Abstract
Typically, philosophers consider the straw man a fallacy of relevance, inasmuch as one attacks a distorted, and hence irrelevant, version of an opponent’s argument. As some of recent work has shown, however, there is more to the problem of straw manning than the distortion of an opponent’s argument and hence more to the issue than relevance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aikin, S., & Casey, J. (2011). Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation, 25, 87–105.
CBS News, 60 Minutes. (2012). Interview with Eric Cantor. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57348499/the-majority-leader-rep-eric-cantor/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel.
Bizer, G. Y., Kozak, S. M., & Holterman, L. A. (2009). The Persuasiveness of the Straw Man Rhetorical Technique. Social Influence, 4, 216–230.
Drum, K. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009324.php.
Elliot, D. (2011). GOP splits up for weekend conferences. NPR Weekend Edition. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137265773/gop-splits-up-for-weekend-conferences.
Govier, T. (1997). A practical study of argument, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lewinksi, M. (2011). Towards a critique-friendly approach to straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation, 25, 469–497.
Ribeiro, B. (2008). How often do we (Philosophy Professors) commit the straw man fallacy? Teaching Philosophy, 31, 27–38.
Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. (2008). Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation, 20, 345–52.
Talisse, R., Raley, Y. (2008). Getting duped: how the media messes with your mind. Scientific American Mind. January/February.
Tindale, C. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkenmans, F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (2004.) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.u (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. & Houtlosser, P. (2007). The contextuality of fallacies. Informal Logic, 27, 59–67.
Laar, V., Albert, J. (2008). Room for Maneuver when raising critical doubt. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41, 195–211.
Walton, D. (1989). Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas (1996). The Straw Man Fallacy. Logic and Argumentation. Ed. Johan van.
van Bentham, J., van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Veltman, F. (1996). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, North Holland. 115–128.
Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation, 24, 283–317.
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aikin, S., Casey, J. (2015). Don’t Feed the Trolls: Straw Men and Iron Men. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21102-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21103-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)