Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Strawman
The item I have chosen to talk about that violates the principle of rational discussion is the Strawman. The Strawman fallacy is the idea of making your opponent seem like they have a faulty or imbalanced argument by distorting their argument into a weaker and less substantial argument. The Strawman fallacy makes it easy for one to refute the argument without actually addressing it. I see this type of arguing much too often, whether it be in politics, school, or even relationships. One example would be from my Comm 40 class. In this class we were given a debate topic on guns and whether or not citizens should own them. I was given the affirmative, and my contention was that citizens should be able to own guns for protection and because it is a right given to us by the second amendment. When it was time for the negative to refute my contentions, this person brought up the Strawman fallacy. He said “My opponent is saying that it is ok for regular citizens to carry firearms making it easy for criminals to rob, rape, and murder innocent women, children, and elderly.” By stating this, the person arguing for the negative was able to argue against my argument without actually having to address it. As the book states, my opponent was “putting words in my mouth.” As you can see, this type of arguing may be effective in making your opponent look bad, but it is not rational and you are not addressing the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I always hated when I was in Comm. 40 and a person would try and argue with my stance by simply attempting to tear it down or put words in my mouth. I never knew that this technique or fallacy had a name. The example you gave was very strong and would help anyone to understand what it is or when they may be doing it to another. When arguing I think it is important for people to actually address the issues at hand rather than try to make your opponent look bad. On the other hand it just goes to show that you obviously had the stronger argument and your opponent had to use this fallacy to help his otherwise weak argument.
ReplyDeleteYour post is well done! I too did the strawman, and I really like your example. You did a rather good explanation to what the strawman is, and your example was right on and definitely fit in your definition. People pull the strawman a lot in debates, even my parents do the same to me. My dad and I had a debate whether I should get a pc or mac for my next laptop, I told him that I wanted to get a PC because the hardware is better for the price, then my dad goes telling me, "Well I guess you hate the mac." So he was making a claim which wasn't mine, I personally like macs, but I just think they're over priced for the hardware you could get cheaper on a PC, and even better hardware too! So great example! I liked your post as well as the picture of a strawman you left behind!
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post in every aspect. You address the concept really well, and put it into terms that everyone can easily understand. The strawman fallacy is one that we all find in arguments way too often. People will throw them around because (as you said) they are "effective in making your opponent look bad, but it is not rational and you are not addressing the problem." People will do almost anything to win an argument or prove a point, even go as far as to making the other side look bad. Hopefully with people better understanding this fallacy we can catch when the strawman fallacy comes up in our debates and arguments.
ReplyDeleteGood post on the strawman fallacy. You made me understand it a lot better than the book. The picture of the strawman is a good example on how to understand it better without knowing what it is. Your personal example was good too about the gun debate in com 40. Reading it made me figure out that I use strawman fallacy a lot to my friends. Gun debate is a very hot subject with more deaths in big cities. The second amendment lets us bare firearms in situations we do need it but not for killing others for the fun of it.
ReplyDelete