Sexy Hot Photo Blogs

This article is about the logical fallacy

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement - being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

Origin
The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside of courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness.[3][4] Another is that a man made of straw, such as those used in military training, is easy to attack. Attacking a straw man can give the illusion of a strong attack or good argument. In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.

Reasoning
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

Example
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates.
(Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1]

Debating around a straw man
Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.
1. Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself. (Note: A weakness of this retort is that agreeing to use the terminology of the opponent may deflect the debate to a secondary one about the opponent's assumptions).
2. Clarifying the original theory. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man. In the example above, such a response might be: I said relax laws on beer but nothing about other stronger intoxicants.
3. Questioning the disputation. See also Debate

External links
The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments