[WikiEN-l] Straw man as Whipping Boy

Tue Nov 11 16:16:42 UTC 2003

I've seen far too many posts in the last few days, in which one writer
or another says that another writer has employed a Straw Man argument.
I'm afraid that the concept of "straw man" is becoming this month's
whipping boy.

You know, not everyone on this mailing list is familiar with terminology
used to describe and categorize arguments. I myself mistook the term
"poisoning the well" as a kind of personal attack. I had to eat my
words, and wash my humble pie down with well water after erroneously
chiding NetEsq over that!

A straw man is a distortion of your opponent's position. It may be a
weakened form of their real argument, or even just words you put in
their mouth.

Once you "knock down" their straw man, you IMPLY that you have also (or
really) knocked out their entire argument. Among honest,
well-intentioned people, this is regarded as a kind of rhetorical "dirty
trick" and should thus be avoided here on our mailing list.

But when we LABEL someone's argument a "straw man", we'd better be
careful. Let's not assume the person making a straw man argument knows
that he's doing this, or that he has even HEARD the term *straw man* --
it would be better to:

(1) re-state the original position
(2) re-state the 'straw man' version of it
(3) show how the straw man version differs from the original

Our leading expert on rhetoric, the Cunctator, is best qualified to do
this and it is in admiration of his rhetorical skills that I am bringing
up this point.

Let's not make the straw man our Whipping Boy this month, okay?

Ed Poor
Amateur Rhetoric Coach