Definition
A strawman argument exaggerates and/or misrepresents an opposing position, artificially making it easier to attack—like attacking a scarecrow or “strawman.” It is often intentional, though it can be from a simple misunderstanding.
Caveats
The argument must be distorted. This does not include genuine questions. However, the question’s rhetoric and tone can give an audience the impression of a twisted conclusion.
Light-Hearted Examples
Ex 1
Senator Marty Graw: True, we are in a gravy crisis. Gravy is in short supply. But if we give tax breaks to gravy drillers, then the suppliers of gravy-drilling equipment might take advantage of this and increase their prices. Such a scenario would choke the gravy industry further. Instead, we should offer tax exemptions to drilling suppliers if they lower their prices.
Senator Mike Rotch: Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Marty Graw of Louisiana says we should not give tax cuts to our gravy drillers. Senator Marty Graw is trying to deprive our nation of gravy! We are a gravy nation, and he does not understand that.
First, I’m pretty sure we don’t get gravy from drilling, but let’s *roll* with it. (I’m not sorry for that pun. I was *bread* for this). Senator Marty Graw clearly did not want to deprive the nation of gravy. He merely offered a different solution. However, Senator Mike Rotch twisted his argument to mean something else entirely, thus allowing him to attack it more easily.
Ex 2
Jack Knoff: Corporal punishment is simply spanking someone as a disciplinary action. Activists against corporal punishment want to make BDSM illegal, and worse, they think we should not discipline anyone!
No, they are against it as a form of administrative punishment and advocate different forms of disciplinary action and prevention. BDSM is also a delightful, completely different thing. Now, please stop using this fallacy. PINEAPPLE!!!!
Examples rooted in real-world scenarios
Ex 3
Marty Graw: Atheists believe we should live unethical lives.
No. Atheists follow and promote ethical behavior independent of religious belief. Simply not ascribing to a religion does not make one unethical.
Ex 4
Tim Burr: Libertarians vastly believe we should starve the poor.
I’m not a Libertarian, but I know Libertarians want to reduce government spending, not actually starve people. If any do, this is a negligible minority. It would be better to argue what level of assistance should be given under what circumstances, which is a complicated discussion.
Ex 5:
Kerri Oki: the Teacher’s Union recently asked for a 3% pay increase, and you know what the School District said? They said the budget could only afford a 1% increase! The School District does not care about student education!
The School District did not say nor imply that they do not care about student education. They just claimed to not have the funds to pay for a raise (that the teachers, IMHO, probably deserve).
Pseudoscience Examples
Ex 6:
Luke Warm: Global warming?! These so-called climatologists were predicting global cooling in the 70s. They can’t make up their minds!
Actually, this was a hypothetical prediction made by only a few climatologists under certain conditions. In fact, more papers predicted warming in the 70s than cooling. This cooling idea was a media sensation, not a scientific consensus. Luke makes a minority opinion (under hypothetical conditions) seem like it was the primary one. For more on this, click here.
Nonexamples
Ex 7
Stan Still: I think we should increase money for space exploration.
Ted E. Bear: How do you propose we pay for it? The money has to come from somewhere. Aren’t you concerned this might take money away from helping people?
Stan Still: Good question. There is enough wealth to accomplish many goals, so it isn’t this or that; it’s just a matter of limiting waste and reallocating funds to where they will be better suited. Admittedly, this is a complicated question, and we are not likely to all agree on how to divide it.
Note that Ted did not make a strawman argument with his question. However, if Ted E. Bear accusingly asked, “Does this mean you think we should let people suffer instead?” Then, this would flirt with the excluded middle fallacy.
How to avoid committing this:
If you think their argument is entirely asinine, this is a red flag. Some arguments are completely nonsensical, but if you react to a misinterpretation, then you may lose credibility, which could interfere with the overall purpose of the debate. Make sure you understand your opponent’s argument. If it’s online, re-read it. If you are heated with emotion, take a break for a few hours. You can then ask them to clarify any points you might be a little hazy about and continue.
Tips for how to respond
Correct immediately: You can explain why the rebuttal does not reflect your argument accurately.
Ask why: Asking why they believe their version of the conclusion can have several benefits. It can elucidate where the misunderstanding is–which can help clarify any honest misunderstandings.
Or, if the strawman was intentional and malicious, it can force them to:
1) Admit in some way they are exaggerating, making them lose credibility.
2) come up with some line of excuses to support the false conclusion. This can box them into an indefensible position.
3) Simply not respond or go on a different tangent, making them look bad.
4) Maybe, just maybe, they did not make a strawman argument and have logically taken your argument to a valid extreme using REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, for which you should consider revising, clarifying, or abandoning your own argument. Some might be willing to call this reductio ad absurdum/appeal to the extreme. Remember, reductio ad absurdum (Reducing an argument to an absurd conclusion) is a valuable form of analysis for exposing falsehoods, especially those of absolutes/universal claims (especially in math). It’s only a fallacy if the conclusion is not connected.
For more on the distinction between strawman and reductio ad absurdum:
https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum
Did you love it and want to help support Sgt Scholar? Click here to support Sgt Scholar: https://www.patreon.com/sgtscholar
Sgt Scholar 
7 Comments