A_Son_of_God
Forum Reasoner - Nemesis of the Trolls
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2023
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 94
When I have a discussion with some people, I see the term "strawmanning" used. I use it myself. So what is it, and what is it not?
The reason for asking this, is some people claim people are strawmanning to try to take away from their argument, and vandalise the core of their discussions.
Conversely, some strawman deliberately, to also distract from the point, and attempt to make the person look silly to other non-thinking ridiculers.
So let's look at the meaning, and some examples as to how it appears, and why people do it.
What is Strawmanning?
According to Grammarly, "A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing about that extreme version."
What Does Strawmanning Look Like?
Here is an example of a strawman argument. Take note that firstly, the subject had to be taken off-topic by the attacker, demonstrating either no concept or no regard for the idea of it being in the "Debate" section. The original topic was "Biblical Use of Blood - Was It All About Food?"
Statements made in the article:
1) Eating blood is wrong in God's eyes.
2) Killing people is wrong in God's eyes.
3) Blood is sacred to God, and he expects his followers to use it in the ways he determines it to be used for.
Claim by Strawmanner
1) "Good people" will be damned because they eat black pudding.
2) Murderers though are let off as long as they say sorry.
3) This is why "advanced" countries are seeing a decline in "Christianity".
So, what he did was take the fact that both killing people and eating blood are wrong in God's eyes, and instead twist it into one where God becomes more merciful to one who murders than one who eats blood. Also, note the use of the word "damned". He tacked that on to the eating of black pudding, as though people who had sinned by doing such could not be forgiven, but the murderer could.
The article also stated that it was not for those who did not wish to please God.
Why Do People Strawman?
The most respectful answer is that many people lack comprehension skills, and don't realise they're doing it. They may not have learned the concept of logic in arguments, and in fact may not even know how to present an argument for something. They may only know "argument" as that of having to fight something, rather than presenting a side.
But then there are those who DO know how to argue, but strawman to get on side with the rabble. It is similar to rabblerousing, and generally invokes emotions in people who have little knowledge of a subject matter, and in many cases, no desire to learn of it. This may be so that they can ridicule and make the person feel stupid, even though they themselves are presenting the written evidence that they are not being accurate in their argument, and that they have large jumps in their conclusions, if a thinker was to peruse their statements. The goal is to detract from the subject, and instead evoke an emotional response off-topic, so that the topic is not addressed.
What Strawmanning Is Not
Strawmanning is NOT using an illustration to demonstrate absurdity. It is though an attempt at absurdity, but by deceitful means. To demonstrate absurdity by an argument is sometimes necessary, as people may not be following step-by-step events, and using absurdity can often show a person at what stage their argument fails in some instance.
Also, strawmanning is NOT repeating back "in other words" with the point of trying to honestly understand what the other person has stated, and is fed back as a way to reword it for clarity of understanding. To do this by strawmanning is deceitful, yes, but actually rewording a statement to confirm clarity is not strawmanning. It is good to give feedback to ensure we're understanding something clearly.
Conclusion:
Strawmanning is a technique that revolves around a person either lacking comprehension skills, or deliberately being deceitful by attempting the use of at least one logical fallacy, and arguing it as though it was stated. They may be being deceitful to prevent progress in an argument or a case being put forward, or they may be being deceitful so they don't feel as stupid as they did before they attempted the strawman.
In the above example, it appears the person wasn't deliberately trying to be deceitful.
The reason for asking this, is some people claim people are strawmanning to try to take away from their argument, and vandalise the core of their discussions.
Conversely, some strawman deliberately, to also distract from the point, and attempt to make the person look silly to other non-thinking ridiculers.
So let's look at the meaning, and some examples as to how it appears, and why people do it.
What is Strawmanning?
According to Grammarly, "A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing about that extreme version."
What Does Strawmanning Look Like?
Here is an example of a strawman argument. Take note that firstly, the subject had to be taken off-topic by the attacker, demonstrating either no concept or no regard for the idea of it being in the "Debate" section. The original topic was "Biblical Use of Blood - Was It All About Food?"
Statements made in the article:
1) Eating blood is wrong in God's eyes.
2) Killing people is wrong in God's eyes.
3) Blood is sacred to God, and he expects his followers to use it in the ways he determines it to be used for.
Claim by Strawmanner
1) "Good people" will be damned because they eat black pudding.
2) Murderers though are let off as long as they say sorry.
3) This is why "advanced" countries are seeing a decline in "Christianity".
So, what he did was take the fact that both killing people and eating blood are wrong in God's eyes, and instead twist it into one where God becomes more merciful to one who murders than one who eats blood. Also, note the use of the word "damned". He tacked that on to the eating of black pudding, as though people who had sinned by doing such could not be forgiven, but the murderer could.
The article also stated that it was not for those who did not wish to please God.
Why Do People Strawman?
The most respectful answer is that many people lack comprehension skills, and don't realise they're doing it. They may not have learned the concept of logic in arguments, and in fact may not even know how to present an argument for something. They may only know "argument" as that of having to fight something, rather than presenting a side.
But then there are those who DO know how to argue, but strawman to get on side with the rabble. It is similar to rabblerousing, and generally invokes emotions in people who have little knowledge of a subject matter, and in many cases, no desire to learn of it. This may be so that they can ridicule and make the person feel stupid, even though they themselves are presenting the written evidence that they are not being accurate in their argument, and that they have large jumps in their conclusions, if a thinker was to peruse their statements. The goal is to detract from the subject, and instead evoke an emotional response off-topic, so that the topic is not addressed.
What Strawmanning Is Not
Strawmanning is NOT using an illustration to demonstrate absurdity. It is though an attempt at absurdity, but by deceitful means. To demonstrate absurdity by an argument is sometimes necessary, as people may not be following step-by-step events, and using absurdity can often show a person at what stage their argument fails in some instance.
Also, strawmanning is NOT repeating back "in other words" with the point of trying to honestly understand what the other person has stated, and is fed back as a way to reword it for clarity of understanding. To do this by strawmanning is deceitful, yes, but actually rewording a statement to confirm clarity is not strawmanning. It is good to give feedback to ensure we're understanding something clearly.
Conclusion:
Strawmanning is a technique that revolves around a person either lacking comprehension skills, or deliberately being deceitful by attempting the use of at least one logical fallacy, and arguing it as though it was stated. They may be being deceitful to prevent progress in an argument or a case being put forward, or they may be being deceitful so they don't feel as stupid as they did before they attempted the strawman.
In the above example, it appears the person wasn't deliberately trying to be deceitful.
Last edited:
