The Straw Man PSA

[Orcbert]

During the "What Word Would You Ban" thread a lot of people kept bringing up 'Straw Man'. As they pointed out, it's not the phrase that's the problem but it's frequent misuse. So lets go over what's a Straw Man Argument and let you make the most of your post!

This was a political term coined to describe a way of delivering a political speech against an opponent without having to argue against what they said. Instead, they argue with a 'straw man' to make their opponent seem ridiculous and themselves seem reasonable. Observe these examples:

"My opponent doesn't want medical care to be affordable by the lower class."
"Some want you to stay on welfare and they don't want you to have a job so that you continue to rely and vote for them. I think you deserve the right to work."

A common 'straw man' on the Warcraft forums is Blizzard. People will state a wild belief and attribute it to Blizzard as a faceless entity. Example:

"Blizzard doesn't want content to be hard. They want to give away the best gear to casuals so they keep playing."

Unfortunately, this is not used correctly often. People will use the phrase when they should be using phrases such as 'false comparison' or 'exaggeration'. For instance, if there was a blue post that said Shadow Priests were under performing and they would like to bump up their dps and someone brought this example up in their argument then Blizzard is not a 'straw man'.

Like I said, lets use these phrases correctly! Some would like you to remain ignorant of how to correctly use political phrases but I think you deserve to know the truth.

[Deleted]

I do not care if they use it correctly or not, the very name "strawman" sounds so ridiculous I cannot take anyone seriously that uses it in an argument.

[Netherspark]

I think people confuse the phrase with "grasping at straws".

[docterfreeze]

Screw you I'll use fiddlesticks as much as I want!

[Orcbert]

I do not care if they use it correctly or not, the very name "strawman" sounds so ridiculous I cannot take anyone seriously that uses it in an argument.

It's supposed to be. The image it's supposed to invoke is someone setting up an actual 'straw man', pretend it's a threat, and then easily knock it down to try and show strength. Ultimately though, they have not defeated anyone.

[ro9ue]

I think it only becomes annoying when someones like 'Nice strawman'. Just makes me think people care too much about argument for argument's sake rather than the topic at hand.

Also: Does anyone else picture the Westfall mechanical farm guys when someone says strawman? Cuz I do.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Strawman is basically this.


You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

[lavafoxx]

It isn't just the "strawman" falacy that is being overused, it is all of them. some knucklehead found a website listing em and since then every tom, dick and harry has been using it as some sort of gospel.

[Sunseeker]

A straw-man isn't universally political. It's a simple logical fallacy of misrepresenting your opponents argument so that it's easier to attack.

[Deleted]

I don't give a shit if people use these logical fallacy names correctly or incorrectly, most of the time they're just name-dropping to look smart and contributing nothing to the discussion.

[Zaelkath]

This thread is funny because I too read the "ban a word" thread and after so many people said strawman I had to google it because I have never seen anyone use that term before so I was confused as to what the hell people were talking about.

[Orcbert]

Strawman is basically this.


You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Sort of but not correct. An actual straw man is also the process of setting up a false entity to argue with. You can misrepresent without making it a straw man argument.

Example: (made up by the way) Obama says he's happy with people's interest in signing up for government healthcare. He says some states are showing great numbers of these sign-ups.
Pundent says, "Obama claimed ACA is a resounding success despite the horrendous handling of the web site and despite the fact some are losing their plans they were promised they would be able to keep."

This wasn't a straw man, but it was misrepresenting.

[Dhrizzle]

I find "strawman" to be a very handy word. Whenever it shows up in a forum post it generally means you ignore it and move on to one with something to say.

[OrcsRLame]

Basically, if you ever see someone use the phrase, "by your logic" they're straw manning hard. Also, it's kind of frightening how many people just on this page seem to despise education. When someone straw mans your argument, there's not much you can do about it other than call them out on it and hope everyone else in the discussion can see reason.

[Itisamuh]

It isn't just the "strawman" falacy that is being overused, it is all of them. some knucklehead found a website listing em and since then every tom, dick and harry has been using it as some sort of gospel.

Yeah, this is basically why I can't take it seriously. People just fling out these terms to sound smart (often using them incorrectly) instead of actually debating ideas and points. It's annoying, and doesn't help their case at all.

[Shocking]

Basically, if you ever see someone use the phrase, "by your logic" they're straw manning hard. Also, it's kind of frightening how many people just on this page seem to despise education. When someone straw mans your argument, there's not much you can do about it other than call them out on it and hope everyone else in the discussion can see reason.

Most people don't want to debate anything in an educated manner. They either want to hear from people that agree with them or insult the other side of the argument (generally not using any form of logic). That's the reason you'll see so much negativity about logical fallacies and have people suggest they ignore people who mention one. Fact is, many don't want to debate in a rational manner, so, of course, they aren't going to respond well to talk of logical fallacies.

[IzoGray]

The problem is not people saying that things have turned pointless, as is the straw man. The problem is the people who argue about moot points and say something relatively similar in an argumentative manner.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Sort of but not correct. An actual straw man is also the process of setting up a false entity to argue with. You can misrepresent without making it a straw man argument.

Example: (made up by the way) Obama says he's happy with people's interest in signing up for government healthcare. He says some states are showing great numbers of these sign-ups.
Pundent says, "Obama claimed ACA is a resounding success despite the horrendous handling of the web site and despite the fact some are losing their plans they were promised they would be able to keep."

This wasn't a straw man, but it was misrepresenting.

No that is literally what it is. Now while it may not be every occurrence on this forum and what not but it is true.

[artemishunter1]

Most people don't want to debate anything in an educated manner. They either want to hear from people that agree with them or insult the other side of the argument (generally not using any form of logic). That's the reason you'll see so much negativity about logical fallacies and have people suggest they ignore people who mention one. Fact is, many don't want to debate in a rational manner, so, of course, they aren't going to respond well to talk of logical fallacies.

Many people misuse the strawman and slippery slope argument. Especially the last one. They ignore the part where logical reasoning is given for the slope and discredit it as slippery slope argument.

[Deleted]

I would like to know why people think pointing out logical fallacies in an argument is at odds with debating.

It's not if you contribute to the discussion. Some people just enter the thread, see some possible logical fallacy, and respond to it with some phrase in Latin to sound intellectual, and that's it.

Many people misuse the strawman and slippery slope argument. Especially the last one. They ignore the part where logical reasoning is given for the slope and discredit it as slippery slope argument.

Yeah, it's the same with the people who acknowledge the existence of arguments of others before they post them, thinking they somehow refuted all those future arguments.