The Strawman Argument
We find it difficult for us when people make different arguments than the ones which we would like them to make. Such represents the temptation of the straw man.
One of the most prevalent forms of logical fallacies in our world today is the strawman argument. The “straw man” fallacious argument takes place when a person refutes an argument which was not actually made but was associated with the matter under discussion without making any recognition of any difference or distinction. It is called a “straw man” argument because it is as if the person created a “straw man” he could then easily tear down, yet in so doing has left the original argument, discussion, or premise unaddressed and untouched. The strawman argument is a form of fallacy of relevance, for it misrepresents the matter of discussion at hand and sets up an appeal or argument which is not entirely relevant to the main issue.
Strawman arguments can take different forms. A common version in modern political discourse involves using the extremes of an argument, doctrine, or group, and arguing against such extremes as if they represent what the argument, doctrine, or whole group is all about: arguing to extremes. One could even argue this tendency has helped cause much of the growing political extremism which marks our present moment. This tendency also exists within religious discourse, and to the same end: one could argue Augustine and the Pelagians ended up both radicalizing to the extremes of their position on account of the posturing and arguments both sides were making about each other.
Another similar form of a strawman argument involves exaggerating the argument or behavior of an opponent and then arguing against the exaggeration more than anything the opponent has actually set forth or done. Jesus’ opponents made such a strawman argument when they called Him a glutton and drunkard because He did not come fasting like John the Baptist but ate and drank with sinners (Matthew 11:18-19). It would be easier for them to condemn Him for eating or drinking to excess than for simply eating and drinking moderately with the people whom they derided.
Oversimplification represents another form of a strawman argument: in this way a person would make a caricature of the argument being presented and then would attack the caricature without regard to the actual argument being made. An example would involve suggesting confidence in the Lord Jesus saving those who are part of His church, and only those who are among His people, as meaning “you think you are the only ones going to Heaven.” Such is a gross oversimplification of a Biblical principle and would not at all help advance any argument encouraging humility among the people of God in terms of judgment regarding who will or will not be part of the saved.
Taking people’s statements out of context and arguing in ways inconsistent with what the person was saying in context is a most pernicious form of a strawman argument. You can watch any late night comedy show to see what you can make people seem like they are saying by taking bits of words out of context and stringing them along together. All language is contextual: the words we use have meaning in terms of the other words we are using. Not a few “write ups” have featured uncharitable interpretations of what a fellow Christian meant when he was speaking, and such does not reflect well on the one making such a strawman argument.
There will be better and worse advocates for any given idea, proposition, or behavior. When a person argues against the least persuasive or effective advocates for a matter, or only addresses the least persuasive arguments, and then presumes to have refuted the whole, such a one has built up a form of a strawman argument.
Based on these forms and examples we can well discern and imagine the various kinds of strawmen arguments which abound in modern discourse. All of them share a key feature: they are an attempt at subterfuge, to act as if a matter is well and fully addressed and refuted when the main substance has been left unaddressed. It can reflect a form of intellectual laziness. Unfortunately, many strawmen arguments are motivated by rhetorical sleights of hand: when it proves difficult or inconvenient to respond to a given argument or practice, one can try to distract by means of building up and tearing down a strawman argument and then attempt to persuade people the argument or practice has been refuted when no such thing has taken place in reality and truth.
As with all logical fallacies, creating and tearing down strawman arguments may seem easier or more persuasive, but such comes at the expense of strong, coherent argumentation, and do not really advance the pursuit of truth and understanding.
We might do better to consider the exact opposite of the strawman argument: the “steel man” argument, in which a person would think of an advance the strongest version of the opponent’s argument imaginable, even and especially when such was not what was advanced by the opponent him or herself. By arguing against the best possible argument for the opposition, one is best able to clarify what is at stake and make the best possible case for one’s position. After all, if one is truly advancing what is good, right, and true, should it not be able to stand up against the best of an opponent’s argumentation? Are we not better off finding out and recognizing the weaker points of our argumentation, and either frankly confess it or return again to God in Christ through the Spirit to see if we need to adapt and change to be better centered in His truth?
If we speak the truth in love (cf. Ephesians 4:15), we should be able to patiently and gently reason with others on the basis of what God has done in Christ through the Spirit, and not need to rely on the “shortcuts” and distortions which attend to the development of strawman arguments. May we seek to uphold and honor the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit, resist the temptation to create and tear down strawman arguments, and glorify God in Christ!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post The Strawman Argument appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
