Skip to main content

Straw Man Fallacy

𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀:

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗔: This person probably is a Te-dom because he prefers to judge purely by objective cold outcomes (Te-dom), avoiding taking into account the feelings of each individual involved during the process (Fi-inf). One of his quotes is the following: "𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚒𝚜 𝚌𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚊𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚘𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚒𝚜 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚒𝚝 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚖𝚘𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚙𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚎, 𝚘𝚛 𝚜𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚕𝚢 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚜". To him: Result > Process. Collective > Individual. Cold Logic > People Sentiments.
𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗕: It's not because he is a Jerk that he is a Te-dom.
𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗔: I never said he is a Jerk 🙄


A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 one. A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects

Written and maintained by PDB users for PDB users.