Politics and the Straw Man

In terms of political debate, the Straw Man argument is one of the oldest examples of a fallacious argument. In essence, it is the act of exaggerating the point of one’s opponent, then defeating the exaggerated argument. It is likened to replacing your opponent with a scarecrow, attacking and beating scarecrow, and then making it look as though you somehow won. For those of you in my audience, you will want to pay attention for this kind of fallacious argument, since it is easily the most common in debates over an emotive subject. That is to say, it is an argument used to reinforce the beliefs of one’s own party against another rather than actually convince a reasonable opponent. I personally dislike the straw man because it makes a mockery of ordered debate, and so I hope to enlighten people of his existence, that he may be more easily rendered silent. 

Let’s have an example of a straw man. Mr. A says “We need to have lower prices for college fees, since not every student can afford the current one”. Mr. B responds with “What, free fees for everyone? We could never afford that!” Mr. A never suggested that the fees should be free, nor should lower prices be extended to every single student beyond the ones who can’t afford it. However, it is easier to beat a straw man than a real one, so Mr. B replaces the “Cheap fees” with “Free Fees”. This is what’s known as a non sequitur, a deviation from the argument resulting in an invalid remark. This is the nature of politics these days though, anyone with a few long words in their vocabulary thinks they can argue.

 

So, this is just one hypothetical example, how could this possibly relate to real life? Well, Independent Senator Ronan Mullen said in the Senate with all seriousness that allowing women to choose abortions where the child is suffering from fatal foetal abnormality would lead to women terminating pregnancies where the child is merely disabled, and (This man is an elected official) the demise of the Special Olympics. This is a blatant straw man, because nobody had ever suggested the possibility of terminations being allowed for foetus with disabilities. In fact, Ronan Mullen was discussing a law which could possibly be passed off the back of this law five or ten years down the line. This is non sequitur, a brilliant answer for a question that nobody asked, and a response full of sound and fury for a cause nobody asked him to fight. Like I said, it seems these days anybody thinks they can argue, and anybody who thinks they can argue can become a politician.