# The Straw Man Ad Hom



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

I am convinced after years of debates and discussions online that we overuse the term "straw man" when referring to arguments. Often instead of engaging the argument from the "other side" we simply declare it is a straw man and therefore not worthy of a response. Instead of discussing the points of an argument, we dismiss out of hand the points offered because we _assume_ that they are not relevant to the ongoing debate.

While there is such a thing as a straw man argument I am afraid that in our overconfidence we fail to examine all perspectives and all sides of a debate before declaring the opponent's argument irrelevant. We get tunnel vision and cannot see why they are saying what they are saying about the topic at hand.

The result? A straw man _ad hominem _attack.

Yes, it is an ad hom, because it is a personal jab that is intended to halt debate so that one debater can be declared the winner! If we claim the other side is offering a straw man argument then we assume that our point has been validated. Debate over. Case closed.

In reality though what does it mean to accuse someone of offering a straw man argument? Too often it has come to mean that we believe that those taking another position are ignorant or stupid or both and that they certainly cannot read with any level of basic comprehension. How nice then to reduce the debate to calling our opponent a blithering idiot.

I for one would like to remove the term straw man from our vocabulary. We need to learn to listen in debate instead of reacting in such a way that tells others that if they don't see things our way then they are just mentally deficient.

Overuse of the term has changd the way we debate, for the worse.

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 9, 2006)

On the same token, I have a former roommate who cannot enter a discussion/debate without eventually engaging in some straw man argument. He would be deprived of his philosopher's stone if he couldn't crudely caricature his opponent's argument and throw out dozens of red herrings on top of it.

Making him cognizant of logical fallacies helps somewhat. I think it is how you approach the issue and how you remind a person how that he/she errantly uses them that is important. It need not be construed as calling him a "blithering idiot." Lawyers and judges use logical fallacies all the time.

It's tough to debate someone that won't argue rationally or maintain a mutual respect for his opponent and refrain from manipulation.

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." 
--Philip K. Dick


----------



## Civbert (Feb 9, 2006)

I'd say the problem isn't the over-use of the term "straw man", rather it is the over-use of "straw man" arguments. Whenever a your opponent's position is easily defeated at face, consider that you may not understand your opponent's position, else you may (intentionally or not) be presenting a straw man argument. Basically, the employment of a straw man argument is an insult to your opponent - and is in effect presenting him as an idiot.


[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 9, 2006)

If I only had a brain......


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)




----------



## Peter (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I am convinced after years of debates and discussions online that we overuse the term "straw man" when referring to arguments. Often instead of engaging the argument from the "other side" we simply declare it is a straw man and therefore not worthy of a response. Instead of discussing the points of an argument, we dismiss out of hand the points offered because we _assume_ that they are not relevant to the ongoing debate.
> 
> While there is such a thing as a straw man argument I am afraid that in our overconfidence we fail to examine all perspectives and all sides of a debate before declaring the opponent's argument irrelevant. We get tunnel vision and cannot see why they are saying what they are saying about the topic at hand.
> ...



Really....

or your caricature is a straw man!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2006)

I think your criticism is fair. What do you propose as an alternative when we suspect a real case of strawman argumentation is being employed? 

For example, in _Calvinism: Two Views_ I felt really bad for Dr. White because he was trying to argue his case and all that Dave Hunt would present was red herrings, _ad hominem_ attacks, and straw men.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

I would suggest asking questions to figure out if the person is understanding the arguments put forth. It is basic communication 101. Ask questions to clarify.

Instead many assume as soon as they see that youy have a different take that you don't get it or understand and immediately move to burn the straw man.

Sometimes a perspective that seems like a straw man really is not. There are several facets to an argument, and none of us can have them all figured out all at once. So we need to COMMUNICATE instead of assume and attack.

We need more dialogue and less debate.

Phillip


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I would suggest asking questions to figure out if the person is understanding the arguments put forth. It is basic communication 101. Ask questions to clarify.
> 
> Instead many assume as soon as they see that youy have a different take that you don't get it or understand and immediately move to burn the straw man.
> ...



Of course this will only occur if you have brotherly love and desire for unity in the church. Many folks don't have either.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

AND that is my point.



> So this means that a man who is sharpening the countenance of his _friend_ is working within a relationship based on _unconditional love_ to refine and polish who he is, how he thinks, what he says, and how he behaves. Sharpening a man´s countenance is to work to refine who he is in every part of his being. It is indeed nothing short of teaching a friend how to avoid being conformed to the world while instead teaching him to be transformed by renewing his mind in the Scriptures (Rom 12:1-2).
> 
> It is often believed that this sharpening is heated confrontation, even to the point that friends or fellow believers will offend one another in the process. But if we remember that this is all taking place within the context of a relationship based on unconditional love, then will this sharpening ever be offensive? Will it draw out the depravity in all of us? Will it hurt our pride or cause us to rear up in defensive anger toward the one sharpening us?
> 
> There is no anger here. No animosity. No pride. No condescension. No irritation. No impatience. No harshness. No rudeness. No temper, wrath, or ill esteem. Because the Word, when used rightly to disciple one another, is used in the context of a relationship built on unconditional love. There we are again, back to love.



Taken from The Difference between Discipleship and Debate


----------



## Peter (Feb 9, 2006)

I will try to be wary of this in myself. I can think of one incident recently on the PB where I misunderstood my opponent and suppose I actually committed a straw man. Interestingly the fallacy and its mis-application have the same origin, viz, ignorance and false assumptions about others views.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 9, 2006)

That's Phillip's point Peter: lets look at ourselves first before we throw out such evasive tactics at others.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 9, 2006)

> Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger


----------



## Peter (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> That's Phillip's point Peter: lets look at ourselves first before we throw out such evasive tactics at others.
> 
> [Edited on 2-10-2006 by JohnV]





Personally, I'm going to make a deliberate effort not to get embroiled in disputes over remote, high and difficult doctrines. Its a waste of my time and its presumptuous. Not that any truth of the word is unimportant though.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Peter]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I would suggest asking questions to figure out if the person is understanding the arguments put forth. It is basic communication 101. Ask questions to clarify.
> 
> Instead many assume as soon as they see that youy have a different take that you don't get it or understand and immediately move to burn the straw man.
> ...


Agreed.

We need less: 
http://www.L..us/bkick.gif

And more:


[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



I agree. The problem is that the internet lends itself to such. It is hard to "discuss" cardinal and (mostly) agreed doctrines, because of the lack of face to face dialog.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree. The problem is that the internet lends itself to such. It is hard to "discuss" cardinal and (mostly) agreed doctrines, because of the lack of face to face dialog.


Very, very true. I've stated this before. I have had to do a bit of reading on the "psychology of killing" so to speak. It is not an easy thing to do. Muskets were found in Gettysburg with 22 rounds stuffed on top of each other. Many men, while brave enough to advance, are afraid to fire and kill another man. The most feared warriors have always been those who are fearless with a blade - those with enough courage to stand and fight when another man is hacking at him. Alexander won many battles with a very disciplined force and relatively few casualties because many of the Armies he faced would crumble due to lack of discipline.

Distance, real or pyschological, makes killing another person much easier. It's easier to shoot than to stab, easier to shoot a man from 1000 yards and feel detached than at 15 yards, easier to push a button and get a report that your target is destroyed than throw a grenade into a room.

Sin is the same way. I have to remind myself that I should have the same fear of offending a brother virtually than I do with him face to face.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> I agree. The problem is that the internet lends itself to such. It is hard to "discuss" cardinal and (mostly) agreed doctrines, because of the lack of face to face dialog.



Although the Puritan Board is better than the typical Internet sites - I think due to the lack of anonymity. I'm less likely to post anything I wouldn't want my Pastor or Mom to read. Although serious disagreements and arguments may take place here, and a fair share of "straw man" arguments are still presented, there are fewer _abuse_ ad hominems.

.

:bigsmile:


----------

