Argument Analysis On Straw Man Argument

A Straw man argument is a version of an argument then is easier to attack. Just as a man made of straw is a less solid version then a man made a flesh, a Straw man argument is a less solid version of a fully fleshed out argument. A straw man replaces or represents what ever actual argument is being made. The Straw man argument can come in many forms and some time is not even intional. People may accidental construct and Straw man argument if they don 't fully understand the depth of the subject or argument at hand. A Straw man argument can also be made initially to discredit or misrepresent an argument. Tactics like taking nuance point out of context, ignore crucial information, and even taking claims to the point of absurdity can derail an argument to the point of yelling.
Straw man argument are quite commonly use in debates to attack one 's idea and mislead the audience. For example the statement “My opponent is trying to convince you that we evolved from monkeys who were swinging from trees; a truly ludicrous claim.” Misrepresents the ideas that evolution claims, which states that humans and amps shared a common ancestor. In misrepresenting the argument the idea become much easy to knock over and argue. …show more content…
By taking a page for the Black and White fallacy a speaker can create ludicrous assumption which can be easy or tricky to ruft. Extremes such as "All A are B" and "No A are B" can be easily refuted, since all it takes is a single counterexample is deconstruct the extreme position. The other Straw man argument that is significantly more difficult to refute are when someone takes the position "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B". To Try and combat these positions requires that both extremes: "No A are B" or "All A are B", are refuted