The Fallacious Straw Man Argument

A straw man is based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Let's call the straw man user person B and the opponent person A. Person A's actual proposition is replaced by Person B with a similar sounding proposition that is actually different. This modified proposition is then refuted by Person B even though it was never proposed by Person A.

To test that we have identified a Straw Man argument we need to look for three things... We need a starting proposition presented by person A a modified version of the proposition from person B and a refutation of the modified proposition by person B

Examples from a religion discussion board…

	Starting Proposition from Person A	Modified version of the proposition from person B	Refutation of the modified proposition by person B	Straw Man?	Explanation
a	To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.	Nobody is claiming that the evidence at this point leads to the Judaeo/Christian understanding of God.	Your conclusion is therefore wrong.	Yes	Person B has modified the original premise provided by Person A by implying that Person A is arguing against the "Judaeo/Christian understanding of God". Person A made no such claim.
b	If God is unchanging then God can't do anything. God is already everything that God could ever be. In which case, there's no potential (and there will never have been any potential) for God to be able to act or be in any way different from what God is now or was in the past.	Who claims that God doesn't change His mind and opts to do something new or different?	You are offering a false dichotomy and a false "either or" choice	Yes	Person B is providing a modified version of the proposition from person A. Person B has constructed an argument about God changing His mind which was never made. Person B then refutes his own modified version of Person A's argument
c	There's a fascinating hypothesis for the nature of our universe which has come from development in the words created in computer games and there is evidence to support it.	I welcome your admission that intelligent creation is part and parcel of our human experience and the indirect admission that such plays a part in the creation of our universe!	Please ask me for further details regarding such--thanks!	Yes	Person B has provided what he claims is an "admission" from Person A which Person A has never made. He then goes on to sarcastically agree with a statement that was never made.
d	It's hard to tell if religion came first because recorded history only begins 6000 years ago and humans have been around for 200,000 years. But I think it's fair to say that religion is an evolutionary phase that humanity goes through. It's how stone age and bronze age people explained the universe.	Whatever scientific errors those "stone age" people may have made, at least they recognized the reality of the spiritual dimension and the fact that there is more to reality than mindless mechanistic forces.	Those who make "science" their religion fail to understand its limits as a human tool in approaching the totality of reality.	Yes	Person B has given a proposition regarding scientific errors which was never made by Person A. Person B then goes on to refute an argument about science that was created by Person B - not Person A
e	Religious arguments have to be inductive. And the appeal to emotion is of course very powerful.	You aren't appealing to inductive reasoning at all!	You may appear to be doing so by subtly appealing to overall prejudice against what you refer to as a "religious" viewpoint while exempting your own "religious" viewpoint form those same standards--such standards being necessary for a rational discussion here!	Yes	Person A is making a point that religious arguments have to be inductive (as opposed to deductive). Person B then refutes an argument about Person A not using inductive arguments – something which person A never claimed to be doing.
f	If God revealed himself gradually to ancient civilizations, why did he stop all revelation 2000 years ago with the Bible. It seems more likely that God continually reveals himself to us as we evolve in our ability to understand his overall plan. Such evolution is probably never complete.	This is where we arrive at the point which makes the false claim that because Christians disagree on specific matters that Scripture is rendered meaningless	The opposite is true. Christians are applying consistent, God-given values--those being to love God wholeheartedly and others as ourselves--and applying that fixed standard to changing circumstances.	Yes	Person A makes a point about the concept of “Salvation History” - specifically, why would it just stop 2000 years ago. Person B then refutes an argument about the Bible being meaningless. But Person A made no such suggestion.
g	Observing the differences between Christianity and Islam, who supposedly follow the same God, made me realise the flaws in Christian scripture.	Your great peace-loving religion believes it is fine to kill infidels, that is all persons of the Islam faith who convert to Christianity. It is a specific verse. I don't have a copy of your Quran so I can't give a complete citation.	Perhaps there are "flaws in" Islam scripture?	Yes	Person A (a pantheist) notes differences between Christianity and Islam. Person B then refutes an argument about Person A's Islamic faith and Islam in general (as well as confusing the word “infidel” for “apostate”). However, Person A never claimed to be a Muslim.
h	There's good reason to think objective morality does not exist and the closest we can get to it is to understand that there are actions that are either good or bad for society. That does seem to be the benchmark that we all use, even if we do so subconsciously.	A counter claim would have to make the case that one's religious views have absolutely no impact on one's life and decisions and moral responses, which is exactly what Person A is claiming.	There is no way to rationally justify such.	Yes	Person B has provided a “counter-claim” which has not been proposed by anyone and does not have to be made at all. Person B claims this is exactly what person A is claiming. But Person A has said nothing about religious views and how they may affect morality. Person B then refutes the proposition he has invented.
i	I don't reject the existence of any gods. I consider the existence of gods to be extremely unlikely, given the lack of evidence and the weakness of the arguments by those making the claim. But gods could indeed exist.	I'm interested in why and on what basis you conclude with 80-95+% surety that god/s doesn't/don't exist	I'm not interested in whatever loophole you give yourself on the issue
j	You have provided no strong evidence for "intelligent creation" and you refer to a theory which is the "default" position but you don't explain what the theory is.	You're the one asking us to believe that a universe creates itself without intelligence, and to consider that the "default" position	and that is all you can offer to explain your perspective.

Incorrect attribution of the Straw Man

The term "straw man" is often misused by people who don't understand the concept (or trolls!) when it is applied to a statement they don't agree with. For an argument to be labelled "straw man" it has to pass three tests: 

(1) a starting proposition presented by person A 

(2) a modified version of the proposition from person B and 

(3) a refutation of the modified proposition by person B 

Some examples of the incorrect straw man claim...

	Statement from Person A	Response from Person B	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Explanation
1	It's the argument from which all religions spawned. That cave is a good shelter. I can make shelters. Something much bigger and more intelligent and stronger than me must have made that cave. And I didn't see them do it. Probably invisible. I bet it lives in the sky. And that cave keeps me warm so they probably made it for me. Must care for me... let's call it God	This is a straw man. Begins with a false premise and continues with such.	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person A has provided a proposition suggesting the origin of religions. Person B feels the proposition is based on a false premise, but that doesn't make it a fallacious straw man.
6	Intelligent Design aims to demonstrate that the theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong because certain aspects of the natural world could not have evolved naturally.	Some may argue so, and of course the theory of evolution need not be sacrosanct and beyond critique, but ID need not reference evolution at all, therefore you are using a fallacious straw man argument.	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person A is providing an opinion which Person B disagrees with. Person B explains why he disagrees. There is no fallacious straw man argument. It is merely a difference of opinion.
7	You are wrong to assert that the common moral frame of reference is based on fixed values. The values evolve. However it is possible that they are evolving towards a universal standard.	False claims not backed up by any logical perspective. Therefore you are using a fallacious straw man argument.	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person A is providing an opinion which Person B disagrees with. Even if Person A's claim is false, it is not a fallacious straw man argument.
13	We now have an agreed definition. Unfortunately, you still haven't grasped the meaning.	Your statement is a straw man	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person A proposes that Person B has not understood the meaning of an argument. Person B obviously disagrees. However, Person a has not used a fallacious straw man argument.
14	It seems we agree [with a previous proposition]	If you claim I made any agreement of the sort, you are making a straw man argument	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person A has assumed agreement between both parties on a statement, but Person B claims there is no such agreement. This is a difference of opinion, and it's possible Person A made a false assumption, but that doesn't make it a straw man
15	You have used a blogger's opinion to support your argument, whilst contradicting what the blogger said by providing your own non-sequitur and then providing another link which contradicts your original argument.	You are accusing me of not following logical conclusions based on the evidence I provide, step by step, including with further references to such. Therefore you are using a straw man argument	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person B thinks Person A is accusing him of not following logical conclusions. Person B could accuse Person A's proposition of being wrong or inaccurate or misleading, but it is not a fallacious straw man argument
16	Atheism cannot explain anything because it is not the kind of thing that provides explanations [This was in response to the claim that “atheism cannot explain the existence of moral values and obligations”]	The issue isn't whether atheism can "explain" morality--the issue is whether atheism offers an objective basis for such. You are using a Straw Man argument	Pass	Fail	Fail	Person A responded to the statement that atheism cannot explain the existence of moral values by explaining  that atheism cannot explain anything. A straw man requires a proposition to be modified, then refuted after modification. But there was no modification. Person B claims that the issue is not whether atheism can explain morality. But that’s exactly what the issue is. That is exactly the statement that person A was responding to. So ironically, not only has Person B mistakenly claimed Person A used a straw man argument Person B has created a straw man argument in the process!
	When it comes to morality, atheists are no different to any other human being. There is no ethical statement or action performed by a believer, that could not have been performed by a non-believer.	It was never claimed that there was an ethical statement or action performed by a believer, that could not have been performed by a non-believer.  This is a misrepresentation of the Christian viewpoint therefore it is a straw man..	Fail	Fail	Fail	Person A makes a statement to demonstrate his opinion that atheists are no different to any other human when it comes to morality.  Person A says this statement is a misrepresentation of the Christian viewpoint. But Person A didn’t present it as if it was a Christian viewpoint and Person A did not modify a proposition in order to refute it. So Person A has not used a straw man argument – he’s given his opinion which Person B obviously doesn’t like.   But that doesn’t make it a straw man.
	There is a strong argument that free will is an illusion. For some reason, Christian Apologists see this concept as some kind of threat to belief in God. (I don't know why).	A favorite tactic in many of your tautologies is to poison the well by pretending that whatever viewpoint opposed to yours sees your position as a "threat" or is "angry" rather than simply seeking or stating the truth. Your representation is a straw man.	Fail	Fail	Fail	Person A has provided a proposition suggesting Christian Apologists feel that belief in God is threatened by assuming free will is an illusion. Person B feels the proposition is wrong, but that doesn't make it a fallacious straw man. Person B also claims the statement from person A is an example of a tautology (which it isn't), and also of poisoning the well (which it doesn't) so it's bizarre to then also claim it's a straw man!
	The Bible is a very human book. It was written, assembled, copied and translated by people. That explains the flaws, the contradictions, and the theological disagreements in its pages. Once that is understood, it is possible to find out which parts of the Bible were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, which are the bad translations, and what one book says in comparison to another, and then try to discern the message for yourself.	A nice way to sum up a claim entirely through insinuations. False premises leading to false conclusions, as we know, means you are using a fallacious straw man argument.	Fail	Fail	Fail	Person A has provided a proposition suggesting the Bible was create by human beings and is therefore not inerrant.In fact the proposition describes a standard method of Biblical analysis used by historians. Person B disagrees with the proposition, but that doesn't make it a fallacious straw man.  There is no modified proposition of an argument from Person B and no refutation.