Strawman (argument)

Rhetorical attack on an argument that is inadmissibly simplified or grossly distorted and therefore easy to refute, with the implied insinuation that the original argument is thereby also refuted.

For example:

𝑨: We should invest more money in education and schools to make sure our children have the best education possible.
𝑩: Apparently 𝑨 believes that our children are stupid. Surely we can all agree that our children are actually very clever. The proposal is therefore nonsensical.

At least in the context given here, 𝑨 did not claim or insinuate that the children were “stupid”, but rather that education should be improved, which is not the same thing. In addition to the gross misrepresentation of 𝑨’s position (the actual strawman argument), 𝑩 then also uses an appeal to emotion to counter that false position.

The term “straw men” originally refered to dummies (usually made of straw) that were once used as training opponents, e.g. in fencing. For obvious reasons, these dummies are much easier to “defeat” than a real, human opponent.

Note that “straw man” also has another meaning: it can also refer to a person or company that does business in place of another. Although this meaning has a different origin (namely the French “homme de paille”), it is not too far removed from a “straw man argument”, which is discussed instead of the “real” argument.

Refuting a well-constructed argument or position is not an easy task, and especially when it concerns a complex issue, it can be time-consuming and difficult to do so in a satisfactory way.

To make matters worse, it is all too easy to realise in the course of such a discussion that one’s own argumentation is no longer tenable in its current form, once it is confronted by counter-arguments. Or perhaps at least some observers find the opponent’s position actually more plausible than your own …

Instead, it often seems temptingly easier to put a distorted argument into the opponents mouth, which can be refuted with little effort, completely and comprehensibly for everyone.

Of course, the problem remains that the original argument has not really been refuted.

Some common methods of putting forward straw man arguments are briefly outlined below. However, this list does not claim to be exhaustive. In some cases, there are also more specific articles on the respective forms:

A distorted, oversimplified or simply completely misrepresenting version of the opponent’s proposition is presented. This is crafted in such a way that it is easier to refute or reject.

In extreme cases, the original argument is no longer addressed at all and instead something completely different is “refuted” instead (ignoratio elenchi ).

The position is represented here by a false opponent, who pretends to take on a role similar to that of an advocatus diaboli ). However, this opponent then only uses weak and easily refuted arguments.

In many cases, one doesn’t even have to invent such a sham opponent – almost every group has at least a few representatives who advocate particularly abstruse and ill-conceived positions. The strategy to specifically seek those out for refutation in order to avoid having to deal with more compelling arguments is also known as nutpicking.

Instead of attacking the main argument or the core issue that is actually in dispute, attempts are made to score points on “side issues”. This strategy could be counted as a distraction technique (red herring).

In extreme cases, a minor point that ultimately has little to no relevance to the actual issue being discussed is then meticulously picked apart. If an concession is then made on this point, it is presented as if the discussion has also been “won” on the main issue (motte-and-bailey fallacy).

In the process, the actual question in debate is frequently assumed to have already been decided in one’s own favour (petitio principii ), or completely ignored.

The neologism “(argumentum) ad minutiam” – loosely translated: “(argument) against a minor point” – is sometimes used to describe this practice.

It is not a strawman argument if an abstract and possibly vaguely formulated argument of the opponent is concretised in order to clarify it. This is particularly the case if one presents an example to illustrate the position. However, this must of course reflect the opponent’s position fairly and truthfully.

If one has not fully understood the opponent’s position, or if it is to be expected that at least some of the audience have not understood the position, or its implications, it can be useful to summarise it again in your own words. However, it is then sensible to ask the opponent to confirm that this indeed represents their position accurately.

It may also be appropriate to rephrase the opponent’s argument to clarify any inconsistencies. However, you should then ask your opponent to confirm that this actually reflects their position.

When an iceberg melts, the meltwater takes up as just much space as the iceberg previously displaced.
Therefore, melting icebergs will not cause sea levels to rise.
That means that predictions of rising sea levels due to global warming are nonsensical.

The speaker here refers to what is known as Archimedes’ principle, according to which a floating body displaces precisely as much water as its corresponding weight. If a (floating) iceberg melts, the meltwater therefore takes up almost exactly the space that the iceberg previously displaced (minor deviations due to the difference in weight between fresh and salt water and thermal expansion are of little relevance here).

However, the speaker “forgets” to mention that the melting of floating icebergs has never been seriously put forward as a reason for rising sea levels. The real concern are the ice masses that do not float, such as mountain glaciers and, above all, inland ice sheets, like the ones on Greenland or Antarctica.

The argument that the speaker above claims to refute is onyl superficially similar to the one that is actually made. For this reason, this counts as strawman argument. As laudable as it is to teach your audience basic physics, the argument is not suitable as a refutation of arguments about rising sea levels.

But straw man arguments can also be found on the other side of the same debate. Consider the following statement:

All arguments against climate protection are in reality rhetorical tricks.
There are no arguments against climate protection.

It is indeed difficult to argue against (more) climate protection without questioning the state of science (alternative facts) or taking rather far-fetched positions – such as the desire for more summer days (which probably falls under wishful thinking in any case).

Because of this, at least in the European context, there is hardly anyone who is ready to seriously position themselves against climate protection per se. The social debate is more centred around the question of who will have to bear how much costs of these policies, how much change can the society sustain, and last but not least, which other social goals – from reducing unemployment to other aspects of environmental protection – we are prepared to subordinate to this issue.

With statements like the above, activists try to impy that any opposing side is actually against climate protection, when they are actually arguing that certain specific measures are either unreasonable or inefficient. In these cases, this is also a straw man argument.

According to Kant, we can do whatever we want as long as everyone else is allowed to do the same.
It follows that we are also allowed to murder each other.
Consequently, Kant’s philosophy is absurd as an ethical guide to behaviour.

Were the first statement really to reflect Kant’s categorical imperative, it would indeed not be a useful guide to moral behaviour. However, this is in fact a grossly simplified representation that bears only a superficial resemblance to Kant’s philosophy. Such a “refutation” is therefore not suitable for criticising the categorical imperative.

• Advocatus diaboli
• Nutpicking
• Petitio principii

• Straw man on Wikipedia
• Straw Man on Fallacy Files
• Strawman Fallacy on Logically Fallacious
• Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men on SpringerLink

• Video: Straw Man Fallacy on Khan Academy