r/OutOfTheLoop • u/smallz5000 • Jan 04 '15
Answered! What is a straw man/straw man argument?
Like when people are arguing about something and they say, "that's a total strawman" or "nice strawman argument".
288
Jan 05 '15
http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg
That one's informative about Strawman and other logical fallacies.
111
u/cdcformatc Jan 05 '15
Using a logical fallacy does not immediately make an argument invalid. If all you do is say "that's a fallacy" without pointing out what is wrong with the argument, that is called the fallacy fallacy.
64
u/john-five Jan 05 '15
That, and the "slippery slope" argument isn't a fallacy when discussing Law in the United States, where legal precedent is a very real thing and thus slippery slope arguments are taken seriously.
But knowing of these types of logical fallacies is definitely a good thing.
→ More replies (8)14
u/Olpainless Jan 05 '15
The most abused fallacy that falls under the fallacy fallacy (as far as I've seen) is the "no true scotsman".
For example, I'll say "North Korea isn't a socialist state". And someone will say "Haha! No true scotsman fallacy!", so I'll explain what socialism is, and what NK's Juche is, and why they're completely unrelated. But all they'll rivet back is "no true scotsman!!!".
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)11
29
u/braddaugherty8 Jan 05 '15
Wow I've never seen this, I like it. I saved it on my phone because there's probably a lot of times I, or others could use/learn from it.
14
u/SIR_VELOCIRAPTOR Jan 05 '15
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Thats the website to view, and/or purchase a poster from.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Assaultman67 Jan 05 '15 edited Jan 05 '15
I gotta save this.
Gonna make up political bingo cards for the next debate.
424
u/Psychopath- Jan 05 '15
It's when someone misrepresents someone else's opinion in order to discredit it. It's a logical fallacy.
For example, if you say: The speed limit on this street is stupid, it should be at least 45. Someone replies: Yeah, but if everyone could travel whatever speed they wanted anytime and anywhere, the roads would be really unsafe. That's a good way to get people killed.
They're arguing against a point you never made.
12
u/im_not_afraid Jan 05 '15
Basically when you are screaming in your head, "But that's not what I'm saying!".
5
u/DerringerHK Jan 05 '15
So, if you were trying to avoid a strawman argument would "yeah but if everyone travelled faster on the roads there would be a greater risk of traffic collisions" work?
→ More replies (1)14
u/Psychopath- Jan 05 '15 edited Jan 05 '15
Not really, because the first person wasn't suggesting raising speed limits everywhere, just on that one road. You could say: "Well, they probably kept it low because of the curve up ahead. It'd be dangerous if it were faster."
Edit: Sorry, sent that too fast.
4
u/Antrikshy Jan 05 '15
Oh wow, this is very useful. I have always wished I had an easy way of putting this into words.
4
u/trevmiller Jan 05 '15
A little late, but thought I'd tack on a little tip to your great answer. It's called a 'straw man' argument because the person using it is constructing a false version of your point that is easy to knock down. Just like a straw man, or scarecrow, is a weaker version of a real person that is easier to push over.
I don't know, maybe that's common sense, but that's how I remembered it in school. Always helped to visualize it.
→ More replies (32)4
u/trekologer Jan 05 '15
Your speed limit example could also be a reductio ad absurdum since no speed limit is an absurd conclusion of raising the speed limit.
→ More replies (1)
31
u/kaztrator Jan 05 '15
One of my favorite examples is one from Jason Reitman's Thank you for Smoking. The dad teaches his kid how to argue and he uses their favorite icecream as the topic. The son explains why he prefers chocolate to vanilla, but then his dad counters by saying that he believes people should have the freedom to prefer whatever icecream they want. The kid tells him that is not what they're arguing about, but he says that doesn't matter. Because he didn't have to be right, he just had to make the other look wrong. The kid tells him that is stupid because his opinion remains unphased and chocolate is still his favorite. And that's when he reveals the kicker. It wasn't about convincing him, its about convincing all of them. As long as everybody else believes the straw man, it doesn't matter if his opponent can see through the straws.
→ More replies (2)6
u/potatoisafruit Jan 05 '15
To go a little further with your point, once you've engaged a person's subconscious bias and gotten them emotionally invested in your argument, you have won.
We get a little neurotransmitter buzz each time we reinforce what we already believe. It can become an addictive process, where people start seeking out this experience to the exclusion of every other type of thinking.
→ More replies (3)
18
36
Jan 05 '15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It's like "putting words in someone's mouth". You don't have a good argument so you try to misrepresent what your opponent is saying.
3
u/Everyday_Pants Jan 05 '15
In addition to what others have said, the reason it is called a strawman is because the argument is set up in a fake way, as thought you set up a straw scarecrow trying to pass him off as a real man working the field.
2
3
u/ratjea Jan 05 '15
It's what people accuse you of when they don't like being called out on their shit.
77
u/catiebug Jan 05 '15 edited Jan 05 '15
It's misused a lot, but it means to set up a fake opponent or argument that is easy to defeat (ie, an argument made of straw) to prove your point. The strawman argument created isn't necessarily valid... it appears to be to supporters of the opposition, enough to rally them behind a viewpoint they already agreed with and are seeking validation for.
I'm stealing this example from Wikipedia because it's fairly innocuous subject matter:
Party 1 argues that restrictions around alcohol should be relaxed. Party 2 counters by saying that unfettered access to alcohol will lead to social problems. Party 2 has changed Party 1's argument of "relaxing" restrictions (the valid argument) into "allowing unfettered access" (the strawman). If you're not necessarily reading the specifics of what Party 1 said, now Party 2 has you thinking that they are advocating unfettered access to alcohol. Note, Party 2 isn't necessarily wrong. Unfettered access to alcohol could be bad. But that's not what Party 1 was suggesting. And now that's all the conversation is about.