Strawman Argumentation: Distort A Valid Argument

Arguing with certain people can be very nerve-wracking. Instead of using rational arguments or sticking to facts, sometimes the opponent can use unreasonable assertions or appeal to emotions instead of reason. Some people also resort to straw man argumentation.

Misconceptions are arguments that may seem valid, but they are not. Although they are not logical, it is quite common to see people using them in different contexts. The conclusions that emerge from these unjustified arguments will therefore be wrong or not entirely true.

Strawman’s argument is when someone takes the opponent’s argument and twists it to make it seem less credible. Today it is one of the most common forms of manipulation. In this article we will tell you what it is and share some examples.

What are erroneous conclusions?

Philosophy and psychology discuss misconceptions. For centuries, knowledgeable people have been trying to identify the various wrongful arguments that may seem correct.

For many years, experts believed that humans had the ability to think rationally. In recent decades, however, studies have revealed that rationality is in fact an exception. Contrary to popular belief, humans tend to be carried away by unconscious biases.

When you are presented with an argument, it is difficult to know whether the person is using logic or not. When an argument seems rational, but in fact it is not, you are likely to come to a wrong conclusion. Despite the fact that there are many different types of misinterpretations, straw man argumentation is most commonly used.

What is strawman argumentation?

Strawman’s argumentation consists of twisting a valid argument for it to work wrong. In this way, it is easier to refute the argument and make the other lose credibility. In general, people use this strategy to defend political, religious and social beliefs.

This is why it is common for people to use straw man argumentation when discussing topics such as abortion or immigration. You can also see this in political debates, media or official statements. The goal of this tactic is basically to replace an opponent’s arguments with absurd claims.

This is the structure of strawman argumentation:

• One person presents an argument “A”.
• The opponent twists it and replaces it with the argument “B”, which is similar but incorrect or inaccurate.
• The opponent continues with refuting argument “B”.

• Since the opponent has covered both arguments, it seems that the argument “A” has also been refuted.

Examples of straw man argumentation

1. Alcohol laws

Watch a debate on changing the legal drinking age:

Person A: We should set the legal drinking age to 16 years. At that age, the human body is ready to deal with the effects of alcoholic beverages.
Person B: It’s crazy. Giving alcohol arbitrarily to young people will affect society.
As you can see, person B did not respond to the argument of person A. On the contrary, person B took the argument to the extreme. In this way, they avoided discussing a rational plan or solution.

2. Human evolution

Person A: Humans have several common ancestors with primates. A lot of evidence supports this claim.
Person B: If humans come from apes, why do chimpanzees still exist?
In this case, person B does not really understand evolution. Therefore, instead of making a logical point, they used an erroneous argument that did not respond to the person’s A’s argument. In this case, this error can also be seen as an appeal to the extremes.