- #1
- 4,652
- 37
Could someone give me an example of a straw man argument, or point me to a thread where I could find this?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Math Is Hard said:Could someone point me to a thread where I could find this?
chroot said:For example:
"Evolution can't be real. It says that new species happen from random mutations in DNA. It's like smashing up a Timex watch into tiny bits, throwing it into the dryer, and expecting a Casio watch to come out."
- Warren
Math Is Hard said:Could someone give me an example of a straw man argument, or point me to a thread where I could find this?
Thanks!
Tom Mattson said:Just look up any post by Geistkiesel or Ram1024.
Tom Mattson said:Just look up any post by Geistkiesel or Ram1024.
loseyourname said:Now that's just a cheap shot. I didn't want to give any actual names.
Tom Mattson said:No, using a straw man argument is a cheap shot.
Math Is Hard said:Very true. The specific term for creating a strawman or other distraction from the original argument (according to my text) is "being uncharitable".
To quote my professor: "If you really care about the truth, put the most charitable spin on the argument and help the presenter out. Interpret the author of the argument charitably, even if you disagree."
Mentat said:That sounds a lot like "logical charity" (which (I think) was discussed in that thread Tom made, on Logic, as well as a few other threads on PF2). As I see it, if you can't defeat the best-stated most accurate portrayal of your opponents position, then you need to re-examine just how strong your case is against that opponent.
I've also noticed that strawmen are often constructed by accident (i.e. the proponent of the argument doesn't realize that that's what it amounts to). So, while they do serve as red herrings, and are sometimes highly destructive to logical debate, one should always keep in mind that the one proposing the strawman is usually doing so by mistake.
A straw man argument is a type of fallacious argument where a person misrepresents their opponent's argument in a weaker or distorted form, making it easier to attack and refute. This tactic is often used to distract from the main argument and discredit the opponent.
In this example, the person being accused of using a straw man argument is misrepresented as saying that all arguments are straw man arguments. This is a distorted version of their actual argument, which was that the use of straw man arguments is a common fallacy.
The purpose of using a straw man argument is to weaken the opponent's argument by misrepresenting it and making it easier to attack. It allows the person using the straw man to appear to have successfully refuted their opponent's argument, even though they are actually attacking a distorted version of it.
A straw man argument can be identified by recognizing that the opponent's argument has been misrepresented in a way that makes it easier to attack. It often involves exaggerating or oversimplifying the opponent's argument, or focusing on a minor point instead of the main argument.
Using straw man arguments can be harmful to productive and respectful discourse. It can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of others' arguments, and can create a hostile and unproductive environment for discussion. It is important to accurately represent and address your opponent's arguments in order to have a fair and fruitful debate.