A Straw Checklist

Acts 17:22-27

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

When discussing a straw man, I find it helpful to have a little mental checklist: what is it? How is it formed? What are the key attributes?

As Christians we should be the last people on Earth to use Straw men. We are called to speak the truth with Love, and rhetorical tricks shouldbe beneath us.

I am rather having fun blowing poor Incogito ‘s mind with my views on straw men. But I am not writing just for the occasional fun exchange, but to teach and preach how to teach and preach. Now and what and when… all that good stuff. So I am writing this post to cover the parts of straw men that are often overlooked. Not the bits that are deep in the argument, but the overarching bits. The parts that make an argument a straw man before you even get to arguing.

Definitions

As a debate judge the very first thing I look for in a debate is a definition of terms. (Well, OK, not the very first thing. Rhetorically, an opening hook is vital. But the first thing I look for in the actual argument.) And my checklist for a straw man also has, as it’s first box, the question of ‘definitions’.

None

Now the first and most obvious way to straw man in the area of definitions, is to have none. This is the most flexible… since you give no definition for this thing that your opponent believes, you can trot out any argument you like against it.

But the core of this straw man is that you make it seem as if your opponent has no definition for what they believe.

Bad

The second problem with the definition is to have a bad one. This can take a huge variety of forms, but the critical point is this: the definition you are using would not be one that an intelligent and well-reasoning opponent of yours on this issue would use. It can be too small, it can equivocate, it can be weak… all sorts of things.

There is a particularly horrible argument that goes like this: Well, my opponents have so many different definitions that it doesn’t do me any good…” You don’t see that if your opponents believe five different things, your attempt to combine them all into one thing merely means that you are arguing against an incoherent definition?

If there are five, or fifty, different views out there, then you will have to write five, or fifty, papers to refute them all. Or just pick the one you think are the best!

Missing Link

And the third, and perhaps the most subtle, part of the problem of a definition is that there is no link. Back in the day this would be a footnote, but in today’s age this is called a ‘link’. A link to the well-reasoned opponent’s site where you got the definition.

It is not enough, it is not merely enough, to say, “Well, I found someone that says this.” It must be someone who is representative of the position you are arguing against, and who argues their case well. If you can’t link to someone like that for your definition… you are straw manning.

And by linking to it, you allow your readers to go there and see if you have quoted it correctly, in context.

Opponent

Each of those same issues applies to the issue of an opponent.

None

Some people almost seem to think it is a positive point to their case that they don’t have a particular opponent. They are arguing against what ‘everyone thinks’ or ‘all Catholics believe’, but see it as a bit of kindness not to point to a particular ‘everyone’ or Catholic.

Well, it isn’t. It is a guarantee that the resulting argument will be a straw man. Literally no one believes what you are about to type.

Bad

It is slightly better, in a very bad sort of way, when you have a handpicked opponent. One that argues very poorly. Makes you look good… if no one is paying attention.

Missing Link

And, again, if you have a real opponent, and are really arguing against what he really believes… link to him. This will let your audience follow the link and compare what you say he believes, and how he says he argues, with your representation of it.

If you aren’t willing to do that… straw man.

Argument

And, finally, an overarching way to ensure that you are writing a straw man is in the area of the argument. Not your argument, his argument.

None

The easiest argument to argue against is… no argument at all. One popular modern method for doing this is the argument from self-ignorance (the name being a clue as to how good this argument is), which goes something like this, “I can’t see why anybody (or baptists, or mormons, or Catholics, or men, or women, or Iraquis…) would believe that… Basically you are saying that because you are ignorant, they are wrong.

Bad

This is the core definition of a straw man, the most common defintion, the thing that everyone talks about when they use the term: making a ‘bad’ argument for your opponents case, and then knocking it down. This argument can be bad in a hundred different ways, but being ‘bad’ is the key.

Missing Link

The most subtle, but one of the most effective. You argue against John Smith, the famous believer in what-you-disagree-with… but you fail to link to where Johnny boy says what you say he says. So even if he did say it, we can’t read it ourselves to check the context. (Tricky thing, context.)

Conclusion

I Peter 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

All too many people say they want to ‘argue against what Catholics believe’… or Lutherans or atheists or shoe shiners. But they don’t want to do the hard work of actually arguing against what their opponents actually believe. It is so much easier to just set up a straw man… and knock that down.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von