Straw man arguments
In a straw man argument, the argument that is being refuted is not actually the argument or issue that is being discussed.
One way to do this is to distort or oversimplify an argument, presenting it as weaker or more extreme than it actually is. This weakened version is then criticised or attacked, allowing the person using the straw man argument to appear victorious without addressing the actual argument.
The ‘straw man’ refers to a scarecrow stuffed with straw. The term may have its roots in medieval combat training, where fighters practised against straw-filled dummies. These straw men were easy targets, much like the straw man argument creates an oversimplified or distorted version of an argument that is easier to defeat.
How to spot a straw man argument
Clearly identify the argument/debate then ask if it has been changed.
Is the argument oversimplified?
Is the argument blown out of proportion, making it seem unreasonable or absurd?
Does the argument overgeneralise the issue, making it easier to attack?
Instead of addressing the main point, does the response target a minor or irrelevant part of the argument?
An example of a straw man argument is this response to those who support clean energy: “People who advocate for renewable energy want to shut down all fossil fuel plants tomorrow.” This is a straw man argument because it suggests supporters of renewable energy are unreasonable, when most typically argue for a gradual transition rather than an immediate shutdown.
Pictured is a late American politician who refuted global warming with a snowball as evidence. This argument misrepresents climate science. Climate scientists do not claim that global warming means it will never snow or be cold. Instead, they explain that climate change refers to long-term global temperature trends, not short-term weather fluctuations.
