I could while away the hours,
Conferrin' with the flowers,
Consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.
Welcome to the first edition of what I hope will be a helpful series of posts in which I hope to explain common logical fallacies. People fall into these because of sloppy thinking, or sometimes deliberately if they are trying to “score points” in an argument. But it’s helpful to know what these are, not only because it will help you spot them when used in an argument against you, but also to help YOU tighten your skills in debating a position and help you examine your own arguments to make sure you aren’t also falling into one of these fallacies. Without further ado, let’s begin with a very common one found online: The Strawman Argument.
The Strawman Argument is one in which one side’s argument is misrepresented by the other side, usually by exaggerating their position or by otherwise distorting what the other side’s position is. This is why it’s called the Strawman Argument — the side using is building a “strawman” — a false and distorted version of the other side’s actual position — and attacking it, instead of debating the actual position taken. This is often done to make the user’s side appear stronger than it is, or to make the other side appear weaker.
Here are a few examples:
1. “The COVID vaccine is not 100% effective, so therefore people should wear masks as an additional precaution.”
“Hur hur hur...so you’re saying vaccines don’t work!”
Obviously, there’s a lot of room between “the vaccines aren’t 100% effective” and “they don’t work.” In this case, the second person has distorted the original point substantially to misrepresent what was actually said.
2. “The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined. We don’t need to increase the defense budget.”
“So you want to leave the country defenseless?”
Again, a lot of room between “we already spend massive amounts of money on defense, we don’t need to increase that expenditure” and “leaving the country defenseless.”
3. “I think I’d prefer to own a cat than a dog.”
“Why do you hate dogs?”
A simpler, nonpolitical one here. In this case, the original point is that the commenter would prefer owning a cat to a dog, but certainly says nothing about disliking, let alone hating, dogs. But this is distorted by the respondent leaping directly to “you hate dogs” without exploring the reasons why the original commenter might have such a preference.
4. “Happy Holidays!”
“Why do you hate Christians?”
Similar to #3. The original commenter simply wishes the other “Happy Holidays!” The respondent immediately distorts this to “hating Christians.” Sound familiar? Yeah, Strawman Arguments are really popular with the right wing.
There are a lot of variations possible with the Strawman Argument, but the key is that the actual position or statement by one party is misrepresented by the other party in some way, usually to make the other side appear ridiculous or to create a weaker argument that is easier to attack.
Go forth, and watch for those Strawmen!
Dorothy Gale: How do you talk if you don't have a brain?
The Scarecrow: Well, some people without brains do an awful lot of talking don't they?