How do R&S participants interpret the term "STRAW MAN ARGUMENT"? Why is it fallacious? How does it apply here?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

UFO® Crocoalien: No, you've given a pretty good description of the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Rachel RTR: You just described the appeal to ridicule fallacy, which is equally invalid as a logical argument, but is as common here as sand in the desert.

Answer 1

A straw man argument is just misrepresenting what your opponent said in order to try to knock them down with it. For instance, many in the creationist camp refer to a statement by Gould that seems to say he disagrees with evolution. This couldn't be further from the truth, and is just taking it out of context.

According to wikipedia, a straw man argument can be set up in the following ways, among others:
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

"1) Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2) Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).

3) Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5) Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked."

Answer 2

A strawman argument is when you create a version of another's position with an obvious flaw, just so that you can 'knock down' the argument.

It comes from the targets created in the form of men to practice sword work/archery/etc.

They are created for the sole purpose of being attacked.


They are fallacious because they do not represent the true argument. They have a deliberate flaw placed into them.

Answer 3

I took it to mean an argument that has a couple of lines that stir emotions, yet lacks logic. A straw man argument is disappointing because the supporters get an emotional rush only to be let down.

Like a scarecrow - looks like a man so it causes fear yet on examination you see it is no threat at all.

It applies here when a religionist gives an argument that is easily and quickly shattered.

Answer 4

A straw man argument is when someone sets up a false scenario around a person or situation, and then tries to knock down the false scenario that they created.
An example is when someone says that atheists are just atheists because they hate God, and then try to knock that idea down by telling us that we shouldn't hate God because he really loves us and just wants the best for us, etc. etc. "Atheists just hate God" is a scenario that they created, so their argument has no validity, but they feel that they've won an argument, because how can you not win an argument that you completely made up?

Answer 5

Misstate the opponents position, then refute it.

It is the same as building a straw man, saying it is your opponent, knocking it over, and claiming victory in battle.

Too many straw man arguments are used on this site.

Answer 6

Build up the other side's argument so that it's easy to tear down.

This happens daily on R&S but I would like to point out that it isn't only the Christians who do it to the atheists, even though that seems most prominent. Every time I read something about the Bible being written by "Bronze Age sheep-herders" or Jesus being a zombie who was sacrificed to his "sky daddy" I just shake my head.

Answer 7

It is an argument that misrepresents someone's position before knocking it down,it occurs regularly here.

Answer 8

Isn't that the big guy they light on fire at burning man? Is that his name before he goes up in flames?

Answer 9

They don't understand that they suffer from cognitive dissonance. How do you expect them to understand logic?

Answer 10

I believe it is when you make up the position of your opponent yourself (making it easy to disprove) or something like that.

ADD: "And I'll huff and I'll puff..."