Editing Straw man (section)

==Overview==
The straw man [[fallacy]] occurs in the following pattern of argument:

# ''Person 1'' asserts proposition ''X''.
# ''Person 2'' argues against a superficially similar proposition ''Y'', as though an argument against ''Y'' were an argument against ''X''.

This reasoning is a [[irrelevant conclusion|fallacy of relevance]]: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:
* Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e.,&nbsp;choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see [[fallacy of quoting out of context]]).<ref name="files" />
* Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as ''the'' defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that ''every'' upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.<ref name="book" />
* Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
* Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

===Contemporary revisions===
In 2006, Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin expanded the application and use of the straw man fallacy beyond that of previous rhetorical scholars, arguing that the straw man fallacy can take two forms: the original form that misrepresents the opponent's position, which they call the ''representative form''; and a new form they call the ''selection form''.

The selection form focuses on a partial and weaker (and easier to refute) representation of the opponent's position. Then the easier refutation of this weaker position is claimed to refute the opponent's complete position. They point out the similarity of the selection form to the fallacy of [[hasty generalization]], in which the refutation of an opposing position that is weaker than the opponent's is claimed as a refutation of all opposing arguments. Because they have found significantly increased use of the selection form in modern political argumentation, they view its identification as an important new tool for the improvement of public discourse.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Talisse |first1=Robert |last2=Aikin |first2=Scott |date=September 2006 |title=Two Forms of the Straw Man |journal=Argumentation |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers |volume=20 |number=3 |pages=345–352 |doi=10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8 |s2cid=15523437 |issn=1572-8374 |url=https://www.academia.edu/654363 }}</ref>

Aikin and Casey expanded on this model in 2010, introducing a third form. Referring to the "representative form" as the classic ''straw man'', and the "selection form" as the ''weak man'', the third form is called the ''hollow man''. A hollow man argument is one that is a complete fabrication, where both the viewpoint and the opponent expressing it do not in fact exist, or at the very least the arguer has never encountered them. Such arguments frequently take the form of vague phrasing such as "some say," "someone out there thinks" or similar [[weasel word]]s, or it might attribute a non-existent argument to a broad movement in general, rather than an individual or organization.<ref name="Aiken">{{cite journal|last1=Aikin |first1=Scott |last2=Casey |first2=John |date=March 2011 |title=Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men|journal=Argumentation |publisher=Springer Netherlands |volume=25 |number=1 |pages=87–105 |doi=10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y |s2cid=143594966 |issn=1572-8374 |url=https://www.academia.edu/2609857}}</ref><ref name="Walton2013">{{cite book|author=Douglas Walton|author-link=Douglas N. Walton|title=Methods of Argumentation|year=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-43519-3}}</ref>

==== Nutpicking ====
A variation on the selection form, or "weak man" argument, that combines with an [[ad hominem]] and [[fallacy of composition]] is ''nutpicking'' (or ''nut picking''), a neologism coined by [[Kevin Drum]].<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Nutpicking |author=[[Kevin Drum]]|magazine=[[Washington Monthly]] |date=11 August 2006}}</ref> A combination of "nut" (i.e., insane person) and "[[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry picking]]", as well as a play on the word "nitpicking," nut picking refers to intentionally seeking out extremely fringe, non-representative statements from or members of an opposing group and parading these as evidence of that entire group's incompetence or irrationality.<ref name="Aiken" />

=== Steelmanning ===
A ''steel man argument'' (or ''steelmanning'') is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical [[principle of charity]] through addressing the strongest form of the other person's argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented. Creating the strongest form of the opponent's argument may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted or developing the strongest points which counter one's own position. Developing counters to steel man arguments may produce a stronger argument for one's own position.<ref name="Friedersdorf">{{Cite magazine |last=Friedersdorf |first=Conor |author-link=Conor Friedersdorf |date=26 June 2017 |title=The Highest Form of Disagreement |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/ |magazine=[[The Atlantic]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210606170314/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/ |archive-date=6 June 2021}}</ref>