Straw Man Argument

3 Key excerpts on "Straw Man Argument"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Introduction to Logic

  • Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, Victor Rodych, Kenneth McMahon(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  7 R4. The Straw Man It is very much easier to win a fight against a person made of straw than against one made of flesh and blood. If one argues against some view by presenting an opponent’s position as one that is easily torn apart, the argument is fallacious, of course. Such an argument commits the fallacy of the straw man . One may view this fallacy as a variety of the red herring, because it also introduces a distraction from the real dispute. In this case, however, the distraction is of a particular kind: It is an effort to shift the conflict from its original complexity into a different con-flict, between parties other than those originally in dispute. So common is this variety of distraction that the pattern of argument that relies on it has long carried its own name: the Straw Man Argument . In controversies of a moral or a political nature, a successful argument almost invari-ably requires some reasonable and nuanced distinctions, and perhaps also some narrowly described exceptions. The extreme position in any dispute—the claim that conduct of a certain kind is always wrong, or always justified—is likely to be difficult if not impos-sible to defend. Therefore it is often a fallacious device to contend that what one aims to defeat is indefensible because it is categorical or absolute. Victory may be achieved over this fictitious opponent, but one will have destroyed only a straw man. One who urges the enlargement of the authority of some central administration may be fallaciously accused of seeking to transform the state into a “big brother” whose reach will extend into every corner of citizens’ private lives. Such a “big brother” is likely to be no more than a straw man. One who urges the devolution of authority from central to more local governments may be portrayed, with similar fallacy, as the enemy of an efficient and effective administration—and that, too, is likely to be a straw man.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  You've Got To Be Kidding!

  How Jokes Can Help You Think

  • John Capps, Donald Capps(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  does want the offender to suffer for the harm that was done. In some cases, a third party steps in and sets the terms on how the offender will be made to suffer. Consider the case of Roy E. Frankhouser, who called himself a chaplain to the Ku Klux Klan. He harassed a woman by taking photographs of his victim through her office window, broadcasting images of an explosion destroying her office, making threatening phone calls, and distributing threatening fliers. The victim, a social worker whose job was to assist people filing discrimination complaints, was so fearful that she left her job and her home and repeatedly moved from one residence to another. The court imposed punishment for the wrongs he committed against her included submitting written copies of an apology to a major newspaper, performing community service, making efforts to promote anti-discrimination campaigns, and contributing a percentage of his salary to the victim and her daughter (Lazare 2004, p. 62).

  Some people think that it’s enough for the wrongdoer to make a sincere apology, but this is not necessarily the case: the victim’s need for restoration of self-respect may be met by exercising the power (legal) to make the offender suffer. Another need that is satisfied is the need to believe that important values are in fact shared and that the offender feels bound by the social contract (Lazare 2004, p. 63). What’s important to keep in mind is that there’s a difference between requiring the offender to suffer and committing a retaliatory offense against the offender as a way of “getting even.”

  The Straw Man

  A fourth fallacy of assumption is the straw man fallacy. If, in responding to someone else’s argument, you deliberately distort it so as to weaken it, you commit the straw man fallacy. In the form in which you represent the other person’s argument, it is easy to refute. That’s why it’s called a straw man. A straw man, after all, is an easy pushover. There’s a difference, though, between committing this fallacy and making an honest mistake in interpreting what the other person has argued. Some arguments are complex and are not easy to grasp and sometimes our effort to restate the other person’s argument requires modification or correction. But the commission of the Straw Man Argument is a dishonest mistake because it involves the deliberate distortion of the other person’s argument (McInerny 2005, p. 112). In effect, you want to make the other person look ridiculous and want those who are listening to the argument to say about your opponent’s argument, “How could anyone possibly believe that?” So the straw man is an exercise in bad faith, as it often has an ad hominem intent.

  This fallacy is often used in politics because the one who uses it not only wants to make the other person’s argument look bad but also wants the other person to look bad. Other people may not necessarily care about the issues that are being argued about but they do care whether the candidate is thoughtful and intelligent. If you can make the other candidate’s argument appear ridiculous, you have also raised doubts in the minds of others as to the intelligence of the person who allegedly thinks this way.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies

  A Pragma-dialectical Perspective

  • Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Dijk (1984) discussed the role of prejudice.

  The fallacy that is committed by irrelevant argumentation is that the disputed standpoint is defended by argumentation that has no bearing on it so that no real resolution of the dispute can be achieved. In effect, the argumentation supports a standpoint that is quite different from the one about which the opinions differ. Just as with a straw man, compared with the proposition originally at issue, there is a shift in the proposition with respect to which a standpoint is being adopted.

  The main difference between the fallacy of irrelevant argumentation and that of the straw man is that in the case of a straw man the shift results in the standpoint being easier to attack, whereas in the case of irrelevant argumentation it becomes easier to defend. By changing “some” to “all,” a standpoint can be made easier to attack; by changing “all” to “some,” it can be made easier to defend. The fallacy of advancing argumentation that is only relevant to a standpoint that is not actually at issue is traditionally called ignoratio elenchi.2

  2 Cf. Hamblin (1970) .

  Playing on the Audiences Emotions

  Violations of Rule 4 in which nonargumentative means of persuasion are used by exploiting the emotions of the audience are known by the generic term of argumentum ad populum.3 Such violations play directly at the audience’s feelings. In this respect, they differ from the argumentum ad hominem and the straw man. In the case of argumentum ad hominem, the intention is to damage the opponent’s credibility, thus eliminating him as a serious opponent in the eyes of the audience. The straw man fallacy only works if the opponent (who will often be absent) has first been subjected to fraudulent modification.

  3 According to Hamblin (1970) , the arguments ad passiones were in the early 18th century added to Locke’s list by Isaac Watts. Ad populum is a controversial fallacy: some authors think that it is not always fallacious. (cf. Kielkopf 1980 ; Walton, 1987b

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book