Straw man
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Straw_man".

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).^[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.^[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.^{citation needed} Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.^{citation needed}In the UK the usual term is Aunt Sally

Reasoning

Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a 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 that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).^[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and 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 that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

Examples

• Hypothetical Marijuana debate.

Person A: We should liberalize the laws on marijuana.

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

The proposal was to relax laws on marijuana. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: "unrestricted access to drugs".^[1]

• 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.

• Creation-evolution debate

Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.

Person B: No, it doesn't say how the world was made.

B has misrepresented the theory of evolution as a cosmogony.

See also

• List of fallacies
• Ad hominem
• Straw man proposal
• Aunt Sally

References

External links

• The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
• Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments