Do You Want to Build a Straw Man?: Evidentiary and Argumentative Modes of the Straw Man Fallacy
Abstract
Abstract I propose a distinction between evidentiary and argumentative modes of the straw man fallacy. Traditional studies of this fallacy have focused on the changes that occur when a discussant represents another’s speech acts. This places undue normative significance on the question of “How much change is too much change?”, a question that has constantly eluded theorizing. I argue that in a dualist framework, when the evidentiary mode of the fallacy is taken as a starting point, the evaluation can begin with the phenomenon of deceit (as a marker of fallaciousness) and construct critical responses without the need to demonstrate that the change induced was in some sense disproportionate. To make this point, I give both imaginary and real-life examples of such evaluations.
- Journal
- Argumentation
- Published
- 2026-05-26
- DOI
- 10.1007/s10503-026-09710-6
- CompPile
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Citation data not yet available for this article.
Related Articles
-
Argumentation Mar 2026Experimental Insights into the Influence of Logic and Pragmatics on Conditional Argument Evaluation ↗Ermioni Seremeta; Monique Flecken; Menno Reijven; Jean Wagemans
-
Written Communication Feb 2026Reading Medium and Communicative Purpose in Writing: Effects on Pausing Behaviour and Text Quality, Controlling for Reading Comprehension and Executive Functions ↗Ángel Valenzuela; Cristian A. Rojas-Barahona; Ramón D. Castillo; Ladislao Salmerón
-
Assessing Writing Jan 2026Assessing the effects of explicit coherence instruction on EFL students’ integrated writing performance ↗Xi Li; Mo Chen
-
Argumentation Oct 2025Ameer Saadat-Yazdi; Jean H. M. Wagemans
-
Argumentation Oct 2025Nancy Green