The fallacy titled the straw man argument occurs when a general argument is refuted in a distorted manner. Hence, this type of misrepresentation makes it harder to attack the counterargument in cases where the distorted response is significantly different from the original claim (Ika, 2018). When one’s position is presented as superior to the primary argument, it helps the opponent to attack from a much stronger point while ignoring the stance taken by the competitor. Therefore, the sturdier part of the dispute remains ignored, while the weakest points are perceived as completely inappropriate.
In some cases, the application of the straw man argument could lead to positive outcomes since a friendlier discourse could be achieved. On the other hand, such refuted arguments could aid the opponent in seeing the problem from a completely different point of view (Schumann et al., 2019). The other person could even accept their mistake in the process and agree with the new version of the argument. Often, this strategy is applied during public debates when it is necessary to improve one’s image while remaining reasonable and creating a positive discussion environment. In some cases, the straw man argument could be seen as completely non-confrontational.
Nevertheless, the straw man argument could also be found in real-life situations. One of the best examples would be a couple choosing a pet. In this scenario, the straw man argument could arise even during a casual discussion with the wife and husband choosing whether they want a dog or a cat:
Wife: If we ever get a pet, I think I would rather get a dog and not a cat.
Husband: What is your problem with cats? Why do you hate them so much?
In this case, the conflict is pretty evident because the wife merely displays her preference toward dogs and never says that she outright hates cats. At the same time, the husband turns his wife’s argument against her while saying that she hates cats for an unknown reason. This leads to a logical conundrum despite the fact that the husband only assumed that his wife hated cats but presented it as it was completely rational and based on their history of taking care of pets. Therefore, the course of the discussion is altered entirely, forcing the wife to argue that she actually likes cats.
The above example is an instance of a straw man argument because the husband quotes his wife’s words out of context and then generalizes the argument. This is done in order to have the wife defend a completely different argument and make her step away from the initial discussion. In a certain manner, it also makes it easier for the husband to defend his own point of view and construct a straw man that is going to refute the original stance completely. After the husband’s response, his claim seems to become stronger and much more rational because of the straw man argument.
Ultimately, a straw man argument is an exceptional way to strengthen the original stance and make sure that the new statement is either vague or exceptionally complex. It is necessary to either confuse the opponent or have them answer a totally different question. During an argument where a straw man is utilized, one of the parties can be expected to step away from the original discussion in order to remain abstract and distract the audience’s attention from certain facts.
References
Ika, L. A. (2018). Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: The straw man fallacy of Flyvbjerg’s test of Hirschman’s hiding hand. World Development, 103, 369-382. Web.
Schumann, J., Zufferey, S., & Oswald, S. (2019). What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments are assessing linguistic factors. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 1-15. Web.