Straw man. Fallacy of establi****ng a position, claiming it is the
opponent=92s position, and then attacking it, when it is not in fact the
opponent=92s position at all. [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let
Us Reason : An Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. :
Baker Book House, 1990, S. 194]
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme
version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument
they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into
somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't
actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled
version of argumentum ad logicam. [Glen Whitman, Associate Professor;
California State University, Northridge]
Straw man. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position
in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this
misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real
position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the
position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that
which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is
untouched by it. [Tim Holt; http://www.logicalfallacies.info/]
Straw man. A Straw Man occurs when an opponent takes the original
argument of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or
straw man, version of the original argument; "knocks down" the straw
man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name
implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc.) -- and
thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/
answered the original argument. [Dr. Charles Ess; A Database of
Informal Fallacies; 1987]
Straw man. The author attacks an argument different from (and weaker
than) the opposition's best argument. [Stephen=92s Guide To Logical
Fallacies; http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm]
Straw man. You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an
easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent
wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted
position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position.
If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is
caused by lying. [James Fieser, Ph.D. & Bradley Dowden, Ph.D.;
California State University, Sacramento]
Straw man. Directing the argument against a claim that nobody actually
holds or that everyone agrees is very weak. [Rise Axelrod & Charles
Cooper; The Concise Guide to Writing; Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005]
Straw man. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. [Madsen Pirie; How to Win
Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic; UK: Continuum
International Publi****ng Group, 2007]
Red herring (diverting the issue). Rather than proving the point, this
fallacy simply evades the question by changing the subject, then
proceeding as if the point had been made. Often the other topic bears
a superficial resemblance to the one being discussed. Don=92t let that
fool you! If no proof is given, there is no reason to accept the
argument. [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let Us Reason : An
Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book
House, 1990]
Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing
irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to
higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof
over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this
question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response
to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There
is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.) [Glen
Whitman, Associate Professor; California State University, Northridge]
Red herring. The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a
logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when
a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by
introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating,
and effective, fallacies to observe. [Tim Holt;
http://www.logicalfallacies.=
info/]
Red herring. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the
subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some
side-point; for instance, =93Senator Jones should not be held
accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other
senators who have done far worse things.=94 [Dr. L. Kip Wheeler; Carson-
Newman College]
Red herring. A "red herring" argument is one which distracts the
audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some
irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at
least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By
extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion. [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/]
Red herring. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic
is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
basic idea is to =93win=94 an argument by leading attention away from the
argument and to another topic. [Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere; Florida A&M
University]
Red herring. A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a
bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the
track of considering only relevant information. Example: Will the new
tax in Senate Bill 47 unfairly hurt business? One of the provisions of
the bill is that the tax is higher for large employers (fifty or more
employees) as opposed to small employers (six to forty-nine
employees). To decide on the fairness of the bill, we must first
determine whether employees who work for large employers have better
working conditions than employees who work for small employers.
Bringing up the issue of working conditions is the red herring.
[Bradley Dowden; California State University, Sacramento]
Red herring . Ignoring criticism of an argument by changing attention
to another subject. Examples: "You believe in abortion, yet you don't
believe in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the
legislature." [Dr. J. P. Craig; University Of Iowa]
|
