3 ms·
> “strawman” (argue against your opponent’s weakest point). That's not what a strawman is -- if it was, it wouldn't be considered an informal logical/argumenta
by TulliusCicero 5y ago
> “strawman” (argue against your opponent’s weakest point).
That's not what a strawman is -- if it was, it wouldn't be considered an informal logical/argumentative fallacy.
A strawman means taking your opponent's position to a new extreme, turning it into a caricature of itself. E.g. if they argue for lower taxes, the strawman version could be acting as if they want no taxes whatsoever. It's bad form because it's not something they actually said, or implied; and realistically, the extreme form of almost any position is bad.
- quickthrower2 5y agoI thought a strawman was a totally made up position then arguing against it. Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves. Thinking about it that is more likely on the internet forums like HN where it is easy to just comment without there really being a “conversation”
- TulliusCicero 5y agoIt's misrepresenting your opponent's argument, generally by exaggerating it, so that it's easy to argue against. > Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves. Yes, that's basically it. Inventing a related position that your opponent didn't actually take to argue with. Like if my opponent wants a new tax for more school funding, I could be like, "well when does it end? Are we gonna buy every teacher a BMW by raising taxes 300%? I can't afford that!!" That's a strawman.
- jfray2k22 5y agoI thought that was reductio ab absdurdum?
- travisjungroth 5y agoNo, reductio ad absurdum is showing a position is correct because the opposite would be impossible/ridiculous. You take the opposing position to its logical conclusion, not a made up one (straw man).