It’s a fact that some conversations can be distressing, demoralizing and completely meaningless. Instead of using logical, coherent arguments, some people use manipulative strategies, using our own arguments to make them less credible.

This technique is commonly referred to as the “straw man fallacy” or simply “straw man” argument. It’s a negotiating tactic widely used to defend political, religious and social ideologies. Let’s find out more.

Straw man argument: what is it really?

The straw man argument is a manipulative strategy that consists in hijacking an opponent’s valid argument. This is done in order to deliberately misrepresent it. This makes it easier to refute. For the record, the term is taken from the image of the combat training technique against a straw dummy. According to this figure, the straw dummy is the weakened representation of the opponent’s argument. In concrete terms, this negotiation tactic consists in not retaliating against the other’s arguments and giving one’s opinion. Instead, you use your opponent’s arguments to discredit them and render them absurd.

In the words of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, it’s a matter of “taking up the opposing thesis by expanding it beyond its natural limits, giving it as general and broad a meaning as possible, and exaggerating it while keeping the limits of one’s own positions as restricted as possible”. The idea, then, is to present the opponent’s position in such a caricatured way that it’s easier to formulate an easily refutable argument and present one’s own position as the most reasonable. This is done by deliberately creating a flaw in the premise of the straw man argument, so that it is seen as a kind of informal logical fallacy and, above all, an error of relevance. This will make it appear as if we’re attacking a position that isn’t directly relevant to the discussion at hand. This is what makes this manipulative strategy particularly formidable.

The straw man argument: how does it work?

In practical terms, a straw man argument can be created in a number of ways:

Oversimplify, generalize or exaggerate your opponent’s argument
Present a distorted version of the opponent’s original position, while claiming that there is no difference between the two versions.
Refute small details of your opponent’s argument, claiming you’ve refuted the whole argument
Refute an opponent’s false statement, claiming that the original statement is the opponent’s true position
Argue against marginal or extreme opinions which are sometimes used to support the opponent’s position, but which the opponent has not actually used.
Completely fabricate assertions that your opponent never made in the first place.

In addition, it’s worth noting that there are also different variants of the straw man argument. To wit:

THE HOLLOW MAN ARGUMENT
This form of the straw man argument involves inventing a weak fictional character or position with easily refutable beliefs or actions, and claiming that this person is representative of the group the speaker is criticizing. This is the most extreme version of the straw man, since the argument is almost entirely fabricated.

THE IRON MAN ARGUMENT
This form of argumentation involves distorting one’s own position to make it easier to defend. The idea here is to distort your original position to strengthen it, rather than to weaken that of your opponent. To do this, we’ll use vague statements that have nothing to do with the real argument and will be easier to accept.

THE STEEL MAN ARGUMENT
This variant of the straw man argument involves distorting your opponent’s argument to make it easier for him to defend himself and harder for you to attack.

How to counter this form of manipulation

The straw man argument is one of the most common manipulation techniques. So you need to learn how to counter it. The best way to counter it is first and foremost to use clear, definitive reasoning. But above all, one that leaves no room for misinterpretation. This will, on the one hand, prevent your opponent from distorting your words and, on the other, easily correct your position. Of course, it may happen that your opponent manages to create a strawman argument in spite of everything. In this case, there are a number of strategies you can use:

SHOWING YOUR OPPONENT IS USING A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT
Logically, the best way to counter a straw man argument is to show that your opponent is trying to distort your original position. To do this, you can force him to justify why he believes his distorted position is the same as the one you proposed. This can be done in one of two ways:

Either he’ll be forced to admit that his argument was invalid
Or he’ll try to justify himself with even more illogical reasoning. Then you can refute and attack.

ACCEPT THE DISTORTED VERSION
Rather than attacking head-on, trying to demonstrate that your opponent is using fallacious arguments, you can also choose to accept this erroneous argumentation. The strategy is therefore to defend the erroneous version as presented by your opponent. And this, instead of arguing for your original position. Of course, it’s important to realize that if you go down this road, it will be very difficult to establish your opponent’s fallacy.

It’s also important to remember that it’s quite possible that you too are using strawman arguments. And you may be doing so unconsciously. To avoid this kind of situation and ensure that you engage in productive discourse, you need to learn to :

Restate your interlocutor’s position clearly and without ambivalence
Ask whether you’ve missed any points and whether he agrees with your description.
List everything you’ve learned about your target.

Only once you’ve confirmed your interviewer’s statements without having interpreted them in the way that suits you can you issue a word of rebuttal or criticism.