Premise

So you want to avoid the infamous “Strawman.” But who exactly is he? A grass-stuffed dude in a cornfield? A brainless sidekick who helps you navigate toward the Wizard of Oz? Or is he simply just a hypothetical figure to set-up an easy-to-knock down argument?

For our purposes, he is the latter of these characters. Simply put: a Strawman is a vague identification of a counterargument. The fallacy part is the fact that because this point of view is presented so weakly, that it’s seemingly easy for you to knock-down (i.e., like a real life man made from straw). Thus is the illusion of rebutting an alternate viewpoint accomplished.

So why is he a problem then, and what can you do to avoid him?

Examples

As discussed in our article on “How to Incorporate Counterarguments,” a stronger argument is often one that acknowledges alternate viewpoints in order to make a better case for its own purpose. We know this axiom intuitively. Just look at these two “arguments” levied towards a professor by a pair of students:

Student One: “Your homework sucks. You shouldn’t give us so much when we’re busy with midterms for other classes.”

Student Two: “While I understand the purpose of for the homework via our classroom discussions, I do think that certain assignments could be reconsidered—whether shifted, reduced, or removed—when students are often overwhelmed during other courses’ midterms.”

Obviously, the second version sounds more concrete, credible, and therefore, effective. Whether or not your professor decides to accept your premise, you’ve probably put yourself in a much better position for success via more specific claims, explanations, and compromises.

The same applies to Strawman Fallacies. Say, for example, that you’re writing a researched argument paper (or just making an argument) about why the U.S. Federal Government should have stronger gun control. Obviously, it would make sense to identify both sides of the debate. Why? Well, let’s take a look at two sample student excerpts.

Strawman Fallacy:

Some might argue that the government having more power to regulate guns is unconstitutional. But this viewpoint ignores the fact that the government’s main purpose is to protect its people. In fact, that’s the whole point of the Constitution. Can we honestly say that they are doing their job when 83,000 people are injured by gun violence every year (“Fast Facts 2025”)?

Edited via a Realperson Counterargument:

Many opponents (often those in high political offices) argue that the government having more control over guns is unconstitutional. Just take Texas Congressman, Johnny Goodwill, who said at a recent rally in Fort Worth that “Any regulation of our second amendment rights by the government is too much regulation. The constitution is unambiguous on this” (Jackson). While broad in his claim but emphatic in his rhetoric, the fact is that this sentiment is supported by a large segment of American politicians. According to a survey conducted just last year, “3 out of 10 congresspeople are against large-scale increases in governmental oversight of firearm purchases” and “this number rises to nearly 5 out of 10 when considering any (even minor) changes to improve such regulations” (Smith). And as Congress is inherently representative of their constituent populations, these opinions must be reflective of such citizens’ viewpoints. Unsurprisingly, a survey by the U.S. Statistics Institute found that “4 out of 10 Americans believe generally that the second amendment rights should not be infringed upon by the government” (Donavan 67).

But while those like Congressman Goodwill often tout the Constitution’s alleged “unambiguous” claims on gun regulation, the preceding part of this founding document also states its purpose to “promote the general Welfare” of the nation (“Justice Docs”). In fact, that’s the whole point of the Constitution. Can we honestly say that they are doing their job in this regard when 83,000 people are injured by gun violence every year (“Fast Facts 2025”)?

And none of this even addresses the actual language of the second amendment—which itself, ironically mentions “regulation” as a key element of this stipulation. Consider that…

For the sake of not making you read the whole paper here, we cut off the end. But hopefully, you get the point. Let’s compare the two paragraphs—and discuss this infamous Strawman:

Obviously the second version is a much clearer and convincing argument. It’s longer too, but that’s because complex ideas require complex breakdowns of their constituent parts.

The first one manifests our “Strawman” because, well, who is really making the argument here? The answer might seem obvious to the writer (especially if they know all the behind the scenes data, quotes, and further context from the second example). But how to we (i.e., the audience) know this? The answer is that we don’t—or more accurately, we might not. At least not all of us. This is why crafting strong counterarguments (and avoiding the Strawman) is such an important exercise in audience awareness, and ultimately eliciting a more compelling argument.

Further Considerations

• It’s okay to identify that there’s a general alternative viewpoint on a topic—but it must be quickly clarified and elaborated upon in terms of offering the reality behind who actually believes whatever you’re claiming as a counterargument.
  • E.g., it’s not necessarily the end of the world to state, “Many students feel…” in identifying an argument about why the your campus dining services need to provide better food. But how do we know that “many students feel” this way? Are there quoted examples of students expressing these concerns? How do we know that these concerns are representative of a larger consensus among the student body? Are there more quotes, polls, statistics, etc. to corroborate this claim?
  • Again, see our full article on “How to Incorporate Counterarguments,” for a full breakdown of this process!
• Remember, part of the challenge here is that there are different types of counterarguments. E.g., direct counterarguments, indirect counterarguments, alternative solutions, etc. Each version requires its own considerations and attention to detail to adequately address. The article linked above can help you to identify which version you’re really dealing with—and exactly how to handle it.
• Yes, sometimes de-strawing the Strawman takes time. Like the paragraph examples above, you might even need additional paragraphs to fully accomplish this goal. But that’s a good thing. Not only will your work be more effective, but it will be more interesting for your audience to read (and ideally for you to write!).