Technique 04 / 10

The Strawman

Rebuilding someone's argument into a weaker version, then knocking that down.

Also filed under: misrepresentation · the weak double
Field marks: “so what you're saying is”“they want to”“apparently we're all supposed to”
Countermove: Ask: would the other side sign off on this summary of their view?

Section 01 · The mechanic

How it works

Arguing with a real position is hard work. The other side has reasons, caveats, and usually a stronger version of their case than the one that made you angry. So the technique skips the hard part: build a flimsy replica of the position, stand it up in the town square, and beat it soundly while the audience assumes they watched a real fight.

The replica usually gets built with a few reliable tools. Take the position’s most extreme supporter and present them as its average one. Drop the caveats the original speaker attached. Swap a specific claim (“this policy has a funding problem”) for a cosmic one (“they don’t care about schools”). Each edit is small, and by the end the position’s own holder would not recognize it.

The tell is an argument that feels a little too easy to win. When someone’s opponents are all fools and monsters, you are probably not looking at their opponents. You are looking at the replica. The countermove is called steelmanning: state the other side’s view so well they would sign it, and only then start arguing.

Section 02 · The drill

Try it in Crestfield

Crestfield is not a real town, which is the point. Nothing here is at stake, so you can watch the technique work without anything else tugging at you.

The proposal in front of the Crestfield council: convert one parking lane on Main Street into a protected bike lane, keeping both traffic lanes. A council member responds: "The bike lane people want to ban cars from Crestfield. They won't be happy until nobody can drive to work."

What happened to the proposal in that response?

Section 03 · In the wild

Sourced examples

Real statements, quoted verbatim, with the primary source and an archived copy linked under each one. The callouts describe what the statement does, never what the speaker intended. Examples are drawn from opposing camps on purpose; the technique belongs to no one.

elected official (sitting president) · camp: left · Speech at Osawatomie High School, Osawatomie, Kansas, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project

“And their philosophy is simple (see callout 1): We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules (see callout 2).”

The compression announcement

The sentence declares the opposing position simple before restating it, which licenses the one-line replica that follows. An opponent's philosophy summarized by its critic, in one sentence, prefaced by 'simple,' deserves a second look on arrival.
The rebuilt position

The restatement assigns opponents a philosophy of abandonment, in words none of them use. The opposing budgets of that season proposed restructured and reduced programs and lighter regulation, positions their authors defended as saving those programs. Smaller is restated as none, and fewer rules as each person's own.

What the full record shows

The 'they' of the passage is congressional Republicans and their economic agenda. The main opposing document of that season, the House budget resolution known as the Path to Prosperity, proposed converting Medicare to premium support, block-granting Medicaid, and lowering tax rates while broadening the base, and its authors argued this would preserve the programs. The Congressional Budget Office's neutral description of what the proposal did, linked below, reads nothing like everybody fending for themselves under their own rules. Whether the proposal was good policy is a separate argument from what it proposed, and the sentence swaps the second question for a replica.

Context: source 1 · source 2

Speech at Osawatomie High School, Osawatomie, Kansas, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project · December 6, 2011 · primary source · archived copy · flag a correction

elected official (sitting president) · camp: right · Campaign rally in Topeka, Kansas, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project

“Every single Democrat. In the U.S. Senate has signed up for the open borders (see callout 1) and it's a bill, it's called The Open Borders Bill (see callout 2).”

The rebuilt position

The bill the senators had actually co-sponsored barred separating migrant children from their parents at the border. The sentence rebuilds that position as signing up for open borders, a goal that appears nowhere in the bill's text, which left enforcement and border authority in place.
The replica gets a name

No bill by that name existed. Naming the replica presents the rebuilt position as the opponents' own self-description, the strawman's boldest form: the other side stands accused of signing a document that does not exist, and the real document goes undiscussed.

What the full record shows

The referenced legislation was S. 3036, the Keep Families Together Act, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein in June 2018 and co-sponsored by the Senate Democratic caucus. Its text, linked below, restricts the separation of children from parents at the border and contains no provision opening the border or ending enforcement. PolitiFact rated the 'open borders bill' characterization False two days after the rally. A reader can oppose the actual bill on its merits and still observe that the sentence argues with a bill nobody wrote. The odd punctuation is preserved from the archived transcript.

Context: source 1 · source 2

Campaign rally in Topeka, Kansas, official transcript archived by the American Presidency Project · October 6, 2018 · primary source · archived copy · flag a correction

Section 04 · Self-test

Call them yourself

Some of these use the technique and some play it straight. All of them are fictional. Read each one, make a call, and check your eye.

Exhibit A

A council member responds to a proposed 10 percent parks budget cut:

“My opponent's plan cuts the parks budget by 10 percent. I think that's a mistake, and here's why.”

Strawman or fair engagement?

Exhibit B

Later in the same debate, another member responds to the same 10 percent proposal:

“So what you're saying is you don't care if Crestfield's kids have nowhere to play.”

Strawman or fair engagement?

Exhibit C

A flyer about the school curriculum plan (the actual proposal: offer pre-algebra in 8th grade instead of 9th):

“The superintendent wants to force advanced math on children who aren't ready. What's next, calculus for first graders?”

Strawman or fair engagement?

Exhibit D

The Gazette covers the proposed teen curfew:

“Supporters believe a 10 p.m. curfew will cut vandalism. Results from other towns are mixed: two saw drops, one saw no change. Here is what each found.”

Strawman or fair engagement?

Answered 0 of 4

Section 05 · The hard one

Now try it on your own side

Now the one aimed at you. The council has proposed tripling Crestfield's business license fee to fund downtown improvements. You run a shop, the fee lands on you, and you think it's a genuinely bad idea. At the merchants' meeting, an ally stands up and says the line below, to applause.

“This council thinks small business is a piggy bank it can smash open whenever it wants. They will not stop until every shop on Main Street is boarded up.”

You oppose the fee. What do you make of your ally's argument?