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
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (30) · 6 in this index

  1. Argumentation
  2. Aikin, S., and J. P. Casey. 2016. Straw men, iron men, and argumentative virtue. Topoi 35 (2): 431–440. https…
    Topoi  ↗
  3. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  4. Aikin, S., and J. Casey. 2022b. Straw man arguments: A study in fallacy theory. Bloomsbury Academic.
     ↗
  5. Aristotle. 1928. Sophistical refutations (E. S. Forster, Trans). Harvard University Press.
Show all 30 →
  1. Bickenbach, J. E., and J. M. Davies. 1996. Good Reasons for Better Arguments: An Introduction to the Skills a…
  2. Chesney, R., and D. Citron. 2019. Deepfakes and the new disinformation war: The coming age of post-truth geop…
    Foreign Affairs
  3. Govier, T. 2001. A practical study of argument. 5th ed. Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
  4. Hamblin, C. L. 1998. Fallacies. Advanced Reasoning Forum.
  5. Hansen, H. V., and R. C. Pinto. eds. 1995. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. Pennsylvania State…
  6. Johnson, R. H., and J. A. Blair. 1994. Logical self-defense (U.S. ed). McGraw-Hill.
  7. Lewiński, M., and S. Oswald. 2013. When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmati…
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  8. Oswald, S., and M. Lewinski. 2014. Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. Rhétorique et …
  9. Paris, B. 2023. Seeing through the fog of war: Assessing epistemic burden around cheapfakes and deepfakes of …
     ↗
  10. Popa, E. O. 2022. Revisiting the relationship between arguing and convincing: Towards a new pragmatic account…
    Languages  ↗
  11. Argumentation
  12. Pritchard, D. 2023. Understanding Deep Disagreement. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 31 (3): 3…
    International Journal of Philosophical Studies  ↗
  13. Shields, M. 2021. On the Pragmatics of Deep Disagreement. Topoi 40 (5): 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11…
    Topoi  ↗
  14. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics…
  15. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  16. Argumentation
  17. Tindale, C. W. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10…
     ↗
  18. van Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical t…
     ↗
  19. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical a…
     ↗
  20. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2009. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialecti…
  21. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  22. Walton, D. 1996. The straw man fallacy. In van Bentham, van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Veltman (Eds.) Logic and A…
  23. Walton, D. 2010. Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They Are. Informal Logic 30 (2): 159. https…
    Informal Logic  ↗
  24. Woods, J. H., and D. Walton. 1989. Fallacies: Selected papers, 1972–1982. Foris publications.
     ↗
  25. Wreen, M. J. 1994. Look, Ma! No Frans! Pragmatics & Cognition 2 (2): 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.2.2.06wre
    Pragmatics & Cognition  ↗