"Can we beat the strawman?" - from Atheist Climber blog


So often, when in debate we can encounter an immovable opponent, who, no matter what you say or write, is convinced that their position is right. There is nothing more frustrating than taking the opponent's side into consideration, but getting none of the same in return. This can be due to several different circumstances, for instance: the opponent may not understand what you are saying; the opponent has an opinion which they hold to be infallibly true and they must prove it at all costs; the opponent is playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument, or is simply being a contrarian; or the opponent has a point which is unrelated and seeks to use this point to make your point seem weaker. This last case is the "strawman" approach.

Recently in a debate I came across a real example of a "strawman" thrown into an argument. This is the first time I have recognised it for exactly what it was, and in doing so was able to work my way back to the topic for further discussion.

For those who are unaware of a strawman argument, the Wikipedia page describes it as this:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

So often people seek to discredit your arguments by bringing up a seemingly related point then attack that to prove their point. There are many ways a strawman can be thrown up, and an example of a strawman argument may go something like this:

Person A: You are descended from a previous form of mammal, and have an ancestor in common with a chimpanzee.

Person B: You are saying I evolved from a chimpanzee? This is simply not true! You are a liar!

The encounter I had today has to do with the origins of morality, and I was thrown an argument which presented a subjective opinion as an "objective truth", and was then seeking to discredit my original assertion by demolishing my points based on this subjective opinion. It is played out in the comments to this blog post. The comments on the post then spiraled off topic into conversations about whether Westerners' morals are evil. My post was not about that at all.

While I don't doubt for a second that the person who threw up the strawman argument wasn't passionate about what they were saying, I think they were confused by an emotional attachment to an unrelated argument that has a seeming point of crossover with the idea of morals. Combined with this were skewed generalisations and bigotries which I'm sure to him had just as much relevance to the topic at hand. But it seems to me that he was trying to discredit my opinions completely by use of the strawman.

When a strawman is thrown up like this, it can cause an end to real discourse and become a debate about why someone's argument is flawed. Nothing can be achieved in this kind of situation, except making someone inevitably look either ignorant, overly aggressive, foolish or deliberately disruptive.

I thought this was worthwhile pointing out. Keep the strawman to the "Wizard Of Oz" where he belongs still, seeking for his brain.

What experience have you had with strawman defenses, and how have you managed to keep things on topic without becoming a debate about everything?

Views: 5

Tags: Perspective, Philosophy, Prejudice, argument, atheistclimber, disingenuous, morals, morlaity, strawman

Comment by Shine on July 29, 2010 at 9:52am
When a strawman is thrown up like this, it can cause an end to real discourse and become a debate about why someone's argument is flawed. Nothing can be achieved in this kind of situation, except making someone inevitably look either ignorant, overly aggressive, foolish or deliberately disruptive.

This is exactly what irritates me the most about strawmen and other logical fallacies. I don't care about winning or losing a debate; I just want a better understanding of the topic at hand. Logical fallacies disrupt the flow of discourse and turn it into a reflexive argument about the argument itself. Like you said, nothing is to be learned by this except how to identify and combat logical fallacies. While this is valuable skill, it does nothing to further understanding about whatever matter is being discussed.
Comment by Mike Vaughan on July 29, 2010 at 2:34pm
I love the Wizard of Oz. My favorite movie.
Comment by hanspshansen on July 29, 2010 at 3:46pm
i dont know if its helps or not, but i try to avoid standard answers to creatonist.

maybe you coud have tryed to ask about thats wrong to came from shimpanzee? i dont think it woud have make anny differens if we came from a shimpanzee or the earlyer relatives.

at least it might make the debate more intresting.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Unseen 13 minutes ago. 30 Replies

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Noel 50 minutes ago. 9 Replies

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Belle Rose 6 hours ago. 64 Replies

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 13 hours ago. 12 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service