Consider a disagreement with a scarecrow. The scarecrow will not argue back; therefore, you are free to argue about anything you want. Furthermore, you can alter its argument so that you can more easily defeat it, and it cannot object to the change. To defeat the scarecrow's argument, you can change it any way you like so that you can easily light the straw man on fire and consume him.
A straw man argument is essentially a made-up argument that doesn't really exist.
By changing or exaggerating your stance to make it more manageable, they are committing the straw man fallacy (straw person these days in some western countries). The solution is to identify the substitute strawman argument and bring it back to reality, where you can then make a logical and reasonable defense. Hopefully, this process will reveal their duplicity to any onlookers as well.
Strawman arguments often have these traits:
- Over simplifications.
- Extreme cases were presented.
- Focusing only on one part of the argument.
- Taking it out of its context altogether.
- The focus is on fringe or heretical ideas and practices.
Like "red herrings" and other irrelevant arguments, one famous defence lawyer combated this fallacy by just restating the question until the person abandoned this line of attack. This approach can be quite aggressive and repetitive, so if you prefer a more gentle approach, you could gently point out their mistake and then restate the original topic.
Examples:
Secular Example:
- In a debate about whether or not man-made climate change is real: "You do not care about climate change. You hate animals, and you do not care it causes mass extinctions. You will doom the human race to its own demise with this attitude".
- Person 1: Because of the thefts in our building, I think we should add more security cameras. Person 2: So you’re saying you don’t trust your neighbours?
- Person 1: I think we should mute debaters' microphones when it's their opponent's turn to speak so they can't interrupt each other. Person 2: I disagree because I support free speech.
- Person 1: Our restaurant's policy prohibits admission of anyone under the age of eighteen after 8 p.m. Person 2: Why are you against families eating dinner together?
Person 1: We welcome guests of all ages before 8 p.m., but at night, we maintain an adults-only atmosphere. Person 2: Your restaurant discriminates against families with kids.
(Thanks to https://www.grammarly.com/blog/straw-man-fallacy/ for the examples BTW.)
Kingdom Example:
Muslims frequently assert that the Injeel prophesies Mohammad (PBUH) to be Allah's final prophet. The Injeel are the New Testament Gospels. (Specifically, John 14, 15, and 16.) (Particularly in John 14:15–31.) "We should read our own scriptures, and then this would not even be a question between us."
If it is unrelated to your original discourse, disregard it and continue on the original path. If you want to discredit the use of this statement as a justification for Muhammad's authority, then you can recognise it as a strawman argument because it takes scripture completely out of context. In fact, most Muslims (even Imams) have never read these verses firsthand. It is unlikely that they will agree to the next part without the Holy Spirit's persuasion, but open up the scripture and let them read it for themselves with guidance. Help them understand that this promise, like the one in Luke 24:49, has already occurred shortly after Jesus' (Isa's) assent to heaven. Mohammad did not arrive until another 500 odd years later. We also expect the promised "helper" to reside within us today. You can then ask them if Mohammad currently lives inside them.
Fallacy Comments