Debate Mistakes II: Strawman Never make these Debate Mistakes II: Strawman

Straw man A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Straw man The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

Straw man This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

Straw man EXAMPLES Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate: A: We should relax the laws on beer. B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

Straw man EXAMPLES 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". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.

Straw man EXAMPLES A: Sunny days are good. B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. In this case, B falsely frames A's claim to imply that A believes only sunny days are good, and B argues against that assertion. A actually asserts that sunny days are good and, in fact, says nothing about rainy days.

Five Straw Men Obama Used in West Point Foreign Policy Address 1. Those who believe America is in decline Obama assured West Point graduates that “America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world” and those who think differently are just wrong. “Those who argue otherwise – who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away – are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics,” he said. Reference: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/28/Five-Straw-Men-Used-by-President-Obama-in-His-Foreign-Policy-Speech-at-West-Point

Five Straw Men Obama Used in West Point Foreign Policy Address 2. Those who warn against foreign entanglements President Obama pointed out that throughout history, foreign policy has fallen into two camps, one of which were “self-described realists” who were reluctant to go to war. “[T]here have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being,” he said.  Remember when President Obama was in this camp? Not anymore.

Five Straw Men Obama Used in West Point Foreign Policy Address 3. Those who want to intervene around the globe “A different view, from interventionists on the left and right, says we ignore these conflicts at our own peril,” Obama said. Not surprisingly, Obama believes that “neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment.” 

Five Straw Men Obama Used in West Point Foreign Policy Address 4. Those who will send troops into war to avoid looking weak Obama boldly knocks down this straw men with a swift stroke.  “I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.” Key word is “simply” - it’s not that simple. 

Five Straw Men Obama Used in West Point Foreign Policy Address 5. Those who are skeptical of multilateral action These straw men think that going to NATO and the UN is futile and a waste of time. Not Obama. “Of course, skeptics often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong.”