(also known as Strawman Fallacy)
When we distort someone’s position to make it easier to reject
Definition:
The strawman fallacy occurs when someone constructs a distorted, exaggerated, or oversimplified version of another person’s argument and attacks that version instead of responding to the actual argument itself. By doing so, they avoid engaging with the real argument and instead fight a “straw man” of their own creation.
The term “strawman” comes from the image of attacking a scarecrow or dummy rather than a real opponent—an opponent that cannot defend itself and is easy to knock down, giving a false sense of victory.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
1. Person A presents argument X.
2. Person B responds by constructing a distorted version of X (let’s call it X′).
3. Then, instead of addressing X, Person B attacks and rejects X′.
Examples from real life:
1. In political debate:
“He says the military budget should be reduced, which means he wants the country to be defenceless!”
Here, it should be noted that calling for a review or reduction of the military budget does not necessarily imply disregard for national security.
2. In an academic setting:
“The professor said we shouldn’t romanticise the past of ancient civilisations. So he must think all our history is a lie!”
Here, it should be noted that criticising the mythologising of history does not necessarily mean denying its value.
3. In a family discussion:
“You said the child shouldn’t stay up late, so you must want to take all the joy out of their life!”
Here, it should be noted that recommending regular sleep does not mean opposing the child’s happiness or freedom.
4. On social media:
“He said excessive phone use is harmful, so clearly he thinks technology should be banned!”
Here, it should be noted that criticising the overuse of technology does not imply rejecting it altogether.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- It distorts the conversation: the focus shifts from the actual argument to a fabricated version of it.
- It undermines trust: the other person feels their words have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted.
- It hinders critical thinking: the audience ends up analysing a caricatured version of the argument instead of the real one.
- In media and politics, it is deceptive: the general audience may not notice the distortion and may believe the argument has genuinely been refuted.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
First, we should pay attention to whether the response is actually addressing the original argument or a distorted version of it. If we notice that the discussion has been derailed and our position has been misrepresented, the best approach is to calmly and clearly explain what we really meant. For example:
Person A: “I think we should slightly reduce the military budget.”
Person B: “So you want to leave the country defenceless?”
Person A (responds): “No, that’s not what I said. What I mean is that with better budget management, we can maintain security while also allocating resources to other areas.”
Also, if we observe such a distortion in others’ discussions, we can gently steer the conversation back to the core issue by saying:
“Let’s look at the actual argument, not the version that has been constructed in its place.”
Conclusion:
The strawman fallacy is a common tool in debates, politics, and media. Recognising it helps us avoid falling into the trap of distortion and instead focus on conversations grounded in mutual understanding and logical precision.