderers and terrorists should not be punished. All he wants is for them to be punished according to the law and not arbitrarily by the whims and fancy of the police officers.
Here are some more examples of straman fallacies,
Example
Argument
- Parents: “You can’t see your friends tonight”, or “You can’t go to picnic tomorrow.”
- Child: “Why do you hate me?”
Argument
- A: We should make some regulations about the use of plastic bags as they damage the environment.
- B: So, you want to ban all plastic bags. How will the people carry things? It’s a totally ridiculous idea.
Argument
- Person X: We should increase benefits for unemployed single mothers after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their children.
- Person Y: You mean, we should incentivize women to become single mothers and get a free ride from the taxpayer’s money hurting our economy and society.
Argument
- A: We must maintain good relationships with all our neighbouring countries.
- B: Why are you supporting the enemy and playing in their hands?
How to deal with strawman fallacy
When you are constructing an argument, you must avoid ambiguity and use clear and specific language in arguments. For instance, when you want to argue about regulating the the use of plastic bags, you must be more precise, e.g. “Which type of plastic bag?”, or “Do you want to ban the plastic bag, or only restrict it completely?” However, when the opponent distorts the argument, you must immediately remove the ambiguity and clarify the argument. You can also point out the strawman and ask the opponent to show how your original statement and their distorted version are the same. On pointing out, the opponents will either admit that his argument is invalid or try to justify it by using more flawed reasoning, which you can then attack.
When we oppose the argument, instead of resorting to a strawman, we must try to make the argument constructive. For instance, when person X suggests increasing benefits for unemployed single mothers for childcare and medical needs, instead of resorting to the strawman fallacy, we can ask, “How will we ensure these benefits are effective and efficient without wasting taxpayer money?” In this way, we can engage in dialogue, and something good can come out of the argument.
