4.2 Straw man and red herring fallacies

Straw man and red herring fallacies are common tactics used to derail arguments and debates. These logical fallacies involve misrepresenting an opponent's position or introducing irrelevant topics to distract from the main issue.

Understanding these fallacies is crucial for engaging in productive discussions and critical thinking. By recognizing and countering these tactics, we can maintain focus on the real issues at hand and have more meaningful debates.

Definition of straw man fallacy

• A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack and refute
• It is a common tactic used in debates and arguments to gain an advantage over the other side by distorting their position
• The straw man fallacy gets its name from the idea of creating a "straw man" or a fake, weaker version of the opponent's argument that can be easily knocked down

Misrepresenting opponent's argument

Top images from around the web for Misrepresenting opponent's argument

• 

  Progressive Charlestown: Single Taxing District: Threat or Hoax? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Progressive Charlestown: Single Taxing District: Threat or Hoax? View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 1

Top images from around the web for Misrepresenting opponent's argument

• 

  Progressive Charlestown: Single Taxing District: Threat or Hoax? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Progressive Charlestown: Single Taxing District: Threat or Hoax? View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 1

• The key characteristic of a straw man fallacy is that it misrepresents or exaggerates the other person's argument
• This misrepresentation can involve oversimplifying the argument, taking it out of context, or focusing on a minor point while ignoring the main issue
• The goal is to create a caricature of the opponent's position that is easier to criticize and dismiss

Attacking distorted version

• Once the straw man version of the argument has been set up, the person using the fallacy then proceeds to attack and refute this distorted representation
• They may point out flaws, inconsistencies or absurdities in the straw man argument, making it seem like they have successfully defeated their opponent's position
• However, in reality, they have only attacked a weakened, inaccurate version of the argument rather than engaging with the actual points made

Easier to defeat than real argument

• The reason the straw man fallacy is effective is that the distorted version of the argument is much easier to defeat than the real, original argument would be
• By misrepresenting the opponent's position, the person using the fallacy can avoid having to grapple with the true complexities and nuances of the issue
• This allows them to score rhetorical points and appear to come out on top, even though they haven't actually addressed the substance of the debate

Examples of straw man fallacy

In political debates

• Straw man fallacies are very common in political debates and campaigns, where candidates often seek to mischaracterize their opponent's positions
• For example, a candidate might claim their opponent wants to "take away all guns" when in fact the opponent has called for modest gun control measures like background checks
• Or a candidate could accuse their opponent of wanting "open borders" when the opponent has actually proposed a balanced approach to immigration reform

In everyday conversations

• Straw man fallacies can also crop up in everyday discussions and arguments, not just formal debates
• For instance, in a disagreement about a new policy at work, one person might say "so you think we should just let everyone do whatever they want with no rules!" when their colleague has really suggested making a few specific changes to the policy
• In an argument about household chores, a spouse could accuse their partner of "never helping out around the house" when the reality is the partner does contribute but not as much as the spouse would like

Identifying straw man fallacies

Recognizing misrepresentation

• To identify straw man fallacies, it's important to be on the lookout for signs that someone is misrepresenting or exaggerating their opponent's argument
• This might involve hyperbolic language, like saying the opponent's position is "crazy" or "extreme"
• There may also be subtle tweaks to the opponent's stated position, or quoting them out of context to change the meaning

Comparing to original argument

• One of the best ways to determine if a straw man fallacy is being used is to compare what the person claims their opponent believes to what the opponent actually said
• If there's a disconnect between the portrayed argument and the original one, it's a red flag that a straw man fallacy may be in play
• It's important to go back to the source and examine the opponent's words and position directly, not just rely on the other person's characterization

Countering straw man fallacies

Clarifying your position

• If someone uses a straw man fallacy against you, the first step in countering it is to clarify your actual position
• Restate your argument clearly and concisely, emphasizing the key points the other person overlooked or distorted
• Use phrases like "that's not quite what I said" or "let me clarify" to signal that you're correcting a misrepresentation of your view

Redirecting to actual argument

• After clarifying your position, redirect the conversation back to the actual issues at stake, not the distorted straw man version
• Point out the flaws or irrelevance of the mischaracterized argument, and emphasize the need to focus on the real, substantive disagreement
• You might say something like "the real question is..." or "let's get back to what I actually proposed" to steer the discussion back on track
• Insist on arguing in good faith, without resorting to fallacies or misrepresentations, to have a productive dialogue

Definition of red herring fallacy

• A red herring fallacy involves introducing irrelevant topics or issues into an argument in order to distract from the main point being discussed
• It gets its name from the idea of using a smelly fish (a "red herring") to throw hunting dogs off the scent of their quarry
• In debates, a red herring serves a similar purpose of leading the discussion off track and muddying the waters with unrelated points

Introducing irrelevant topics

• The key move in a red herring fallacy is to bring up a topic that seems tangentially related to the issue at hand but isn't actually relevant to the core argument
• This irrelevant topic might be an emotionally charged issue, a personal attack, or a loosely connected idea that sidetracks the conversation
• The goal is to shift focus away from the real matter being debated and onto this distracting side issue

Distracting from main issue

• By introducing a red herring, the person using the fallacy hopes to distract their opponent and the audience from the primary topic under discussion
• Instead of directly addressing the main argument, they can waste time arguing about the irrelevant issue they've raised
• This tactic derails the discussion and prevents real progress from being made in the debate, as everyone gets caught up in the red herring

Types of red herring fallacies

Appeal to emotion

• One common type of red herring is an appeal to emotion, where the irrelevant issue is designed to provoke an emotional reaction and distract from the facts
• For example, in a debate about a proposed law, someone might bring up an unrelated story about a sympathetic individual to play on the audience's emotions
• While the story might be moving, it doesn't actually address the merits of the law itself and serves only to distract

Personal attack (ad hominem)

• Another red herring tactic is to pivot from the argument to a personal attack on the opponent, known as an ad hominem fallacy
• Instead of addressing the substance of their opponent's case, the person using the fallacy will criticize their character, motives, or background
• This attack is irrelevant to whether the opponent's argument is actually correct and serves only to distract and undermine their credibility

Guilt by association

• A red herring can also involve guilt by association, where an opponent is criticized based on an alleged connection to an unpopular group or belief
• Even if the association is true, it is irrelevant to the specific argument being made and serves only to prejudice the audience
• An example would be attacking a political candidate for once belonging to a controversial organization, even if it has no bearing on their current platform

Examples of red herring fallacy

In political campaigns

• Red herring fallacies are a common dirty trick in political campaigns, where candidates often try to distract voters from their opponent's actual positions
• For instance, a candidate might bring up their opponent's messy divorce in a debate about economic policy, even though it's totally irrelevant
• Or a campaign ad could focus on an opponent's donation from an unpopular special interest group while glossing over their actual voting record

In legal arguments

• Red herrings can also be used in legal settings to throw the opposing side off balance and distract from weaknesses in a case
• A defense attorney could introduce the victim's unrelated criminal history in a trial, even if it has no bearing on the defendant's guilt or innocence in the case at hand
• The prosecution might dwell on graphic crime scene photos to provoke an emotional reaction, even if they don't prove any of the substantive points they need to make their argument

Identifying red herring fallacies

Recognizing topic shifts

• To spot red herring fallacies, look out for abrupt, seemingly random shifts in the topic of discussion
• If points are being raised that don't seem directly relevant to the core argument, it could be a sign that a red herring is being introduced
• Be especially wary of moves from logical arguments to emotional appeals, personal attacks, or vague associations

Assessing relevance to main point

• The key question to ask when identifying a red herring is: does this point actually address the central claim being debated?
• If the answer is no, and the issue seems tangential or entirely unrelated, it's likely a red herring fallacy
• You can also try mentally deleting the suspected red herring from the discussion - if the main argument is unaffected, that's a sign it was an irrelevant distraction

Countering red herring fallacies

Staying focused on central argument

• To counter a red herring, the most important thing is to stay laser-focused on the actual argument at hand
• Don't take the bait and let yourself get dragged into a debate over the irrelevant issue - keep steering the conversation back to the real point you were discussing
• Use phrases like "that's not really relevant to what we were talking about" or "I think we're getting off topic" to gently but firmly call out the red herring

Calling out irrelevant distractions

• In addition to staying focused yourself, point out to the audience how the red herring is irrelevant and distracting from the real issue
• Explain how the point being raised doesn't actually address the core argument and is a misleading attempt to dodge the question at hand
• You might say something like "whether or not that's true, it doesn't change the fact that..." or "I don't see how that bears on the real issue of..."
• By explicitly calling out the red herring, you can help others recognize it and refocus on the substantive debate

Straw man vs red herring fallacies

Misrepresentation vs distraction

• While straw man and red herring fallacies are both ways of avoiding arguing in good faith, they use different tactics to do so
• A straw man involves misrepresenting the opponent's argument itself, by distorting it into a more easily attacked form
• A red herring, by contrast, involves introducing a whole new irrelevant topic to distract from the opponent's actual argument without directly misrepresenting it

Attacking distorted argument vs changing subject

• In a straw man fallacy, the person using it still appears to be engaging with their opponent's argument, but they're really attacking a distorted version of it
• With a red herring, the person doesn't even pretend to still be addressing the original argument - they just change the subject to an unrelated issue
• The straw man stays within the general domain of the original argument, while the red herring wanders off to a totally different topic

Impact of fallacies on debates

Derailing productive discussion

• Both straw man and red herring fallacies can have a very negative impact on the quality of debates and discussions
• By misrepresenting arguments or introducing irrelevant issues, they prevent meaningful engagement with the actual points of disagreement
• This can quickly derail a productive conversation and lead it into a frustrating tailspin of talking past each other

Misleading audiences

• Fallacies are also problematic because they can mislead audiences who may not pick up on the flawed reasoning being used
• Especially in formats like political debates or legal arguments, listeners may come away with an inaccurate view of the issues if they aren't attuned to the fallacies being employed
• The "winner" of a debate can appear to be the one who used fallacies most effectively, not the one with the most valid position

Avoiding use of fallacies

Arguing in good faith

• To keep discussions and debates on track, it's important for everyone involved to commit to arguing in good faith
• This means truly working to understand the other side's position, representing it accurately, and addressing it directly with relevant points
• It also means being willing to concede when the other side makes a strong argument, rather than stubbornly sticking to your guns

Focusing on facts and logic

• Avoiding fallacies also requires staying rooted in facts and logic, rather than appeals to emotion or personal attacks
• The goal should be to rationally make your case and evaluate the other side's argument, not to "win" by any means necessary
• By sticking to the actual issues and assessing them critically and objectively, debaters can avoid the temptation to engage in fallacies