, 25:469 | Cite as

Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation

  • Marcin LewińskiEmail author


In this article I address the following question: When are reformulations in argumentative criticisms reasonable and when do they become fallacious straw men? Following ideas developed in the integrated version of pragma-dialectics, I approach argumentation as an element of agonistic exchanges permeated by arguers’ strategic manoeuvring aimed at effectively defeating the opponent with reasonable means. I propose two basic context-sensitive criteria for deciding on the reasonableness of reformulations: precision of the rules for interpretation (precise vs. loose) and general expectation of cooperativeness (critical vs. constructive). On the basis of analysis of examples taken from online political discussions, I argue that in some contexts, especially those that are critical and loose, what might easily be classified as a straw man following conventional treatment should be taken as a harsh, yet reasonable, strategic argumentative criticism.


Argumentation Fallacies Online deliberation Pragma-dialectics Strategic manoeuvring The straw man fallacy 



Parts of earlier versions of the paper were presented at the International Conference “Logic, Argumentation and Critical Thinking”, University Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile, 8–11 January 2008; Research Colloquium of the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 18 September 2009; and 10th Amsterdam-Lugano Colloquium on Argumentation Theory, University of Lugano, Switzerland, 27–28 November 2009. I would like to thank participants to these events, as well as Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Dima Mohammed, Steve Oswald, Andrea Rocci, João Sàágua, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans and two anonymous referees for Argumentation for their numerous comments, criticisms and suggestions. Completion of the paper was possible thanks to two grants of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): PTDC/FIL–FIL/10117/2009 and SFRH/BPD/74541/2010.


  1. Adler, J.E. 1994. Fallacies and alternative interpretations. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72(3): 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, J.E. 1996. Charity, interpretation, fallacy. Philosophy and Rhetoric 29(4): 329–343.Google Scholar
  3. Aikin, S.F., and J. Casey. 2011. Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation 25(1): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Bizer, G.Y., S.M. Kozak, and L.A. Holterman. 2009. The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique. Social Influence 4(3): 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. 1973. Radical interpretation. Dialectica 27(3–4): 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doury, M. 2006. Evaluating analogy: Toward a descriptive approach to argumentative norms. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser and M.A. van Rees, 35–49. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Frege, G. 1980. On sense and reference. In Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (trans: Black, M.), ed. P. Geach and M. Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell (Original work published 1892).Google Scholar
  10. Govier, T. 1987. A new approach to charity. In Problems in argument analysis and evaluation, 133–158. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  11. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (trans: Burger, T.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962).Google Scholar
  13. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, H.V. 2002. The straw thing of fallacy theory: The standard definition of ‘fallacy’. Argumentation 16(2): 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson, S. 1992. “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argumentation illuminated, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, S. 1995. Fallacies and heuristics. In Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, vol. II, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 257–269. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobs, S. 2002. Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy: Some dialectical and rhetorical considerations. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser and M.A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Janney, R.W. 2002. Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language & Communication 22(4): 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair. 1994. Logical self-defense, US ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Kotthoff, H. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22(2): 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levinson, S.C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, ed. P. Drew and J. Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Original work published 1979).Google Scholar
  25. Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mansbridge, J. 1999. Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, ed. S. Macedo, 211–242. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morency, P., S. Oswald, and L. de Saussure. 2008. Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic approach. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 197–219.Google Scholar
  28. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis, ed. J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Scriven, M. 1976. Reasoning. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 1992. Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  32. Talisse, R., and S.F. Aikin. 2006. Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation 20(3): 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1987. Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic manoeuvring: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2003. Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 289–292. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  40. van Eemeren, F.H, and Houtlosser, P. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, ed. D. Hitchcock, 75–84. Hamilton.Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, C. Ihnen, and M. Lewiński. 2010. Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument ed. C. Reed and C. Tindale, 115–132. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  43. van Laar, J.A. 2008. Room for maneuver when raising critical doubt. Philosophy and Rhetoric 41(3): 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Rees, M.A. 1992. The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1): 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Rees, M.A. 2001. Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 165–199. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Walton, D.N. 1996. The straw man fallacy. In Logic and argumentation, ed. J. van Benthem, F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, and F. Veltman, 115–128. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  47. Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  48. Walton, D.N., and F. Macagno. 2010. Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation 24(3): 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, D. 1994. Relevance and understanding. In Language and understanding, ed. G. Brown, et al., 35–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, S. (forthcoming). From “third place” to “Third Space”: Everyday political talk in non-political online spaces.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language (IFL)Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations