What is a straw man?

[Jesse2]

See subject.

[American]

What is a straw man?


That's the sort of thing a fascist would ask.

Do you wear gray? Nazis wore gray.



(Get the idea?)

[Jesse2]

Finding a simple comparison and drawing a wild conclusion based on that?

[Tricky]

This website (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) helped me immensely when I first started debating here.
Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.
Examples often seen on these boards:
"Since atheists have no moral base, they are likely to be criminals".

"Gun enthusiasts don't care if a million people die as long as they get to keep their precious firearms."

"Liberals don't love their country, so they can hardly be expected to support the military."

[Yahweh]

"Communist are atheists, communists are bad and they kill people, how can you not be ashamed by calling yourself an atheist... therefore god exists."

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Yahweh
"Communist are atheists, communists are bad and they kill people, how can you not be ashamed by calling yourself an atheist... therefore god exists."
LOL. I think that's more of a non sequitur (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur), Yaws.

[Doubt]

Listen to any politician as they state their opponent’s argument in a speech. Almost always you will hear a strawman. Does not matter what country or political party.

[Jesse2]

Thanks for the info and link, Tricky and Co.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky
This website (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) helped me immensely when I first started debating here.

Examples often seen on these boards:
"Since atheists have no moral base, they are likely to be criminals".



I don't know if this is quite a good example. I think it is not taking something that they supposed to believe and arguing to that, to my mind it is more of a non-sequitor and ad-hominem.



"Gun enthusiasts don't care if a million people die as long as they get to keep their precious firearms."



Hmmm, but that's true, isn't it?



"Liberals don't love their country, so they can hardly be expected to support the military."

Once again, more of a non-sequitor and ad-hominem.

The non-sequitor would be

liberals don't love their country
therefore, they don't support the military.

You could hate your country but still support the military, eg, Saddam.

Also, it is predicated on the attribution of liberals not being people who love their country, an ad-hominen.

[Peter Soderqvist]

It is an easy task to knockdown a strawman, and same it is with weak arguments!

[evildave]

Hmm. Maybe we need a new topic:

Fallacy Pong!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by evildave
Hmm. Maybe we need a new topic:

Fallacy Pong!

My strawman could whip your ad-hom any day.

[Filippo Lippi]

It's like the Whicker Man, but it's easier to escape from

[Prester John]

Nice site with the list of Fallacious arguments. Is there a site which presents how a case SHOULD be argued ?

PJ

[coalesce]

Ray Bolger.

Michael

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Prester John
Nice site with the list of Fallacious arguments. Is there a site which presents how a case SHOULD be argued ?

PJ

Sorry I don't have a link for you, but I suspect you mean ' how to be clever ' when you argue..


The irony is, that it's hard to do that without using falacies.

If your position is valid, the facts and knowledge rearding the subject should suffice..