A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the <a href="https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/">logical fallacy</a> of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light. The straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy, which means that the flaw lies with the arguer’s method of arguing rather than the flaws of the argument itself.

The Straw Man Argument

One of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church’s criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. The term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that’s easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.

History of The Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man argument is constructed by presenting an opposing position as a warped, extreme version of itself. There are a few different ways an individual might turn a reasonable argument into a straw man:<ol><li>Oversimplifying it.</li><li>Focusing on just one part of the opposing argument: The arguer shows a tiny sliver of it as if that sliver were the whole thing.</li><li>Taking it out of context.</li><li>Presenting a fringe or extreme version of an opposing argument as the mainstream version of it.</li></ol>

Strawman Argument: How It Works

Straw man arguments are used in a few different ways. In a live debate, one might be used in an attempt to back the opposing debater into a corner and force them to defend an extreme or unpopular take on their position. In a piece of <a href="https://www.grammarly.com/writing">writing</a>, a straw man argument makes it easy for the writer to make their position look rational and appealing.By doing this, though, the writer is giving readers a biased look at the issue they’re discussing. When readers aren’t familiar with the topic, this can give them the wrong idea and prevent them from developing well-reasoned opinions on it.

Live And Written Usages Of The Strawman Argument

The easiest way to identify a straw man argument is to determine whether an argument sounds too simple or extreme to be true. Take a look at these statements:<ul><li>My opponent hates animals and doesn’t care how many will be displaced by his project. </li><li>Our new principal wants to ban everything that’s fun. </li><li>Their only priority is to make more money for their shareholders. </li></ul>See how all of these statements contain simple statements that lack nuance? That’s a key characteristic of a straw man argument.

Identifying A Strawman Argument

To counter a straw man version of your position, restate your position in the clearest, most definitive language possible. The clearer you are, the more difficult it is for your opponent to distort your works or take them out of context. This works as a straw man prevention strategy as well as a straw man rebuttal strategy. When you’re actively being misrepresented by a straw man, stay calm and try to avoid straw-manning your opponent in return or letting your argument devolve into other fallacies

How to Counter a Straw Man Argument

Asking your opponent to elaborate on their claim: Depending on the claim, ask them where they got their data or how they came to that conclusion based on what you’ve said and done.Pointing out that your opponent is misrepresenting you: Simply call it what it is: a straw man argument.  You also need to know how to recognize them in your own writing. When you’re writing an argumentative or persuasive essay, it can be easy to use straw man arguments—even accidentally!

The Two Strategies

<ul><li>Understanding the opposing perspective enables you to craft a stronger argument of your own. When you’re able to think critically about an opposing argument and formulate well-thought-out responses, your writing is more impactful. </li><li>In a debate or another scenario where you’ll have a back-and-forth discussion with your opponent, understanding their position completely can enable you to anticipate their rebuttals and plan your responses accordingly.</li><li>Understanding opposing points of view also enables you to empathize with your opponents .</li></ul>

The Debate: Understanding Is Key

Example 1Person 1: Because of the thefts in our building, I think we should add more security cameras.Person 2: So you’re saying you don’t trust your neighbors? Example 2Person 1: I think we should mute debaters’ microphones when it’s their opponents’ turns to speak so they can’t interrupt each other. Person 2: I disagree because I support free speech.  Example 3Person 1: Our restaurant’s policy is that nobody under eighteen is admitted after 8 p.m.Person 2: Why are you against families eating dinner together?

A Few Examples

Learn the meaning of straw man argument, how to identify it, and examples of how it's used so you can avoid this logical fallacy in your writing.

Stashed ideas

What Is a Straw Man Argument? Definition and Examples

When you are pressed for time, how can you quickly tell the difference between strong and weak arguments? Some weak arguments are more obvious, but others can be disguised behind seemingly sound statements. The progression from one point to another seems logical, but it breaks down at some point before giving sufficient support for the conclusion.

Spotting weak arguments

A weak argument needs two ingredients. <ul><li>Inductive reasoning: The argument should move from specific observations to broad generalizations.</li><li>Uncertain premise: The specific observations used to build the argument should either have a low probability or be based on personal opinions.</li></ul>Even if the argument sounds logical, the conclusion is not certain nor with high probability. For example, Charlie is a woman. Some women like poetry. Therefore, Charlie likes poetry.

The nature of a weak argument

Three critical thinking tools can help you quickly spot a weak argument.<ol><li>Look for words such as surely, obviously, evidently, etc. These words mark the edge of what the author is sure about.</li><li>Compare the conclusion of the argument to a coin toss. The argument is weak if a coin toss is better at predicting the conclusion. For example, “About 50% of humans I met are female. Charlie is human. Therefore, Charlie is female.” </li><li>Map the argument onto the seven-point pyramid of disagreement. The weakest type of argument is name-calling, followed by Ad Hominem.</li></ol>

How to quickly spot weak arguments

When you are pressed for time, how can you quickly tell the difference between a strong argument and a weak argument, and why does it matter?

Weak arguments and how to spot them

Integrated complexity is the ability to hold multiple perspectives at once, and it’s a wonderful trait for people to have. Some have it more naturally than others, but we can all work to do more.

Integrated complexity feels like disloyalty

If you think there should be, for example, zero immigration to the United States, you can call anyone who has even mildly pro-immigrant views a traitor. On the other hand if you think there should be open borders to the United States, you can call anyone who calls for any immigration restrictions a racist.

While <a href="https://www.mickmel.com/free-change-mind/">changing your mind can be a good thing</a>, <a href="https://www.mickmel.com/you-are-what-you-value-not-what-you-believe/">your values should remain strong</a>. By taking the time to understand both sides of an issue, you’ll be better equipped to defend your position and have stronger faith in why you believe what you believe. We saw this a few months ago with <a href="https://www.mickmel.com/the-specifics-matter/">the gentleman that was firmly against Critical Race Theory</a>, but he didn’t know why. I suspect part of it was a fear of feeling disloyal if he took the time to understand why someone might be in favor of it, so he buried his head in the sand instead.

Change your mind but hold your values

Understanding the opposing viewpoint doesn’t mean being disloyal to what you believe, and will very likely help strengthen your own perspective.

Integrated complexity is the ability to hold multiple perspectives at once, and it's a wonderful trait for people to have. Some have it more naturally than others, but we can all work to do more. It's really the ability to see opposing viewpoints, and understand the "why" for both sides.…

Integrated complexity feels like disloyalty - Mickey Mellen

<ul><li>"Soldier Mindset" or "motivated reasoning." It's this phenomenon in which our unconscious motivations, our desires, and fears, shape the way we interpret information. Some information, some ideas, feel like our allies. We want to wind and defend them. Other information or ideas are the enemies.</li><li>"Scout Mindset." It's the drive not to make one idea win or another lose, but just to see what's really there as honestly and accurately as you can, even if it's not convenient or pleasant. </li></ul>

Soldier Mindset vs Scout Mindset

The answer is emotional. The soldier mindset is rooted in emotions like defensiveness or tribalism, the scout mindset is, too. It's just rooted in different emotions. For example, scouts are curious. They're more likely to say they feel pleasure when they learn new information. They're more likely to feel intrigued when they encounter something that contradicts their expectations. Scouts have different values. They're more likely to say they think it's virtuous to test your own beliefs, and they're less likely to say that someone who changes his mind seems weak.

Why are some people able to cut through their own motivations and just try to see the facts as objectively as they can?

We need to learn how to feel proud instead of ashamed when we notice we might have been wrong about something. We need to learn how to feel intrigued instead of defensive when we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs.So the question I want to leave you with is: Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs? Or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?

To improve our judgment we need to change the way we feel.

TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript: Perspective is everything, especially when it comes to examining your beliefs. Are you a soldier, prone to defending your viewpoint at all costs -- or a scout, spurred by curiosity? Julia Galef examines the motivations behind these two mindsets and how they shape the way we interpret information, interweaved with a compelling history lesson from 19th-century France. When your steadfast opinions are tested, Galef asks: "What do you most yearn for? Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"

Better thinking, habits, growth mindset, decision making, bias, problem solving, and communication.

Self Improvement

Why do you think you're right? It's all about which mindset you're in.

We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.

The Logic Of False Beliefs 

Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.

People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.

False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. We might call this approach “facutually false but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts.

 Belief Over Fact

Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing societies. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.The way to change people minds to become their friends, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle..Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned.

Facts Don't Change Our Minds. Friendship Does

When it comes to changing people's minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can't jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it. The best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance.They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong.

The Spectrum Of Beliefs

Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated.They can only be believed when they are repeated.People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.

Why False Ideas Persist

If the goal is to actually change minds, then criticizing the other side isn't the best approach.Most people argue to win. People often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force.If you want people to adopt your beliefs, you need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier.

The Intellectual Soldier

When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. We are so caught up in winning that we forget about connecting. It's easy to spend your energy labeling people rather than working with them.

Be Kind First, Be Right Later

Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.

Why don't facts change our minds? This article explains the logic of false beliefs and proposes a better system for constructive conversation.

What Is a Straw Man Argument? Definition and Examples

Weak arguments and how to spot them

Integrated complexity feels like disloyalty - Mickey Mellen

Why do you think you're right? It's all about which mindset you're in.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

It's time to

READ

LIKE

A PRO!