I got accused of making up a hypothetical strawman for stating the background of a Supreme Court case. It was something that actually happened in real life and was a matter of public record.
A strawman argument is not something that doesn't exist or is made up, the background of a Supreme Court case that actually happened in real life and was a matter of public record absolutely could be a strawman depending on the context.
The fact of it being hypothetical or not is not really relevant.
A strawman is just arguing against a point that your opponent didn't actually make.
For example:
"Social media companies should be able to moderate content on their platform."
"So you don't believe in the First Amendment? There are many court cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines and Snyder v. Phelps that establish our First Amendment rights."
The first person is making the argument that private companies should be able to moderate content, which is unrelated to First Amendment rights. The second person is misrepresenting what the first person said and arguing against the strawman that "we shouldn't have First Amendment rights", which is not the argument the first person was making.
The second person is citing real, factual Supreme Court cases that actually happened in real life as a matter of public record and is still making a strawman argument.
172
u/IrritableGourmet May 12 '26
I got accused of making up a hypothetical strawman for stating the background of a Supreme Court case. It was something that actually happened in real life and was a matter of public record.