Tweet
Out of all of the bad debating tactics and fallacies that occur when arguing online, I hate strawman arguments more than any other. And, since I've been involved in an argument where my opponent keeps making strawman arguments while insisting that he isn't, I thought that perhaps a primer is in order.
Wikipedia defines a Straw man argument as:
In short, misrepresenting someone else's argument and/or creating a position that they didn't actually take, in order to counter the false argument, rather than the real one.
When evaluating an argument, qualifiers are important to determine whether it's a genuine rebuttal or a strawman (qualifiers are adjectives, adverbs, or clauses that alter the meaning of the object). If there are qualifiers in the original statement that are omitted or altered in the rebuttal, it's a straw man. If there are new qualifiers that weren't part of the original statement, the rebuttal is a straw man.
Take, for example: "Blue Chryslers are dangerous to drive in." If someone responds by talking about the safety of cars in general, blue cars (without including Chryslers), or Chryslers (without talking about the color), it's a straw man.
Note, however, that it's possible to make the rebuttal stop being a straw man if you note and explain the difference - in the previous sentence, you could respond that Chryslers are safe cars, and the paint job is purely cosmetic, which has nothing to do with safety. You've rebutted the statement completely, because you've addressed the conditionals.
There are a few words that are used commonly in debate: "Some," "many," and "most." These words are not synonyms, and rebutting them requires different conditions.
If I said that, "Some roses are pink," The only way to rebut this is to prove that there are no such things as pink roses. A tall order, to be sure!
If, instead, I said that, "Many roses are pink," I'm saying that pink roses are common - in order to rebut this, you'd effectively have to prove that pink roses are very uncommon.
And if I said that, "most roses are pink," you'd have the easier task of proving majority - if you could prove that the majority of roses are red (or, in fact, all other colors besides pink), you'd successfully rebut my statement.
Then there's adding clauses. If I said, "Most roses are pink," and you replied, "All of the roses in my city are blue," your statement could be perfectly factually true, but it would still be a straw man, because my statement said nothing about your city - you're adding a qualifier involving your city. Who knows, maybe the only roses in your city are blue, but right over the city line are ten times as many green roses - you've failed to address my statement adequately.
Thus ends this minor lesson on strawman arguments, and how not to make them. I suspect that some posters needed this lesson.
If you have any questions about what makes a straw man that I haven't made clear, please feel free to ask.
Wikipedia defines a Straw man argument as:
A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
When evaluating an argument, qualifiers are important to determine whether it's a genuine rebuttal or a strawman (qualifiers are adjectives, adverbs, or clauses that alter the meaning of the object). If there are qualifiers in the original statement that are omitted or altered in the rebuttal, it's a straw man. If there are new qualifiers that weren't part of the original statement, the rebuttal is a straw man.
Take, for example: "Blue Chryslers are dangerous to drive in." If someone responds by talking about the safety of cars in general, blue cars (without including Chryslers), or Chryslers (without talking about the color), it's a straw man.
Note, however, that it's possible to make the rebuttal stop being a straw man if you note and explain the difference - in the previous sentence, you could respond that Chryslers are safe cars, and the paint job is purely cosmetic, which has nothing to do with safety. You've rebutted the statement completely, because you've addressed the conditionals.
There are a few words that are used commonly in debate: "Some," "many," and "most." These words are not synonyms, and rebutting them requires different conditions.
If I said that, "Some roses are pink," The only way to rebut this is to prove that there are no such things as pink roses. A tall order, to be sure!
If, instead, I said that, "Many roses are pink," I'm saying that pink roses are common - in order to rebut this, you'd effectively have to prove that pink roses are very uncommon.
And if I said that, "most roses are pink," you'd have the easier task of proving majority - if you could prove that the majority of roses are red (or, in fact, all other colors besides pink), you'd successfully rebut my statement.
Then there's adding clauses. If I said, "Most roses are pink," and you replied, "All of the roses in my city are blue," your statement could be perfectly factually true, but it would still be a straw man, because my statement said nothing about your city - you're adding a qualifier involving your city. Who knows, maybe the only roses in your city are blue, but right over the city line are ten times as many green roses - you've failed to address my statement adequately.
Thus ends this minor lesson on strawman arguments, and how not to make them. I suspect that some posters needed this lesson.
If you have any questions about what makes a straw man that I haven't made clear, please feel free to ask.
Comment