The straw man fallacy is a type of logical fallacy whereby one person misrepresents their opponent’s question or argument to make it easier to respond. A person who utilizes this fallacy, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is said to be attacking the straw man. When an individual uses this fallacy, they respond to a weaker or distorted version of the original argument rather than addressing the subject of their opponent’s argument.
People resort to the straw man fallacy in moral issues to exaggerate their opponent’s positions. Rather than presenting a logical counterargument, they prefer to undercut their opponent (Arp et al., 2018). For instance, in an argument about sex education, one person may argue that sex education enables teens to practice safe sex and therefore reduced the prevalence of early pregnancy and STIs. To make this position seem ridiculous, an opponent may argue that the person is encouraging all teenagers to have sex with no consequences. In this example, the person attacking the straw man has exaggerated their argument. I dislike it when someone uses the straw man fallacy against me. It annoys me when someone deliberately misinterprets my statement or oversimplifies it. It also makes me feel that the person is not listening to my side of the argument carefully but only waiting for their chance to speak.
The straw man fallacy is commonly used in contentious debates, such as the topic of climate change. For instance, two people, Lisa and Anna, are debating how to manage climate change. Lisa argues for the increased use of public transport since cars release greenhouse gases which heavily contribute to climate change (Mittal, 2020). In response, Anna says that Lisa is advocating for human beings to completely stop using cars and walk to their destination instead. Anna’s argument is an example of the straw man fallacy because it distorts the argument originally made by Lisa. Lisa advocated for the use of public transit but did not say anything about completely stopping the use of cars (Mittal, 2020). Additionally, Lisa did not say that people should walk from place to place. Instead, Anna distorted Anna’s argument, exaggerated it, and responded to a weak version of the original argument. Since there is a mismatch between Anna’s stance and Lisa’s counterargument, it is evident that the strawman fallacy was employed.
The scenario described above is an example of the strawman fallacy and not similar fallacies, such as an appeal to the people and red herring. An appeal to the people is also known as ad populum and is a fallacy that argues something to be true because most people believe so (Arp et al. 2018). It is whereby one person argues the validation of the majority strengthens their case. For instance, in the given case, ad populum would manifest as Anna responding that most people do not think increasing the use of public transport would reduce climate change. Another logical similar to the straw man fallacy is the red herring. This is a fallacy whereby a person counters the original argument by introducing irrelevant information as a distraction (Arp et al., 2018). For example, Anna could divert the topic from climate change and argue that the world has bigger problems, such as the coronavirus pandemic. In summary, the straw man fallacy is easy to recognize because when used, it gives the impression that an argument has been addressed when this is not the case.
References
Arp, R., Barbone, S., & Bruce, M. (Eds.). (2018). Bad arguments: 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
Mittal, R. (2020). The straw man fallacy. Medium. Web.