One is per fas et nefas (which means “through right and wrong” in Latin) and involves refuting one of the reasons for an opponent’s argument, then claiming that discredits everything they’ve said. There are a number of common tactics used to construct straw man arguments. But it is only a straw man if the simplification is used to make it easier to attack, rather than to facilitate clearer understanding In this case, this explanation will be by necessity a briefer version. When we’re having a debate, we may sometimes need to explain an opponent’s grounds back to them to ensure we understand it. It’s important not to confuse a strawman argument with a simplified summary of a complex argument. A straw man argument may not even be invalid it’s just not relevant. It’s not an argument you happen to find inconvenient or challenging. The sole purpose is for it to be easy to refute. But it lacks any semblance of substance or strength. In some cases, it might seem similar to an outside observer. And just as it might look a bit like a real person from a distance, a straw man argument has the rough outline of the actual discussion. Just as a person made of straw would be easier to fight with than a real human, a straw man argument is easy to knock to the ground. To start, let’s define three common types of bad arguments, or logical fallacies: “straw man,” “hollow man,” and “iron man.” Straw man argumentsĪ straw man argument is a misrepresentation of an opinion or viewpoint, designed to be as easy as possible to refute. “If the defendant be a man of straw, who is to pay the costs?” - Charles Dickens While it can be a challenge to keep our cool and not sink to using bad arguments when responding to a Twitter troll or during a heated confrontation over Thanksgiving dinner, we can benefit from knowing what to avoid when the stakes are high. To do this, it’s useful to know some common ways people remove the possibility of a meaningful discussion. When being powerfully persuasive matters, it’s important that we don’t use bad arguments that prevent useful debate instead of furthering it. We’re often faced with situations in which we need to argue a point, whether we’re pitching an investor or competing for a contract. Here’s how to avoid common pitfalls and argue like a master. Productive arguments serve two purposes: to open our minds to truths we couldn’t see - and help others do the same.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |