Skip to main content
Log in

Two Forms of the Straw Man

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors identify and offer an analysis of a new form of the Straw Man fallacy, and then explore the implications of the prevalence of this fallacy for contemporary political discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  • Ackerman B., J. Fishkin: 2004, Deliberation Day. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Black K.: 2004, Idiocy! Taking Conservatives Behind The Woodshed. Authorhouse, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase S.: 1956, Guides to Straight Thinking. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E.: 1964, ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in D. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. Free Press, New York

  • Coulter A.: 2004, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). Crown Forum Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini M. X., S. Keeter: 1996, What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F., Grootendorst R. 1987, Fallacies in a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1, 283–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F., Grootendorst R. 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Franken A.: 2003, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Dutton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier T.: 1992, A Practical Study of Argument, 3 edn. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley P.: 1994, A Concise Introduction to Logic. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R., Blair A.: 1983, Logical Self-Defense, 2 edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill J. S.: 1991, On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore B. N., Parker R.: 2004, Critical Thinking, 7 edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage M.: 2005, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. Nelson Current, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Somin I. 1998, “Voter Ignorance and the Democratic Ideal. Critical Review 12(4), 413–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Teays W.: 2006, Second Thoughts: Critical Thinking for a Diverse Society. Mc Graw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon T. S., Nissen L. A.: 1968, Reflective Thinking. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D.: 1999, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.: 1996, ‘The Straw Man Fallacy’, in. J. van Bentham, F. van Eemeren, R.␣Grootendorst and F. Veltman (eds.), Logic and Argumentation. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam

  • Walton D.: 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Talisse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Talisse, R., Aikin, S.F. Two Forms of the Straw Man. Argumentation 20, 345–352 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8

Keywords

Navigation