Home For Fiction – Blog

The internet is sadly full of strawman fallacy examples. In contrast to the Bandwagon fallacy, and partly like the Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy, the person committing the strawman fallacy is usually aware they are doing so. That is, one resorts to strawman arguments to ameliorate their otherwise weak argument. However, this isn’t set in stone. In other words, it’s possible for someone to commit the strawman fallacy inadvertently.

Regardless of the motive, this is a particularly widespread and unfortunately insidious fallacy. Some well-crafted iterations of it can be truly misleading, giving the impression of a solid argument. It’s important, then, to learn to recognize it. This is precisely what we’ll do in this post, as we’ll take a closer look at some strawman fallacy examples, definitions, and ways to counter its use.

Strawman Fallacy Definitions

There are several ways to define what the strawman fallacy (or a strawman argument) is. The basic, somewhat formal way – one Wikipedia uses – is the following:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

In simpler words, you commit a strawman fallacy when you make it seem as if you have addressed the argument, but in actual fact you have not.

A strawman argument is an example of a strategy one uses to distract an audience (and sometimes the opponent in the argument) from the fact that the argument itself is difficult to counter.

What makes strawman arguments prevalent in the internet is the way they appear to be actual argumentation, based on logic and reason. By comparison, they can be significantly more sophisticated than whataboutism. That’s also what makes them more insidious, as they can be difficult to detect, if they are sophisticated enough.

Strawman Fallacy Examples

Strawman arguments come in many variations, but one way of categorizing them would be in dividing them into generalizing and specifying. However, not all strawman arguments can neatly fall under these two categories, as we will see.

Strawman Fallacy Examples: Generalizing

In essence, a strawman argument that focuses on generalization attacks an argument that is more general than the one it ought to address.

Consider the following exchange:

John: The neighbor’s dog has been very aggressive after it got sick, I think he ought to consider putting it to sleep.
Mary: Most aggressive dogs improve with behavior training.

What Mary does in this example (which is very simple, for exemplification purposes) is to attack a straw man. She appears to successfully argue against John’s proposition, but in actual fact she only presents a general claim, one that isn’t suitable to this specific situation.

Strawman Fallacy Examples: Specifying

The opposite is also true, and it’s a type of strawman argumentation that is used very often. Indeed, consider (almost) the exact same exchange, only in reverse:

Mary: Most aggressive dogs improve with behavior training.
John: The neighbor’s dog has been very aggressive even after behavioral training.

What John does here is to present a specific example that is meant to counter Mary’s. But since Mary didn’t say “All aggressive dogs improve”, John commits a strawman fallacy.

Other Strawman Examples

These are only two forms strawman arguments can present themselves as. In reality, there are many ways one can use to distort the opponent’s argument. Consider the following:

John: It’s ethically problematic to kill animals for their meat.
Mary: It’s ethically more problematic to claim animals are more important than people.

In this example of a strawman fallacy, Mary presents a counterargument that has nothing to do with John’s claim. Because it would be obvious to mostWhether animals should or should not be considered more important than people (or whether we could even have a valid comparison) is another topic, outside the scope of this post. that animals are not more important than people, it’s easier for Mary to attack this argument – the strawman – rather than counter John’s assertion.

How to Counter this Fallacy

For evident reasons, politics, law, and marketing are areas where strawman examples abound. For equally obvious reasons, the internet is rife with strawman fallacy examples. To put it simply, strawman arguments exist to win “impression points”. That is, strawman arguments help their users give the impression they’ve won an argument. You don’t need me to tell you why this appeals to the social masses.

Ignore the Problem – or… the Debate

My own strategy with strawman arguments is rather moot, because I simply don’t waste time debating anyone online. Likely, doing the same isn’t something you’re interested in.

So, limiting ourselves to viable strategies, one way is to simply ignore the strawman argument and hope your audience is smart enough to see through it. This can work in certain contexts – generally, the more mature the audience, the better your chances. It can also work in more lighthearted, not-so-serious frameworks – such as satire.

However, in more serious contexts or with a more lay audience, it’s fairly risky. That is, your opponent might double down, and then there’s a lot of work required to undo the damage.

More Orthodox Strategies

Generally, the best way out of a strawman argument is to attack it head on. Clearly call it for what it is, showing why. This would be easier if you could identify the kind of distortion involved. Has your opponent generalized your argument? Have they excessively specified it? Perhaps they refer to someone else entirely, as we saw in the animal rights example. Generally speaking, your goal should be to clearly indicate why the opponent’s argument is irrelevant.

Of course, it would also help if your own argument is as precise as possible. Sometimes, for simplicity, we might offer an example that is too general. However, this leaves us vulnerable to strawman arguments. Be as clear and focused as possible. Moreover, depending on the context, you might try to anticipate what kind of strawman arguments might appear.

Overall, strawman arguments will, sadly, always be present. We can’t get rid of them, because wanting to be right – rather than to find the truth – is in human nature. But don’t be afraid to call them out for what they are: meaningless distractions.