Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iu8husk wrote

A strawman argument is when you misportray your opponent's position to delegitimize their claim. "My opponent would have you think A, B, or C, when clearly anyone can see it's really D, E, or F." Metaphorically, you're putting a scarecrow or straw man, a misrepresentation of their exact position, up on a pole to be ripped apart and taken down, without giving your opponent a fair chance to state their position on the issue. Straw man is a logical fallacy and a rhetorical technique.

18

ABinturong t1_iu9gkl0 wrote

How does one defend against this in practice without looking like you're falling behind, or requiring you to address the method of argument rather than staying on topic? Straw men are a clearly useless logical too, but are often still used to effect debate outcomes by derailing the opponent. I absolutely hate this, and there must be a response... would it help to have a steelman ready to reshape your own point immediately after they stramwan it, to give them a tougher fight, or force them to strawman again which might catch with the audience as bad faith more clearly?

4

MrUnlucky-0N3 t1_iu9h86g wrote

A strawman argument is especially powerful outside of an actual debate, when you can't immediately react. If someone uses a strawman in e.g. an article, someone might never see your response, so there is no real defense in that case.

3

ABinturong t1_iu9i2n4 wrote

Is it ever valuable to just straight up end discourse with a power move, like just labelling them a coward for not addressing your point, since all they're about are optics in that case.

1

silent_cat t1_iu9hztp wrote

There isn't really a good response. See also the Gish Gallop where your opponent floods the public with plausible but incorrect statements that you simply don't have time to refute them all.

The only solution I can think of is to educate people to recognise it when it happens. And hopefully someone will interrupt with: hey, that's a strawman, please go back to the original argument.

Yes, I just suggested the only way to save the world is to educate people. So we're basically f*cked.

2

ABinturong t1_iu9jiag wrote

I have felt this deep down for a while, just watching modern 'discourse'. Hard to put it into words, and hard to find the energy once you make the realization of the scale of the problem.

1

TurkeyDinner547 t1_iu9i90n wrote

It takes time and practice to recognize logical fallacies as they're occurring, and also to be careful you don't fall into the same trap. Basically any persuasive argument should contain ethos (credibility), logos (logical argument using inductive or deductive reasoning), and pathos (inspire emotion in your audience). Skilled orators don't always believe the shit they're peddling, it's just that they know how to wield these techniques effectively. Sometimes, inspiring emotion in your audience is more effective than presenting a logical argument. These are tools only, and they can be mixed and matched as needed to persuade your audience to agree with your side of an argument. But when all else fails, as a rule of thumb, you should stick to logical, deductive reasoning and avoid employing logical fallacies to make your point.

2