Skip to content
Don't Feed the TrollsGet help

Strawmanning

Also written: straw man, strawman

Refuting a weakened or invented version of someone's argument instead of the one they actually made.

Escalation:
Classic reactive
Type:
Rhetorical

Where the term comes from

Long-standing vocabulary in rhetoric, and lexicographic today: Merriam-Webster carries the argumentative sense quoted below, alongside a separate sense for a person used as cover in a transaction.

Whose definition this is

The one-line summary above is ours. The definition it compresses comes from a named source, quoted in full and linked below — where the two differ, the source is what counts. Everything else on this page that states a fact is sourced.

Merriam-Webster defines a straw man as a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted. [1]

The version that works as a tactic tends to add one thing: the weakened argument is more objectionable than the real one, so answering it costs you something even when you win.

A note on the other straw man

If you look the phrase up you will find a second, unrelated meaning, and it is worth separating them so the metaphor does not get muddled. Merriam-Webster's second sense is a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. [2] A front rather than a fallacy: a person standing in for whoever is really behind something.

There is a small curiosity attached. The dictionary dates the first known use of straw man to 1840, and attaches that date to the cover-person sense rather than the argument one. [3] So the entry does not tell you how old the rhetorical meaning is, and neither will this page.

Why it works

Refuting the real argument is hard. Refuting a version of it that nobody holds is easy, and a reader arriving late has no way to tell which one was on offer — they see a position, and they see it demolished.

It also transfers the burden. You now have to establish what you actually said before you can return to arguing for it, and that is unglamorous work performed in front of an audience that has already heard the exciting version.

What it looks like

  • "So what you're saying is…" followed by something you did not say
  • A qualified claim restated without its qualifications
  • An example you gave treated as the whole of your position
  • The most extreme reading of an ambiguous sentence, presented as the obvious one
  • Your argument merged with a worse argument made by someone else

The honest difficulty

This is an easy label to reach for too quickly, and worth being careful with.

Sometimes a restatement that feels unfair is simply an accurate reading you did not intend. Sometimes an implication you did not notice really does follow. And "that's a straw man" is itself a convenient way to avoid an uncomfortable but faithful summary of your view.

One thing worth trying is simply offering the accurate version and seeing what happens to it. It is not decisive — someone can defend a genuine misreading stubbornly — but a correction that is ignored rather than engaged with tells you something about what the exchange is for.

What to do

Restate, don't complain. "What I said was X" is stronger than "that's a straw man", because it puts the real claim back in front of the audience instead of starting a dispute about labels.

Do it once. If the corrected version is ignored and the weakened one comes back unchanged, you have learned what you are going to learn from this exchange. That is not a verdict on the other person's intent, which you cannot see — it is a fact about how much further the conversation is likely to get.

Notice who it is addressed to. A version that comes back unchanged after correction is not really being said to you, since you have already answered it. Whatever you say next is for the people reading, and should be short.

Not the same as

Misunderstanding someone
People misread each other constantly and without malice. The difference is what happens when you correct it — a misunderstanding is dropped, a straw man is defended or restated.
Drawing out an implication
Saying "doesn't that commit you to X?" is legitimate and often useful. It becomes a straw man when X is then treated as something you said rather than something you were asked about.

Responding at this level

Disengagement still usually works, but the pull to answer is much stronger because the bait is now personal. This is where knowing the pattern by name does most of its work.

  • Don't feed the trolls →

    Declining to reply, so that provocation produces no reaction and no audience. The most repeated advice on the internet, and among the least examined.

  • The grey rock method →

    Responding in a deliberately neutral, minimal and emotionally flat way, so that provoking you stops producing anything worth having.

Others at this level

  • Ad hominem baiting — Attacking the person so the reply becomes self-defence rather than argument.
  • Tone policing — Rejecting a point because of how it was said, converting the subject into the speaker's manner.

Sources

Last checked . Each quote below is verified against an archived copy of its source every time the site is built.

  1. [1] straw man, Merriam-Webster [archived]
    “a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted”
  2. [2] straw man, Merriam-Webster [archived]
    “a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction”
  3. [3] straw man, Merriam-Webster [archived]
    “first known use 1840, in the meaning defined at sense 2”