It's called a "strawman" because a dummy made of straw is easy to knock over. And metaphorically, that's what you're doing with a "strawman argument": you're not attacking the position, you're creating a weak replica of the position that's easier to beat. One simple example of this would be: A. You argue that our country should spend less on the military. B. I counter that you want to abolish 100% of military spending. You want our country to be weak, our people to be helpless and the fate of the world left to dictators and thugs. Now, maybe that is what you think. It's not what you said. The reason I'm acting like you said that is that it's a much more extreme view—and one that you're probably going to find a lot more difficult to defend. Thus, I've made a strawman argument. More on reddit.com

Welcome to r/askphilosophy ! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting. Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s). Want to become a panelist? Check out this post . Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit. Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com

A strawman is a distorted version of someone's actual argument. Someone makes a strawman in order to purposely destroy it, and then they act like they beat the actual argument the strawman came from. It's like if an argument was a boxing match, but instead of fighting the other guy, you made a scarecrow based on him and then gloated when it fell apart. Except you didn't actually win, because you weren't actually fighting the guy. Here's an example. Alice: "We should get a dog, not a cat." Bob: "Why do you hate cats?" It's super simplistic, but you can see how Bob skewed what Alice was saying. Instead of engaging with whatever reasoning she might have, Bob is arguing as if Alice said "I hate cats." The fake argument ("I hate cats") is a strawman. Edit: It's also worth noting that we've all unintentionally made a strawman somewhere in our lives - it's just another logical fallacy the brain gets into. However, it's also entirely possible to intentionally and maliciously strawman an opponent's argument to manipulate people into siding with you. EDIT 2: Holy shit, this blew up. Thanks for the awards, y'all. Also, a couple things: My example's not very good. For better examples of people using strawmen in the wild, look for any debate surrounding the "War on Christmas." It goes something like this: Charlie: "We should put 'Happy Holidays' on our merchandise because it's more inclusive than 'Merry Christmas.'" David: "I can't believe Christmas is offensive to you now!!" Hopefully this example better illustrates what an actual strawman might look like. Note how David has distorted Charlie's argument from "because it's inclusive" to "because I'm offended." I've also been getting a few replies about strawmanning and gaslighting. They are not the same, but they are related. Gaslighting is a form of abuse where the abuser twists the victim's sense of reality, making the victim question their perception, their reasoning, and even their sanity. Strawman arguments can certainly be used as a gaslighter's tactic, but strawmen are a logical fallacy and gaslighting is a type of abuse. More on reddit.com

Ad Hominem is always my favorite one. When you are arguing or debating with someone and they resort to your character instead of addressing the subject brought to them. Or are you looking for actual in life examples? More on reddit.com