It is hard to disagree that debate and argumentation are incredibly necessary components that are present in most people’s daily lives, in the workplace, or during a college lecture. If a person wants to defend their point of view or convince their interlocutor of it, they need to have the skills to select correct and strong arguments, refute the opponent’s ones, and formulate their opinion. Moreover, when having a debate, it is also extremely important to be able to listen to what one’s opponent is saying because generally, the person needs to build further arguments on those words. However, this is not always enough as some people may be dishonest, using cheap logical tricks. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the fallacy of Straw Man and explore how it differs from simply disagreeing with someone else’s point of view.
To begin with, it is crucial to define a Straw Man fallacy and then provide an example of such a situation. Overall, this type of logical fallacy is rather common in discussions over some controversial topics (Kwan, n.d.) when all parties are interested in defending their point of view. According to Kwan (n.d.), “the basic structure of the argument consists of Person A making a claim, Person B creating a distorted version of the claim, and then Person B attacking this distorted version to refute Person A’s original assertion” (para. 1). It may seem that the whole argument becomes almost meaningless because neither of the parties can achieve a compromise or convince their opponents of their opinion. However, this is not usually true as some people use this fallacy as a trick to make their opponent’s arguments seem weak and unreasonable while also highlighting their point of view and its strengths. Consequently, this typically leads to their position becoming superior.
Overall, this phenomenon may be best described as attacking a position that the opponent does not hold, which is like fighting with a lifeless and harmless scarecrow. For many people, it is easier to focus on one aspect of their opponent’s claim and distort or exaggerate it than have a serious discussion, choose robust and relevant arguments, and be ready to admit their opponent’s rightness. Such individuals can deliberately distract their interlocutors from the discussed issue, which means that they use this fallacy on purpose, and their actions may be considered unethical (TBS Staff, 2021). At the same time, numerous people use the fallacy of Straw Man unconsciously or accidentally – for instance, when they have emotional arguments with their family members or friends. The following example makes it easier to understand the structure of a Straw Man argument.
When making a decision, some individuals are likely to use this fallacy, either on purpose or accidentally. For instance, a husband and a wife plan to spend their weekend in the countryside, and she suggests taking the bus because it is cheaper. The husband takes offense at this proposal and emotionally exclaims that his wife does not feel safe when he is driving. This is a typical example of a Straw Man fallacy when a person distorts and exaggerates their opponent’s argument.
It is crucial to mention that such a fallacy is not the same as simply disagreeing with someone else’s opinion. The latter means that one admits that their opponent has a different point of view, and this is the core factor allowing to distinguish between these two situations. All parties respect each other and do not try to trick their opponents into changing their opinion or feeling guilty about having it, which is ethical behavior. Unfortunately, this generally happens during Straw Man arguments.
References
Kwan, M. (n.d.). Straw Man fallacy examples. Your Dictionary. Web.
TBS Staff. (2021). 15 logical fallacies you should know before getting into a debate.The Best Schools Magazine. Web.