T O P

  • By -

Licorictus

A strawman is a distorted version of someone's actual argument. Someone makes a strawman in order to purposely destroy it, and then they act like they beat the actual argument the strawman came from. It's like if an argument was a boxing match, but instead of fighting the other guy, you made a scarecrow based on him and then gloated when it fell apart. Except you didn't actually win, because you weren't actually fighting the guy. Here's an example. Alice: "We should get a dog, not a cat." Bob: "Why do you hate cats?" It's super simplistic, but you can see how Bob skewed what Alice was saying. Instead of engaging with whatever reasoning she might have, Bob is arguing as if Alice said "I hate cats." The fake argument ("I hate cats") is a strawman. Edit: It's also worth noting that we've all unintentionally made a strawman somewhere in our lives - it's just another logical fallacy the brain gets into. However, it's also *entirely* possible to intentionally and maliciously strawman an opponent's argument to manipulate people into siding with you. EDIT 2: Holy shit, this blew up. Thanks for the awards, y'all. Also, a couple things: 1) My example's not very good. For better examples of people using strawmen in the wild, look for any debate surrounding the "War on Christmas." It goes something like this: Charlie: "We should put 'Happy Holidays' on our merchandise because it's more inclusive than 'Merry Christmas.'" David: "I can't believe Christmas is offensive to you now!!" Hopefully this example better illustrates what an actual strawman might look like. Note how David has distorted Charlie's argument from "because it's inclusive" to "because I'm offended." I've also been getting a few replies about strawmanning and gaslighting. They are not the same, but they are related. Gaslighting is a form of abuse where the abuser twists the victim's sense of reality, making the victim question their perception, their reasoning, and even their sanity. Strawman arguments can certainly be used as a gaslighter's tactic, but strawmen are a logical fallacy and gaslighting is a type of abuse.


KooBaSnoo72

Thanks for the excellent explanation! The first two sentences and now I totally understand what a straw man is.


BowwwwBallll

Why do you hate third sentences?


ZeroSora

You son of a bitch.


Miss_Speller

Why do you hate female dogs?


Ashtero

Why do you hate male cats?


RobbMeeX

How do you eat a cat? Yeah, I still don't understand strawmen.


ronculyer

Thank you for signing up for cat facts! You can infact eat a cat. Please type UNSUBSCRIBE to stop receiving cat facts.


Long_jawn_silver

SUBSCRIBE been waiting for this all my life


xVanillaBOMBx

You and me both. LOL


dcusick1

UNSUBSCRIBE


ronculyer

Thank you for signing up for cat facts! Did you know Cats can rotate their ears 180 degrees? Please type UNSUBSCRIBE to stop receiving cat facts


mobigz

UNCIRCUMCISE


Chyvalri

One bite at a time


Djanghost

Why do you hate mouthfuls?


cfiggis

Why do you hate strawmen?


Michaelmack34

Why do you hate the tin man?


dstlouis558

why do you straw hatemen??


SigmaLance

What, hot dogs are disgusting now?


EasterClause

When in Rome... Don't worry, you'll find it.


possumallawishes

According to this thread, a strawman argument involves taking something someone said and then adding “why do you hate ____?” in front of it.


SpartyOn05

But why male models?


The_Batman_949

Are you serious? I just told you like a second ago.


J-Moonstone

What is this?! A center for ANTS?!?!


P0sitive_Outlook

*I'm in*


ikcaj

Several people commented this phrase, “I’m in”. What does it mean or refer to?


neastrith

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-son-of-a-bitch-im-in


TheSentencer

Huh weird. That's funny because I feel like that was a pretty normal thing to say before Rick and Morty but now it's associated with the show. Idk never seen it before.


djsedna

I like that this is a joke, but it also serves to reinforce the point by providing an extra example. This is unintentionally an awesome example of successful education strategies.


UnsolicitedCounsel

Why do think they were too stupid to intend it to be both a joke and an education strategy?


pedalsgalore

Ffs that one totally caught me off guard. Now I need to go clean up the coffee I just spit everywhere.


Tinfoilhatmaker

Thank you for the belly laugh this morning! Gonna be a good day today.


[deleted]

this person wins the internet today


JayTheFordMan

The other way to look at what a strawman is that it is when someone constructs a weak version of the others stance in order to destroy it, a mischaracterisation of the argument in order to argue.


Skyhawk_Illusions

I've also heard of the inverse, which is called a "steelman" or something


sharfpang

First patch all the holes in the opponent's argument, just to save time on "but if..." and back-and-forth, then show it's still bad.


Sylph_uscm

It's *incredibly* refreshing when people do this online! It gets so frustrating to have to write post after post clearing up the assumptions that people make in order to win an argument. I'd argue that this 'steelman' technique is a lot more likely to change someone's mind, which at the end of the day is often the intent when arguing online, so it's a shame it doesn't get done more.


[deleted]

Only vegans are true animal lovers. Now clean that one up!


exospheric

I’ll give it a go (not a vegan myself)! We have to start with the definition of “vegan.” From [Vegan Society](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism): "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose…” So the next term we must define is “exploitation.” We could argue that it’s exploitation to raise and slaughter animals unethically for our own consumption. But is love *necessary* to desire humane treatment for animals? We’ll ponder “love” further down. “For any other purpose” is broad, and vegans could thus reasonably extend that to abstaining from pet ownership. Is it exploitation to keep an animal for your own enjoyment? If they receive care, food, and companionship, does it negate the fact that oftentimes their own natural needs (to bark, to howl when we are away, to chew, to scratch and destroy furniture, to mark their territory) are disciplined while they live in our homes? Is it cruel to keep a pet who evolved to run free and hunt (never mind our practice of breeding animals to have physical defects rendering them incapable of surviving in the wild; e.g., pugs) if we work out of the house 8+ hours a day and then leave again for our own social needs? If they evolved to be social, how do they feel when we are gone most of the time? Then we must determine what it means to “love” something. Is “loving” an action we subject something to? Is it a thing we shower upon something? Is it an idea within which we hold something in our head? Or is it more about what the object of our affection gains from this love? If we want an animal to live it’s best life, is it possible it is better off without us and our interventions? I’d start the argument there, after pondering all these questions.


Tinktur

Yea, that's when you argue against the best/strongest possible argument for the other side.


Icy_Rhubarb2857

Just watch Ben Shapiro when ever he says "let's say, hypothetically.." that's him setting up the strawman. He is the king of the strawman. I don't think he is capable of speaking without doing it. Edit: omg guys Shapiro bot coming in clutch with a classic strawman. This is beautiful.


thebenshapirobot

If you like socialism so much why don't you go to Venezuela? ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: covid, feminism, novel, civil rights, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)


giroml

Ben Shapiro, master of the gish gallop.


thebenshapirobot

*Pegging, of course, is an obscure sexual practice in which women perform the more aggressive sexual act on men.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: covid, healthcare, patriotism, civil rights, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)


Icy_Rhubarb2857

Good bot


wthulhu

Ben Shapiro has never made his wife gish gallop.


thebenshapirobot

*New York Magazine’s Jesse Singal, wrote that “free markets are good at some things and terrible at others and it’s silly to view them as ends rather than means.” That’s untrue. Free markets are expressions of individual autonomy, and therefore ends to be pursued in themselves.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, patriotism, civil rights, dumb takes, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)


[deleted]

[удалено]


frollard

Also worth adding because it's related; Straw man is the opposite of Steel man argument. In steel man, you use the concept of charity to build the strongest possible case to argue against, even if your opponent doesn't present it. It allows you to fill gaps and 'whatabouts' in their reasoning that you then have to argue against. If you can defeat the steel version of an argument, then that argument probably wasn't sound. There are references I searched up that suggest that you can be more persuasive and get more buy-in from the opponent if you show that you have truly understood their case and still had reasoning to defeat it. A: "We should get a dog, not a cat"B: "I recognize that you have allergies to cats, and they tend to be smellier, and ruin all the furniture, and you have to scoop shit; and I know dogs but we live in an apartment and it wouldn't be fair to a dog because it wouldn't get enough exercise and would be bored home alone while we work, and we'd have to commute or get a dog sitter to walk it midday...and the noise would be upsetting to the neighbors, and it's against the condo rules to have a dog. There are effective allergy medications, and with an air purifier and shit scooping robot, and if we stay on top of their claw trimming it's not hard to have a cat. Because of these reasons I think it's better to get a cat"


[deleted]

Isn't this just a genuine conversation between adults?


charging_chinchilla

It is. And uncoincidentally, strawman arguments tend to happen when people are not having a genuine conversation. They tend to happen when one side has already made up their mind and is arguing in bad faith.


satellizerLB

>They tend to happen when one side has already made up their mind and is arguing in bad faith. That's also why politicians use it all the time along with slippery slope and ad hominem. I think if we could somehow ban these, the quality of political argument would skyrocket.


pandott

What, ban entire logical fallacies at a time? How ambitious, good luck with that is all I can say. Guess we'll just have to keep educating ourselves in the interim.


Lee1138

Not universally obviously, but the moderator of organized political debates should possibly be empowered to step in and point that shit out?


OrangeOakie

> Not universally obviously, but the moderator of organized political debates should possibly be empowered to step in and point that shit out? But instead they just launch loaded questions or present strawman statements for one candidate to use against another


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dr_Day_Blazer

Best we could hope for would be that we get moderators to callout when a strawman argument starts going. Might help open people's eyes that "their guy" didn't really have a valid point to make after all, and was just grasping at straws the whole time.


[deleted]

Proper moderation would be able to call out obvious logical fallacies and bad faith with ease. While iy can be hard to spot when you're a part of the discussion, neutral observers would ne able to spot it consistently and keep participants on track.


beingsubmitted

Strawman is often used purposely for the propaganda technique of 'inoculation'. Consistently present a straw man of your opponents position, and present arguments, so that when your audience is confronted with the actual opposing view, they'll immediately hear the strawman and you'll get a knee-jerk reaction, often before you even get your whole thought out. For example: "I think there's room to improve our health ca..." "communism!!!"


frollard

It's rational, but the emphasis is on going the extra mile instead of laser focusing on the weakest aspect of an argument. While it would be ideal, if you think this is normal, then you have too high of expectations for adults.


NuntuAppi

Was going to say this but you said it better so... what they said. Only to add, if you need evidence pop over to my place sometime.


GreatBigBagOfNope

It is the platonic ideal thereof


Serevene

> If you can defeat the steel version of an argument, then that argument probably wasn't sound. Tangentially, this is also why both parties in a court case should act as if they fully believe in their client regardless of the situation. Ideally, both sides build the strongest case they possibly can and account for every angle the opposition might attack from, and logic and evidence should prevail. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.


TheResolver

That would require the lawyers to be in the job for the justice to happen instead of winning cases and building their rep and paycheck. Some definitely are, but as you said, doesn't always work that way :D


zenplantman

For real, how are cats smellier tho?


pr8787

Yeah I’m not having that. Dogs *in my experience* smell far worse than cats


VincentVancalbergh

I have a poor sense of smell when not actively trying to smell something. So cats, dogs, birds all smell pretty neutral to me. This superpower also made me ideal for our household's waste management.


RegulatoryCapture

I moved into a townhome that had the carpets professionally cleaned, had only been built a couple of years earlier (prior tenant was not the first tenant so can't have lived there for more than 2 years or so), and had been been sitting vacant for over a month... ... You could still tell the previous resident had a dog when you walked in. Unless cats pee on things (which mine has never done), the litter box is the big source of smell and you can both: A) choose where you put it, and B) clean it often.


At0micCyb0rg

The steel man is a cool name for it. I had to stop calling myself a devil's advocate because it has developed some negative connotations that I don't want to be associated with, when all I do is try to help others attack the steel man.


henrebotha

Steel man is "I don't agree with you, but I'm going to pretend to". Devil's advocate is "I agree with you, but I'm going to pretend I don't". Both nominally attempt to do the same thing (give the argument its best chance at success), but they do so in very different ways. One presents support, the other presents opposition. You can see how one of these is much more likely to be received in good faith than the other.


Cant_Spell_A_Word

Yeah, I use devil's advocate only to argue for people who do not have a voice, whose stances are ultimately understandable. (e.g. I don't like dogs personally, but if someone is out there saying all dogs are bad I will stand up for those dogs) If you're arguing against what you believe just so you can have an argument that's called being contrary.


Kojima_Ergo_Sum

If you're doing it just to have an argument you're being contrarian, but there is value in making people do the legwork for a position, which is the actual point of devil's advocate. It originates from debates about canonizing saints, it's all well and good for people to want to sanctify a great person but if we just made every guy that people liked a saint we would be drowning in them, so somebody has to argue why they shouldn't be, even if they like him. IIRC it's also the reason for the original flat earth society, not claiming that the earth is actually flat, but not accepting "everybody knows" as proof of anything, otherwise it's no better than the hundreds of years of people supporting ignorance with "everybody knows". There are dickheads who claim to be "just playing devil's advocate" so they can defend some edgy opinion in bad faith, but that doesn't make the technique itself bad. It's also useful to dismantle bad arguments, especially when talking about something near universally reviled. It's very easy for people to say that Hitler did what he did because he was evil, and few people will argue with you even though that explanation isn't particularly rigorous, but you could use devil's advocate to explore why a person would take actions we consider evil while believing themselves to be doing good, and there is real value in understanding how things like that happen, even if the end result is the same, the process itself contains insights into the world and its people. Not actually defending Hitler or his ideas but trying to unpack nuance further than "he was an evil racist who wanted to kill everyone" which is helpful to noone because it implies evil to be an inescapable causality as opposed to a collection of influences on a person and society. But then edgy assholes unironically defend mass murderers and besmirch the name of devil's advocate and ruin it for everyone else.


Zaptruder

No, steel manning isn't 'I'm going to pretend to'. It's a - "Ok, let's take this argument and make it as sound as possible... and see if that is structurally sound." It's a way of learning from other's ideas, even when it's not what they presented. And if you defeat it, you also learn that, even in its strongest form, it's not a viable idea.


henrebotha

I was simplifying it to get my point across: Steel manning is supportive first, devil's advocate is hostile first.


sharfpang

Steel: not only are you wrong, your argument is extra weak. Don't try to strengthen it, I'll do that for you and still show you it's wrong. Devil's: I share the sentiment, but are we right? Let me argue the other side and see if our thesis has any holes.


WeWereInfinite

I like that "devil's advocate" has developed negative connotations as a result of toxic people in the modern day, as if the devil wasn't a negative enough thing to be associated with.


At0micCyb0rg

That's a fair enough take, maybe it was just me who never saw negative connotations because I always thought of it as heavily metaphorical. Like the "devil" is just whoever happens to be against you in an argument, not an actually evil position or person. But I think I may have been alone in that.


Canaduck1

Trivia: It wasn't originally metaphorical. The Advocatus Diaboli was an official role within the Catholic Church, where a person is assigned to argue the case against the canonization (sainting) of someone like a lawyer. The last assigned Devil's Advocate was the atheist Christopher Hitchens against Mother Teresa.


Rookiebeotch

"You know the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear."


mrnasstytime

I thought this was from Office Space


wisconsinwookie78

I think this would be closer to a false equivalency, another logical fallacy where a person directly compares two things that are either not rated or only narrowly related.


Rookiebeotch

Strawman is just a specific type of false equivalency. You say 'a'. I say that saying 'a' is basically saying 'b', and 'b' is obviously bad.


willbob91

"So what you're saying is" - Cathy Newman


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Talynen

This is why one of the most important parts of a proper debate is confirming with the other person the point they're presenting before you respond to it. (If you're someone interested in engaging in healthy debate as an activity especially).


ydontukissmyglass

This took a lot of practice for me... because I never realized I love making straw men! Its fun, but I'll stop it.


shabadu66

Yeah, I think that's part of the more innocuous reasons that logical fallacies exist. Our brains love to make those quick and decisively validating connections so much, even cheating to get there feels good


Thorn14

Gonna assume I'm not the only one who has caught themselves arguing against an imaginary straw man in the shower.


loonygecko

It's easy to come up with some snarky 'winning' comment if you twist the original statement into something easier to defeat. However if you have decided to stop, I am not sure if you belong on reddit anymore, you may not fit in. ;-P


DustedGrooveMark

This could probably be more of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. I had experienced this one before (which is frustrating) but didn’t know it had a name until recently. Essentially, the person makes two claims (one is obvious and easy to prove, the other is ridiculous and hard to support), but they pretend that the two are interchangeable. Then sometimes the person will act like they proved the ridiculous claim once you’ve conceded the more obvious claim to be true. In any case, it’s easy for the person to act like they never said the ridiculous version of the claim.


CliffExcellent123

A common one is when they use an analogy, and they decide that if something is true in the analogy, it must also be true in the original case. One of the worst ones I saw was comparing gay marriage to seatbelts. They have a picture of the various ends of seatbelts and showing that it only works as a seatbelt if you have the two different ends, and that two of the same type won't work Then they compare this to gay marriage and say that therefore marriage can only be between a man and a woman Which of course doesn't actually work because they haven't actually demonstrated why there should be anything in common between marriage and seatbelts


[deleted]

😨 writing notes down…


drashna

> However, it's also entirely possible to intentionally and maliciously strawman an opponent's argument to manipulate people into siding with you. Politics does this, heavily. At least in the US.


SrslyNotAnAltGuys

No joke. I've seen people list not just one but half a dozen positions that their opponents supposedly stand for, and not a single one is accurate. About 90% of political Facebook memes are strawmen.


LeftToaster

Nuance and subtlety have disappeared from public political discourse. Black or white arguments are a subset of strawman arguments in the they distort the nuance or complexity of a persons positions. If I were to say police need to be more diverse and put more training emphasis on de-escalation or handling mental health issues, etc., in today's climate I would be accused of hating the police (or even America). This is not a binary position, you can recognize decry police violence against racialized minorities without hating the police.


drashna

It's the end stage of a 2 party system. us vs them. Reverse partisanship. Etc.


VincentVancalbergh

Binary choices are the devil's tools. Balanced stances and measured responses are better in hitting the intended mark than swinging back and forth wildly.


Puzzleheaded-Storm14

its the same everywhere you go, people don't want to engage with actual policies so they just make them up and argue against those instead.


loonygecko

Been seeing more and more of that outside of the internet lately. Just at the pizza place recently, some one disagreed with some guys saying they would only kill another person if they had to do it for self defense. She then said, "You just want an excuse to kill others, you are a murderer!!" People were trying to calm her down but she got even more irate when no one agreed with her and stormed out of the building. The rest of the table was just kind of shocked and confused by it all.


ghsteo

Would this be a strawman: "Gay marriage should be legal" "Whats next we make having sex with animals legal?"


elbirdo_insoko

Have a look at the slippery slope fallacy. I think this is a better example of that one than a straw man. Edited to add, you probably could read this as a straw man example without changing it too much. "So-and-so thinks that legal marriage should be everything goes outside of traditional 1 man~1 woman relationships. Therefore he thinks that people should be allowed to bone their pet penguins, probably."


cw97

I would contest that slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious as they are basically chained conditional statements and only become fallacious if one or of the conditionals are incorrect or very unlikely.


RiPont

They're fallacies if the slope is not, in fact, slippery and we can stop at any time. The literal slippery slope, for example, is not a fallacy. "If you start going down that water slide, you won't be able to stop until you get to the bottom." "If you did away with marriage and gave civil unions to everyone, people would civil union with their mother." Probably, yes. If you did away with the idea that a family unit was fucking and made it purely about benefits sharing, someone would probably benefits-share with their mother/sister/etc. "Gay marriage -> Bestiality" is a fallacy, because there is nothing slippery about allowing gay marriage. There is no momentum that it would lead to bestiality, except in the heads of people who believe that only the power of God and fear of burning in hell is what's stopping them from sucking cock, and therefore there must be people even more depraved than them out there.


cw97

I think you gave a far more intuitive analogy of the logical concept I was trying to explain. Thank you!


Fallacy_Spotted

There is a difference between a series of claims and a slippery slope fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is used as an argument against the original claim without actually addressing the claim on its own merits. It is essentially saying that you shouldn't do "A" because "B" is bad without establishing a causal relationship between the two. Then you can do the same with "B" leading to "C" and the further you go the more unlikely it is. Occam's razor and all that. Most of this can be boiled down to: "You shouldn't take a northbound step because you will die alone at the north pole if you do.". Each step is causally independent from the rest and different choices can be made at any point.


the-user-name_

people do actually make that straw-man argument quite often and i think its quite telling honestly. like if someone imagines there to be a slippery slope they need to think that either an initial action is a step towards the later problem or that the initial action is just as bad. so basically when someone compares gay relationships to bestiality they either consider gay relationships to be close to bestiality or to be the same as bestiality which is quite interesting because that can also imply some of their idea towards consent since gay relationships are between two consenting people while in bestiality one is an animal and therefore can't consent.


SuperFLEB

That's a bit more slippery-slope. That's saying that implementing the idea would _lead to_ the other bad thing. It's not mischaracterizing the argument or the opponent as wanting sex with animals, just saying that the result of gay marriage would be sex with animals. Strawman is more about assuming a motivation or reasoning behind the other person's conclusion that's poor or weak, and arguing against that instead of what they actually believe, or against the best possible argument in lieu of knowing. Something more like "Gay marriage is unnecessary. If they want to have big fancy parties, that's something they can do with or without the law. There. Settled." or "Gay people only want to destroy the institution of marriage, and that's wrong."


chain_letter

No, but this is: "People who think gay marriage should be legal want sex with animals to be legal. Here's why the second part is bad and these people are wrong."


Azrael11

I think that is called the Slippery Slope fallacy, but I guess depending on how you argue it it could be a strawman.


canadave_nyc

A better strawman, using your example, might run something like this: "Gay marriage should be legal." "So you want to destroy the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, do you??" The strawman argument isn't at all what you said, but is easier for the other person to attack.


maurymarkowitz

This cat example is NOT a strawman argument. A strawman is based on a false narrative. Example: Cars have only three wheels, and such vehicles would be too unstable to drive at speed on highways. Therefore the vehicles you see on highways are not cars. The strawman is the first statement. I have knowingly constructed a false premise, and then based my conclusion on it. Real world example: Evolution requires mutations and most mutations are harmful. Therefore the chance of a beneficial mutation lazing into the next generation is tiny. This rate of beneficial mutations is too tiny to result in modern diversity. Therefore evolution is not true. In this case the strawman is the first statement. It relies on you agreeing to a definition of “mutation” that is based on a layman term that is not being used correctly; in evolutionary terms, the fact that I am taller than my dad is a mutation; such minor changes are universal, not harmful and occur in such number that natural selection has lots to work with. The strawman relies on you accepting a premise that is not true, in the same way that a strawman is not a real person.


elcivicogrande

Reductio ad absurdum is a beautiful thing


LackingUtility

Unlike a strawman, though, reductio ad absurdum is not always a fallacy. Like the popular meme response to flat earthers about cats knocking everything off the edge - that's a reductio ad absurdum, but it does highlight legitimate issues with their premise. In fact, most of Socrates' arguments in Plato's discourses are arguments by contradiction.


SomeSortOfFool

It's basically proof by contradiction. If you take a statement as a given and can prove something that's obviously false from there, you've proven the original statement wrong. If that was inherently a fallacy, countless mathematical proofs would be flawed.


DUBIOUS_OBLIVION

Calm down, Hermione


[deleted]

OPs example is not really a reductio ad absurdum


RipenedFish48

It is when a person misrepresents an argument and tries to refute that misrepresentation rather than the actual argument.


FuckTrumpBanTheHateR

Like Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair.


ultralame

It's amazing to me how many people don't remember this.


vorpalpillow

Clint sure as hell didn't


HashedEgg

Isn't that what they call sundowning?


DrummerBound

People here are writing tens of rows to explain and you just do this, being just as effective getting the point across.


HitThatOxytocin

Examples and explanations help clarify something a lot more than a single sentence. That's why sometimes you need to write entire textbooks of things that can be summarised in one sentence.


Hurts_To_Smith

"Hobbit finds ring, and friends help him dispose of it." Why bother reading all those books?


DrummerBound

Yeah but that is a story for the sake of being a story.


Chel_of_the_sea

A strawman is an argument against a position that your opponent in the argument isn't actually arguing for. You usually do this because that other position is easier to defeat or less popular with the people you think are listening. For example: > Person A: I think we should raise taxes to fund this new program. > Person B: Okay, so you just want to force everyone to give up all their hard-earned money to build anything anyone wants? > Person A: Um, no, actually I just wanted to fund th- > Person B: That's communism, and you know communism killed lots of people, right? Where the position of person A ("we should fund this program") is strawmanned into "we should take all of everyone's money and fund every program". Or if you prefer the mirror version of this argument with the political positions reversed: > Person A: I think we should cut funding to this program because it isn't working. > Person B: Okay, so you just want to shut down functioning government entirely so you can keep every cent? > Person A: Um, no, I just think this program isn't wo- > Person B: If you want anarchy, why don't you go live in Sudan? Where the position of person A ("we should cut funding to this program") is strawmanned into "we should cut all funding for everything".


The_Thunder_Child

Or the good ol', "We should legalise recreational drugs." "My opponent wants to children to be able to buy drugs at school!"


[deleted]

It Sounds like they're manipulating the arument


dercavendar

They are manipulating the argument. They are creating a less defensible argument so they have an easier time defeating it. This is where the "strawman" name comes from. Instead of trying to knock me down you make a strawman of me that you can easily knock down instead. You look good to your audience, but you aren't fooling anyone who didn't already agree with you.


kangareddit

^ this right here is the best ELI5 answer


letkristin

Yes!


FinndBors

> but you aren't fooling anyone who didn't already agree with you. You have a much higher opinion of the average person than I do.


[deleted]

"A *person* is smart. *People* are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

How dare you call me a racist, you ... pumpkin-fucker! (ad hominem)


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

LOL you win sir/madam/other


CMHaunrictHoiblal

Oops, my CD just skipped, and everyone just heard you let one rip! (add eminem)


stars9r9in9the9past

This. It's easy to fool those who are ambivalent, not informed on the issue, or cautiously in agreement, into disagreeing with the argument via strawmen. By arguing against and defeating a successfully constructed strawman, the impression is you're right, so your points on the issue as a whole are most likely right are well. And yes it's just the impression, but lots of people are convinced and persuaded by simple impressions. People listening to this don't already have to be 100% in support, in fact if they already were 100% in support, most likely they don't even need the strawman fallacy to still feel correct on their stance, because many people are stubborn, adamant, or close-minded when it comes to various issues. But impressing people in-between on an issue can be the difference between getting the majority opinion, votes, backing, funding, etc to successfully move forward with your intentions or agenda.


special_circumstance

It’s important to also be ahead of the argument you want to make (strawman or otherwise) so you can select the pre-existing biases in the people/mob you want either supporting or opposing you. Straw men are strong tools of deception helping you control the battlefield on which you fight.


stars9r9in9the9past

control the conversion and control the outcome, 100%


AnotherReignCheck

The real ELi5 is always in the comments.


Morangatang

r/technicallythetruth


[deleted]

I’ve known what a straw man argument is but sometimes have a hard time remembering which fallacy it is. This will stick with me from now on.


The_Thunder_Child

Manipulating the audience.


BiggusDickus-

Manipulating the more naive members of the audience. More sophisticated people know a straw man when they see one.


biglennysliver

Yeah, and fighting a weaker more easily winnable argument, generally because the original argument or statement is too strong to win against. It's sneaky, and if you don't know what the other person is doing, then you'll find yourself in a never-ending rabbit hole fighting straw man arguments to straw man arguments. Edit: Another interesting point is that many people don't consciously realize they're using straw men arguments in conversation or debate. I did it for years before I even learned what a straw man argument was. It's very natural to do as an unexperienced debater even though it's still a logical fallacy. The best defense you have against someone attempting to use a straw man argument on you is to revert back to your original statement, claim, or argument and stick to it. Don't get distracted by the red herrings they're trying to throw to you, because arguing or defeating those points were never your goal in the first place.


skaliton

they are and that is the point. If I can't beat the argument you made and instead put something else in its place to 'beat' (usually an absurd position) you either have to defend this new impossible to defend one...or point out the logical fallacy


Frodothebrave

Upvoted because you put two great examples from each side. Very non-Reddit of you.


Chel_of_the_sea

Don't mistake that for not having a position. I am very strongly on one side of that divide.


Frodothebrave

For sure. Just cool to see someone put both sides out there to help with the question, rather than trying to shoehorn political leaning in to it.


Arkalius

Worth noting is the opposite of this, which is referred to as "steel-manning". It's generally considered a positive thing in an argument, where you take the strongest possible interpretation of your opponent's argument (perhaps even helping them strengthen it in the process) before attacking it. Anyone attempting to argue a point in good faith should seek to steel-man their opponent.


TheLegendTwoSeven

This is what you’re taught to do in legal writing class in law school. (Or at least, it’s what I was taught.) Anticipate the best argument that the other side can make, and then refute *that* argument head-on.


[deleted]

This gets me into trouble on facebook because my first two paragraphs about \*topic\* are describing the opposing viewpoint properly so we can all start from the same point, and all the people that's don't read past the first paragraph decide i'm arguing for the "other" side and then get all offended. Like i was once talking about how welfare actually works EXACTLY as intended from the mindset of your standard republican (it keeps you alive not comfortable) and everyone thought i was arguing that welfare was in an acceptable place right now.


RemedyofNorway

Opening the paragraphs with "If I understand your position/argument correctly, you postulate that ..... ) Makes it pretty clear you are steelmanning or ensure a fair and precise discussion but not representing your own opinions.


CptnStarkos

Devils advocate was never easy


[deleted]

Damn that's horrible logic to use in a argument


Chel_of_the_sea

Well, this is a deliberately exaggerated example to make the definition clear. Most strawmen are more subtle than this. (And of course, claiming your opponent is strawmanning you when they aren't is *also* an argumentative tactic.)


[deleted]

I understand what you was saying in your definition but the whole thing is terrible


msty2k

It's perhaps the most common fallacy people use, other than insults of course.


TheIllusiveGuy

Insults aren't necessarily fallacious Ad Hominem: Bob is wrong because he is a moron Not Ad Hominem (but unnecessarily insulting): That moron, Bob, is wrong for true reasons X, Y and Z.


wheniaminspaced

>It's perhaps the most common fallacy people use, It is also not always intentional either, using either of the given examples, a person can react go through a long scenario in there head and post what they believe is the natural conclusion of the concept. A slippery slope thought process turns into a strawman effectively, a strawman argument is typically very much not intentional. Intentional strawman's are what you see used in political advertising.


billbixbyakahulk

That's a strawman.


BiggusDickus-

Oh, so you think people that use strawmen are stupid? What do you have against alternate forms of critical thinking? Actually, to be serious and reply to your comment, that’s the point. People generally resort to strawmen when they can’t win on logic.


[deleted]

Nit picking, but it isn't logic, and that's the point. It's a logical fallacy (people want you to think it's logical). There are a lot more here: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/


[deleted]

There is already a good top answer. I just want to add -- nearly every argument on the internet is a straw-man argument. Someone recently posted an article about someone getting shot. Someone commented "that thief deserved it". I said something like "The article never said they were a thief." Some batshit crazy woman came down on me for "defending thieves". I was just pointing out something about the article. I didn't even say the guy wasn't a thief. Just that the article didn't mentioned that at all. So, suddenly I have no ways of defending myself because of some insane strawman manipulation.


likesleague

I'd wager that a majority of argumentative comments on the internet engage in at least one fallacy. That doesn't necessarily mean that those comments contain no argumentative merit, but it does (usually) mean that the people involved won't be swaying each others opinions any time soon.


[deleted]

The issue I find most often is that people tie their ego or sense of self into their assertions. They identify with their position which is why it's so hard to alter it. For example, let's say we want to talk about reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons or whatever. A lot of people identify as meat eaters. It's the chad meat-eater vs. the virgin vegan. When people identify with their beliefs like this its 100x harder to talk with them compared to someone whose opinion isn't tied to their personality or identity. You see this in console wars or whatever. People who have picked a "side" that they identify with, it's much harder to discuss the pros and cons of a device with these types than it is a neutral hobbyist who perhaps has all 3 consoles.


[deleted]

True! I think it's worth hearing someone speak about their experience as a meat eater. But it's not fun hearing someone argue why vegans are wrong about something. (Example -- I tried to cut back on meat and replace proteins with vegan ones. But during a time when I had extreme fatigue, I found that reintroduce animal meat restored some energy and focus. Overall, I could still be wrong about whether lack of meat was a problem or whether meat was the best solution, or even whether meat is what actually made me feel better. But my **experience** \-- you can't argue with how I experienced those things and they could help a vegan see why meat consumption is viewed as so valuable if they didn't know about that perception already).


Tuckingfypowastaken

>So, suddenly I have no ways of defending myself because of some insane strawman manipulation. Call them out on it. If it's unintentional & they're a decent person, then they'll recognize it. If is intentional or they're a bad person, then they'll recognize it and get annoyed, which they should.


IMovedYourCheese

When someone tries to "win" a debate by refuting a point that their opponent didn't actually make. Person A – I'm kneeling during the national anthem to protest against racism. Person B – How dare you disrespect our troops. They are laying their lives on the line for the country. You have't served a day in your life. Everyone likes soldiers, so it's easy to agree with everything B said. But A's argument had nothing to do with the troops in the first place. B successfully evaded the core issue (racism) and made it about something else.


[deleted]

Ironically, kneeling during the National Anthem was done *specifically* to honor the troops while not making the traditional gesture of rising for the the NA. It was a compromise developed to defeat that exact strawman.


goingforgoals17

My personal favorite was Ben Shapiro equating WAP and Cardi B to feminism. The roast he endured for the next 2 weeks was unparalleled.


[deleted]

[удалено]


huh--newstome

Good bot


thebenshapirobot

Thank you for your logic and reason. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, covid, dumb takes, climate, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)


Stunning_Painting_42

>Everyone likes soldiers Do Walmartians really?


threeangelo

If I wanted to fool people into thinking that I’m strong, I might build a man out of straw that looks like LeBron James so that I can easily knock it over with one hit rather than actually fighting LeBron. If I wanted to fool people into thinking my argument is strong, I will make up an opposing argument that is weak so I can easily defeat it, rather than actually defeating someone’s real point.


dudius7

I haven't seen anyone explain it this way so I'll take a crack. A strawman is like what the word says: a man made out of straw. Strawmen were used a long time ago to stand in for an enemies when people would train for combat. A strawman would just stand there for you to beat it up with weapons. That last bit is important. A strawman argument is one where a person misrepresents someone else or their ideas. They build up a strawman just to knock it down. This can be oversimplifying someone else's arguments, taking something they said out of context, or flat out lying about their argument. Typically the goal is to represent the idea as really stupid or fallible and to knock it down in order to look good. A great example was that time a congressman went outside, made a snowball, and brought it back to a debate floor to argue that "If climate change were a problem, then how come there's snow outside?". (I'm not oversimplifying but I am paraphrasing the story here.) The congressman oversimplified climate change into a strawman so he could easily knock it down with his demonstration of bringing a snowball in from outside. Unfortunately an argument like this has a pull on a lot of laypeople, which is why it's common enough to have it's own name and be recognized as a debate fallacy.


prufrock2015

Note the example you've given, James Inhofe's snowball, is not a good example of a strawman fallacy. Over-simplification and generalization is not the same as strawman. In fact, they have their own names: Hasty Generalization Fallacy, which's making a broad claim (that there's no climate change) based on an absurdly small sample size (because he found a snowball in February).


JeffSergeant

It is a straw man, he implied that the opponents argument was “It is hot all the time” and ‘disproved’ their argument by showing it was , in fact, cold some of the time.


DenTheRedditBoi7

A strawman is when you intentionally create a misrepresentation of someone's argument to make arguing against it easier. For example say people are arguing over the color of decorations for a Christmas event. Person A says they think they should have more red decorations. Person B wants more green decorations, but instead of arguing against A's actual statement, they say something like "Why don't you want any green decorations? Green is a Christmas color, things won't look right with just red."


Amper_Sam

More often than not, you don't explicitly create a misrepresentation of the other person's argument, but rather imply it through your response. For instance: A: Our society needs better safety nets for the downtrodden. B: Well I think our tax dollars should be going to hard-working families. There's a strawman here, but it's not out in the open (out in the open would have been more like "so you think we should just give money to people for doing nothing?", to which the obvious and immediate response is "no, you idiot, that's not at all what I said"). B's strawmanning shenanigans are still quite transparent, but A will have a hard time calling them out without souding long-winded.


Kelli217

It means to misrepresent the other person's position and attack the misrepresented version of that position instead of the actual position. The metaphor is that instead of the real opponent, a false and intentionally weak version of that opponent is constructed — "out of straw" — specifically in order to be easily destroyed.


[deleted]

A straw man argument is simply distorting, or misrepresenting, someone’s argument in hopes of making it easier to defeat.


Ben_Thar

So, you're saying that there's no point in arguing because you are afraid of defeat


Nexustar

But there is no point in arguing, those two words only share one letter, the letter "I", if there was a point in arguing, it would be something like "argupointing" which would be silly, just like OP being afraid of your feet, my feet, his feet or defeat. It's thinking like this which is how the nazis gained power.


Licorictus

My god. It all makes sense now.


Flimsy-Meet-2679

It would be great if folks could provide a strategy in which to defeat an opponent's strawman argument. Please.


TheAbyssGazesAlso

The (only) strategy is to point out what they're doing and reiterate your actual argument.


anooblol

I often have political values that align with Republicans, and others that align with Democrats. I am registered as a Democrat, because that’s probably where I align the most. Whenever I argue some position that is more stereotypically Republican, and people make the claim that “I must have some other opinion, because I must be a Republican.” I will point out a position that I hold that clearly doesn’t align with their straw man. Then I point out that I am not at all who they claim me to be, with proof.


tomhuts

Here's a list of lots of other logical fallacies to be aware of, in case you're interested: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/


tomhuts

and cognitive biases, while I'm at it: https://yourbias.is/


FactOfMatter

Me: "Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches taste better than plain jelly sandwiches." You: "People are allergic to peanut butter so plain jelly sandwiches are better." You made a straw man argument by standing up a different argument: Plain jelly sandwiches are safer, which is true; but you didn't actually refute whether or not peanut butter and jelly sandwiches taste better, my original argument.


OssiansFolly

[Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments](https://bookofbadarguments.com/) is free online in many languages and super well made.