Rhetoric and the Strawman strategy

[IDMclean]

Though straw-man is seen as a fallacy by many, those who have not studied logic or similar fields often use the straw-man as a legitimate argument.

 

In my high-school speech class we were taught to use the straw-man as a strength of persuasive argumentation (rhetoric).

 

In my Special Education Day-treatment (SED) time, I was taught that the use of the straw-man in conflict resolution is a tactic to draw blame (and therefore responsibility) away from one self. That is a projective method of problem differment. A hall mark of the blaming stance, and negative thinking mode.

 

Why is this strategy employed as valid in one form of argumentation, and invalid in another? Why is it when one watches politics that this would seem to be the number one strategy employed? Is, as Kriminal99 says, the straw-man an epidemic, an institutional norm, or am Kriminal and I, myself, simply making a argument that is falsely attributed and weakly (if not) supported?

 

If we are making a straw-man of a straw-man then who is it that we are attributing the false argument to?

[sebbysteiny]

I think there might be confusion as to the difference between EFFECTIVE and LOGICAL argumentation.

 

There is no doubt that using a strawman is an effective argumentative technique. But better, is it's cousin, the 'iron man' which I believe will not be found in Wikipedia since it was defined in another thread to mean setting up a weak version of the other sides argument rather than a false one.

 

The point about any pursasion is not that it pursades the immediate audience, but that it lasts at least one confrontation with the other side.

 

To do that, you must 'immunise' them against the most powerful arguments of that other side. A straw man will do, but an Iron man is best.

 

It is precisely for this reason, that most people tend to support the first side they hear rather than the most logical one. Changing people's minds is actually comparitively rare. This is why, for example, the Palestinians and Islamists make such a large effort at University Campuses. So that they can get in first and give those people the necessary immunisation to not be pursuaded by standard Israeli and Western or even moderate Islamic spokespeople.

 

The problem is, how do you pursuade somebody who has already accepted an argument to reject it? A strawman will not work because they can instantly see the fallacy [as they know what they believe]. Infact, you will trigger a defensive mechanism which may actually be counter productive. The only chance is to actually put forward the opinions of the other side fairly and rationally and then destroy them. Even if this can be done [and if it cannot, then you are on the wrong side] a defence mechanism may still be triggered.

 

For this reason, you have to be careful to be respectful to them. Communication is also a barrier in that sometimes people simply will not listen to reason.

 

So the answer is, it's much harder. Some might say, it's not even worth the effort.

 

So my conclusion is that the straw man and iron man are essential pursasion techniques that one would be negligent not to use. But in terms of logical validity, they both suck.