Arguing the "Straw Man"

In any debate, two sides argue from two points of view. However, for the debate to be meaningful, the argument must be about the same topic. As such, in order to undermine an opponent's argument, nefarious arguers will try to manipulate the topic, rather than improving their underlying logic.

There are several ways to do this. The most straightforward, and not a logical fallacy itself, is arguing about how to frame the discussion: framing the debate is a threshold issue. However, when the topic itself is co-opted by one side, anything argued by that side thereafter is fallacious, because it does not flow from state premises.

One way of doing this is to argue against a position not taken by your opponent. That is the straw man:

Arguing against a distorted, exaggerated, conclusory, or manufactured position.

The name probably derives from the fighting a man of straw is easier than fighting a real one. But the concept is: if you can frame your opponent's position, you can make him appear foolish while attacking him (and not his arguments). As such, a straw man is a type of ad homenim ("against the person") attack -- I'll write about that one soon.

The employment setting is ripe for straw man arguments. Often employees feel wronged but are unable to articulate why. Similarly, employers just want to get the job done, and so they can easily overlook employee's legitimate needs. Whenever we find ourselves arguing as if the other side had state a position, its important to go back and see what exactly they are saying. On the other hand, being aware of this type of error will prevent the issues being co-opted which can easily misled a busy third party (like the court!).