Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation pp 143–186Cite as

Evaluating Relevance and Commitments in Rhetorical Straw Man

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 14))

Abstract

This chapter is focused on rhetorical strategies based on indirect reporting and distortion of a party’s viewpoint. We begin by clarifying the role of the notion of argumentative relevance for assessing when a viewpoint is correctly reported or manipulated. We will describe relevance as a sequential concept referring to the number of premises and intermediate arguments to connect a move (the interpretation of a move in this case) to the issue or claim discussed or to be proved (the original move in this case). A formal model of dialogue for evaluating misreports and the corresponding strategies (straw man fallacy) is constructed, providing a normative dialectical framework that can guide an analyst in the tasks of detecting, representing, criticizing and justifying a distortion of a viewpoint. We will outline five straw man rhetorical techniques that can be used both for helping us identify and understand the straw man as a fallacy and for illustrating how fallacious arguments of this type can be used to cleverly persuade a target audience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cooper, H. (2009, May 23). Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally of Straw. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24straw.html (Accessed on 13 December 2016).

  2. 2.

    On this view, a speech designed to persuade an audience must be built around some ultimate proposition (stasis or status) (Cicero, De Inventione, I, VII-VIII) that is meant to be supported or attacked by the argumentation throughout the whole speech. Such propositions consist in assessing the facts, the definition, the qualification, and the procedural issues of an alleged offence (Kennedy 1963; Pullman 1995). For example, when charged with armed robbery, the defendant may deny the fact that he took the property. He may deny that the act was stealing by claiming that the property was his own. He may admit the robbery but argue that it was justified or that there are some mitigating factors (claiming that he was forced to do so). Finally, he can claim that the Court has no jurisdiction or appeal to procedural issues. In the aforementioned case, the prosecutor ignored the status of facts and moved to the issues concerning the procedural/social dimension (what happens if the jury makes an unreasonable decision).

  3. 3.

    Debatepedia. (14 November 2011). Retrieved from http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21 (Accessed on 19 December 2016).

  4. 4.

    Debatabase: a world of great debates. Idebate.org . Retrieved from http://idebate.org/debatabase (Accessed on 19 December 2016).

  5. 5.

    A list of the twenty argumentation schemes in (Walton 1995) is shown in the Rationale site that can be found here: http://www.reasoninglab.com/patterns-of-argument/argumentation-schemes/waltons-argumentation-schemes/. The list includes such schemes as those for Argument from Bias, Argument from Cause to Effect, Argument from Established Rule, Argument from Evidence to a Hypothesis, Argument from Commitment, Argument from Expert Opinion, Argument from Precedent, Argument from Consequences, Argument from Waste, Argument from Verbal Classification. The user can click onto the names of any of these schemes on the site and find an argument diagram like the one shown in Argumentation Scheme 5.1, displaying the scheme and its critical questions.

  6. 6.

    Bradner, E. (2016, February 6). Sanders: Clinton is ‘funded by Wall Street’. CNN Politics. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/ (Accessed on 21 December 2016).

  7. 7.

    Yoon, R. (2016, February 6). $153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented. CNN Politics. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/ (Accessed on 21 December 2016).

References

  • Aikin, S. F., & Casey, J. (2011). Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation, 25(1), 87–105. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. (2007). Rhetoric and logic. In I. Worthington (Ed.), A companion to Greek rhetoric (pp. 350–364). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405125512.2007.00027.x

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1991). Topics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. I). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizer, G. Y., Kozak, S. M., & Holterman, L. A. (2009). The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique. Social Influence, 4(3), 216–230. http://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802598152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosanac, P. (2009). Litigation logic: A practical guide to effective argument. Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braet. (1999). Aristotle’s almost unnoticed contribution to the doctrine of stasis. Mnemosyne, 52(4), 408–433. http://doi.org/10.1163/156852599323283559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M. T. (1988). In C. D. Yonge (Ed.), De inventione. London: George Bell & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, M. (1992). On the pragmatic structure of conversation. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 35–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, M., & Katriel, T. (1979). Digression: A study in conversational coherence. In J. Petofi (Ed.), Text vs. sentence (pp. 76–95). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. (1988). Thinking logically, basic concepts for reasoning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (1985). Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today, 6(4), 699. http://doi.org/10.2307/1771962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (2008). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37(2), 130–155. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harary, F. (1969). Graph theory. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, M. (1994). The Substructure of stasis-theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes. The Classical Quarterly, 44(1), 114. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800017250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohmann, H. (1989). The dynamics of stasis: Classical rhetorical theory and modern legal argumentation. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 34(1), 171–197. http://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/34.1.171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport: Vale Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (2003). The dialectical tier revisited. In F. van Eemeren, A. Blair, C. Willard, & F. Snoeck-Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view (pp. 41–53). Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermann, K., & Sleight, C. (1989). Coherence: A meaningful adhesive for discourse. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Annals of the international communication association (pp. 95–129). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. (1963). The art of persuasion in ancient Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koszowy, M., & Walton, D. (2017). Profiles of dialogue for repairing faults in arguments from expert opinion. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 29, 79–113. http://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2016.014

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 6(2), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E. (2002). Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E. (2013). Topical roots of formal dialectic. Argumentation, 27(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F. (2008). Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Logic, 28(2), 102. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F. (2013). Strategies of character attack. Argumentation, 27(4), 369–401. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F. (2016). Argument relevance and structure. Assessing and developing students’ uses of evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 180–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2012). Character attacks as complex strategies of legal argumentation. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 2(3), 59–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014). Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. (1960). A syllogistic analysis of cognitive relationships. In M. Rosenber, C. Hovland, W. McGuire, R. Abelson, & J. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 65–111). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. (1966). The current status of cognitive consistency theories. In S. Feldman (Ed.), Cognitive consistency: Motivational antecedents and behavioral consequents (pp. 1–26). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. (1990). Richard Milhous Nixon: The rise of an American politician. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadeau, R. (1959). Classical systems of stases in Greek: Hermagoras to Hermogenes. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 2(1), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601 (08)60214-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., Rucker, D., Bizer, G., & Cacioppo, J. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Seiter & R. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence and compliance gaining (pp. 65–89). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D., & Mackworth, A. (2010). Artificial intelligence: Foundations of computational agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pullman, G. (1995). Deliberative rhetoric and forensic stasis: Reconsidering the scope and function of an ancient rhetorical heuristic in the aftermath of the Thomas/Hill controversy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 25(1–4), 223–230. http://doi.org/10.1080/02773949509391045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., & Walton, D. (2016). The use of argument maps as an assessment tool in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. (1962). Plato’s earlier dialectic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/S003181910003638X

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocci, A. (2005). Are manipulative texts coherent? Manipulation, presuppositions, and (in-) congruity. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century (pp. 85–112). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rottenberg, A., & Winchell, D. H. (2011). The structure of argument. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 55–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7(4), 289–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slob, W. (2002). Dialogical rhetoric: An essay on truth and normativity after postmodernism. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. (2004). Boethius’s “De topicis differentiis”. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. W. (2015). The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uckelman, S. L. (2013). Medieval disputationes de obligationibus as formal dialogue systems. Argumentation, 27(2), 143–166. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9266-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. (1976). Sentence topic and discourse topic. Papers in Slavic Philology, 1, 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. (1977). Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M. A. Just & P. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 3–32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma- dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck-Henkemans, F. (2015). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 681–702. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_36

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, B. (1988). Critical thinking: Consider the verdict. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1982). Topical relevance in argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1989). Question-reply argumentation. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1995). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13(1), 53–71. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738812877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2003a). Defining conditional relevance using linked arguments and argumentation schemes: a commentary on professor Callen’s article, rationality and relevancy: conditional relevancy and constrained resources. Michigan State Law Review, 4(4), 1305–1314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2003b). Relevance in argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609441

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600187

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2014). Burden of proof, Presumption and argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107110311

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2015). Goal-Based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316340554

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2016). Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic, 36(4), 523. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Fabrizio Macagno

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Macagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Macagno, F., Walton, D. (2017). Evaluating Relevance and Commitments in Rhetorical Straw Man. In: Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62544-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62545-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation