Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    References for, the straw man fallacy of argumentation

    Not what you're looking for? Search our solutions OR ask your own Custom question.

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    I need assistance
    I need help with 4-5 pages on the use of The use of "Straw Man" arguments in televised political debates. I would like to use 7 peer reviewed references and apa format .using a case study on the using persuasion. It should include the following
    introduction, an overview of the case, a discussion, a conclusion.
    7 peer reviewed references and apa format.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com December 24, 2021, 11:55 pm ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/business/marketing-strategy/references-straw-man-fallacy-argumentation-619896

    SOLUTION This solution is FREE courtesy of BrainMass!

    Introduction

    The use of debating fallacies is an easy way to win an argument, but it is not a fair one. In order for those who hear the debate to really understand the ideas involved, there should be a degree of fairness in their presentation. The straw man fallacy is a particularly style of debate, in which the speaker tries to defeat the opponent's argument by rewording it in the worst possible way, after which the speaker condemns that new version. The "straw man" is the new version of the opposing argument, called so because straw men are so easy to tear down than the sturdier original argument.

    An example given by English professor E.K. Labiak presents a debater who wants to establish that more money should be spent on education by the government. The opposing debater then creates the straw man that spending more money on education will lead to making more cuts in the budget, which will certainly mean losing important benefits. In this way, the opposer will attribute negative results to that action that may not necessarily take place, thereby making it undesirable.
    (E.K. Labiak, English Answers)

    Overview of the case

    The straw man fallacy is one of several popular fallacies used by debaters, particularly political debaters. E. Magill lists 10 of the most well known, including ad hominem, when the opposer attacks the person instead of the argument presented in the debate. Magill pointed to an example presented by President Bush right after he took office in 2001. When he pushed for a new testing system for schools, he then argued that everybody opposed to that system was disinterested in holding schools accountable for their failures. Of course, this simply wasn't true, as there were plenty of alternatives offered by his political opponents. (E.Magill, 2010, Top Ten Fallacies)

    Douglas Walton presents another way of defining the straw man fallacy: "... when you misrepresent your opponent's position, attribute to that person a point of view with a set-up implausibility that you can easily demolish, then proceed to argue against the set-up version as though it were your opponent's." (D Walton, 1996, p 1160)

    Sometimes using a straw man argument does not always mean that the debater is redesigning the argument only to win it. C.J. Gill refers to proponents of disabled people who, because they are not disabled, do not always understand the issues that are important to them, because they do not have the same experiences as they do. (C.J. Gill, 2010, p 32)

    A case study on using persuasion

    A debate between Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and proponents of politicians and other authorities who want to give school teens condoms is a case study in the use of the the straw man fallacy. The structure of a fair debate is as follows:

    Claim:
    The basic standpoint presented by a writer/speaker.
    Data:
    The evidence which supports the claim.
    Warrant:
    The justification for connecting particular data to a particular claim. The warrant also makes
    clear the assumptions underlying the argument.

    Backing:
    Additional information required if the warrant is not clearly supported.

    Rebuttal:
    Conditions or standpoints that point out flaws in the claim or alternative positions.

    Qualifiers:
    Terminology that limits a standpoint. Examples include applying the following terms to any
    part of an argument: sometimes, seems, occasionally,none, always, never, etc.
    (R. Jones, 2010, p 169)

    The website The Fallacy Files copied the argument that was presented by Dobson in one of his fundraising letters:

    Some of you may have seen the 90-minute ABC network television show...entitled "Growing Up in the Age of AIDS".... I was one of nine guests on that live program.... ...[A] single 45-second sound bite cost me a long journey and two hectic days in New York City.

    Why...did I travel to The Big Apple for such an insignificant role? ...I felt a responsibility to express the abstinence position on national television.... How sad that adolescents hear only the dangerous "safe sex" message from adults who should know better.

    What follows, then, is what I would have said on television....

    Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage?

    ...[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected person. ... And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that "safe sex" is within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity.
    (G.N. Curtis, 2013, The Fallacy Files)

    A discussion
    //(I am leaving this one for you. The outline of the structure of fair debates listed above could be discussed, and how Dobson did not follow them. The reference source below gives some great ideas about it)

    A conclusion

    In order to promote clear thinking and argumentation, both debaters must be committed to maintaining fairness and clarity when debating. Only in this way will not only each participant be able to present their viewpoint in the most persuasive way, but the audience will also be able to understand both viewpoints, and, some might even change their own opinions.

    Debates should not be emotional verbal fights; they should involve critical thinking, logic, and mutual respect. It should not be a platform for bullying or personal insults. It should be fair and not do what the straw man does, which is turn the opposer's argument into one that does not represent what the opposer wants to favor. A position should be based on facts and documentation from reliable sources. All related argumentation should be in full agreement with the main argument. Illogical claims should not be a part of any argument. If a point is made by one party, the other party should be mature enough to concede it. And academic debates should not be obscured by confusing language that only sounds intellectual.

    In her paper entitled "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?", the straw man fallacy is not only exposed as a bad way to argue a position, but she also described clear alternative debating rules.

    1. The Freedom Rule
    "Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints
    or casting doubt on standpoints" (110).

    2. The Burden-of-Proof Rule
    "A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked
    to do so" (113).

    3. The Standpoint Rule
    "A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has
    indeed been advanced by the other party" (116).Your standpoint is simply your claim,
    your basic argument in a nutshell.

    4. The Relevance Rule
    "A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation
    related to that standpoint" (119).Similar to #3, this rule assures that the evidence you use must actually
    relate to your standpoint. Let's stick with same argument.

    5. The Unexpressed Premise Rule
    "A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been
    left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has
    left implicit" (121).This one sounds a bit complex, though it happens nearly every day.
    If you have been talking to another person and feel the need to say,
    "That's NOT what I meant," then you have experienced a violation of
    the unexpressed premise rule.

    6. The Starting Point Rule
    "No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point,
    or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point" (128).
    Part of quality argumentation is to agree on the opening standpoint.

    7. The Argument Scheme Rule
    "A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defense
    does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme
    that is correctly applied" (130).This rule is about argument strategy

    8. The Validity Rule
    "The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must
    be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed
    premises" (132). This rule is about traditional logic.

    9. The Closure Rule
    "A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting
    the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result
    in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts" (134).
    This seems the most obvious rule, yet it is one that most public
    arguments ignore. If your argument does not cut it, admit the faults
    and move on.

    10. The Usage Rule
    "Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or
    confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of
    the other party as carefully and accurately as possible" (136).
    While academics are perhaps the worst violators of this rule, it is
    an important one to discuss. Be clear.

    (R. Jones, 2010, pp 173-177)

    =====
    References

    C. J. Gill, Ph.D. Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois. No, we don't think our doctors are out to get us: Responding to the straw man distortions of disability rights arguments against assisted suicide. Disability and Health Journal 3 (2010) p 32

    Douglas Walton The straw man fallacy. Logic and Argumentation, ed. Johan van Bentham, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman. Amsterdam, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, North-Holland (1996) pp. 116
    http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/96straw.pdf

    E. Magill. Top 10 Fallacies in Politics. (April 9, 2010) Open Salon.
    http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2010/04/09/top_10_logical_fallacies_in_politics

    E. K. Labiak. Defining the Straw Man Fallacy with Examples
    http://english.answers.com/writing-styles/defining-the-straw-man-fallacy-with-examples

    G. N. Curtis. Straw Man (2013) The Fallacy Files.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

    Marilyn Edelstein, PhD Ethics, Education and Political Correctness. (based on a presentation given in 1992) Santa Clara
    University
    http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/

    R. Jones. Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic? (2010) Parlor Press. pp 169, 173-177
    http://www.parlorpress.com/pdf/jones--finding-the-good-argument.pdf

    ----------
    ////(-and Quotes - in your final paper, the actual quotes here could be deleted, but the references above are in APA format according to APA fifth edition here: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/)

    In the United States, the straw man fallacy is a term that is used to represent a particular style of debating a point. This elusive-to-fact style is used by individuals who do not want to answer a question directly but choose to replace the original argument with one that they can debate against, in other words, the "straw man." It is a misrepresentation of the original argument, twisted for the benefit of the opposing party. The following lists five straw man fallacy examples that will help you understand this concept.
    Politics
    There are more than enough examples of straw men discussed in politics every day. Listening to a conversation being had by two or more politicians should give you several in a short time. An example of a straw man being used might be when a person expresses his or her belief that more money should be spent on education and another person says he or she must hate the U.S. because overall cuts that would be needed for education might exceed any benefits. The straw man is the implication that the first person hates the country.(E.K. Labiak, English Answers)

    Eva Ketter Labiak. Defining the Straw Man Fallacy with Examples
    http://english.answers.com/writing-styles/defining-the-straw-man-fallacy-with-examples
    --
    Claim:
    The basic standpoint presented by a writer/speaker.
    Data:
    The evidence which supports the claim.
    Warrant:
    The justification for connecting particular data to a particular claim. The warrant also makes
    clear the assumptions underlying the argument.

    Backing:
    Additional information required if the warrant is not clearly supported.

    Rebuttal:
    Conditions or standpoints that point out flaws in the claim or alternative positions.

    Qualifiers:
    Terminology that limits a standpoint. Examples include applying the following terms to any
    part of an argument: sometimes, seems, occasionally,none, always, never, etc.
    (R. Jones, 2010, p 169)

    Rebecca Jones. Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic? (2010) Parlor Press. pp 169, 173-177
    http://www.parlorpress.com/pdf/jones--finding-the-good-argument.pdf

    ----
    THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

    The straw man never has a brain

    The straw man is a very simple, albeit potent, form of illogic. This is when someone misrepresents their opponent's position, as though they were arguing a man made of straw that they just happened to create right then and there. Yeah, it's a sloppy analogy.

    This is everywhere in politics. For example, right after President Bush took office in 2001, he pushed for a new testing system for schools, and then argued that everybody opposed to that system was disinterested in holding schools accountable for their failures. This simply wasn't true, as there were plenty of alternatives offered by his political opponents. President Bush, though, routinely used straw man arguments in his speeches, usually by painting his opposition with weasel words like "some say" and "there are those that think."

    More recently, President Obama has done the same thing. Going back to the healthcare debate, President Obama has said on multiple occasions that those opposed to his healthcare initiative want to keep the status quo, despite the wealth of ideas that have come from his opposition to change healthcare. This is a pretty common tactic used by the majority against the minority, because it tells a narrative whereby the minority party is obstructionistic for no good reason and should be ignored.

    This can also be found in the Michael Moore/Glenn Beck school of documentary journalism, where quotes are strategically recontextualized to seem far more sinister than they are and altered to appear to make points that were never intended by the original speaker. This makes debating people easy, because you can rebutt crazy arguments that you just created for your opponents out of thin air.

    E. Magill. Top 10 Fallacies in Politics. (April 9, 2010) Open Salon.
    http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2010/04/09/top_10_logical_fallacies_in_politics

    ---
    Even when disability rights activists and scholars are allowed to present their views, I have noticed three mecha-
    nisms that commonly prevent a fair hearing. The first is an intellectual barrier, or what ethicist Howard Brody
    [3]refers to as ''short-sightedness.'' Brody issued a public apology for having dismissed the well-documented arguments of
    disability activists in right-to-die cases such as that of quadriplegic David Rivlin, who had requested physician assisted
    dying, through ventilator disconnection, to escape institutional life in a nursing home. Brody admitted that in his excite-
    ment over the judge's ruling in favor of Rivlin's request, he saw himself as a ''champion of patient's rights'' and saw
    disabled protesters as ''busybodies'' interfering in a private right to autonomy. Years later, Brody confessed to embarrass-
    ment over the limited basis of his thinking about such cases and his failure to grasp the ''key lesson that disabilities advo-
    cates are trying to teach the rest of us.'' Challenged to think more deeply about disability, he ended up agreeing with the
    advocates that Rivlin most likely had died unnecessarily,having received no reasonable options for a meaningful life.

    The second barrier to comprehension is experiential. Although the disability rights arguments against legalized
    assisted suicide have been sophisticated and even abstract at times, they are also grounded in the life experience of
    people with disabilities, especially those residing at the economic and social margins. It is this combination of
    analytic astuteness and first-hand experience that sets off the disability rights opposition from other positions in the
    debate. However, knowledge from experience is difficult to transmit across an experiential divide. I should point out that
    by ''experiential divide,'' I am referring to something more complex than a disabled versus non-disabled standpoint.
    The kind of knowledge at issue here is imparted by very real threats to one's life experiences such as institutionaliza-
    tion, neglect, abuse, discriminatory treatment, social devaluation, and impoverished resources. Some people grasp the
    depths of those experiences and some do not. Well-meaning non-disabled and disabled proponents of assisted suicide,
    even those who express fervent support of disability rights, often fail to comprehend the depth and danger of an oppres-
    sion that they have not personally experienced.[3]

    Taking on the straw men

    The following sections of this paper will present a list of straw man fallacies commonly used by proponents of
    Disability activists and scholars arguing against legalized assisted suicide have faced an uphill battle in public debate. Forum organizers often tell them that they have no standing in a matter affecting only ''the terminally ill.'' Accordingly, they receive outsider treatment in a debate that is ironically dominated by people who are neither disabled nor terminally ill.
    Spokespersons from the disability rights opposition are rarely invited to speak at public events and are told that they can express their views from the audience during Q & A. After pushing for their own inclusion, they may win token invitations to speak but then find they are given insufficient time to lay out their arguments in a program so stacked against them that
    even ''neutral'' moderators may openly dismiss their points.[3]

    For example, attorney Andrew Batavia and historian Hugh Gallagher were two prominent individuals with disabilities who publicly supported the legalization of assisted suicide. Significantly, both denied that people with disabilities were socially oppressed (Batavia quoted in Corbet,1997 [5]; Gallagher, 2001 [6]) According to Gallagher, ''As a general prop-
    osition, American disabled citizens today are oppressed only so far as they allow themselves to be oppressed. They have the right, as they choose to exercise and demand the right, to control their bodies, their lives, and their destinies'' (Gallagher, 2001, pp. 98-99 [6]).

    [3] In contrast, two political progressives who identify as nondisabled, activist Ralph Nader and pro--
    choice U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, have consistently opposed the legalization of assisted suicide because of the potential for lethal discriminatory treatment of people with disabilities in health care.

    Carol J. Gill, Ph.D. Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois.
    " No, we don't think our doctors are out to get us: Responding to the straw man distortions of disability rights arguments against assisted suicide."
    Disability and Health Journal 3 (2010) p 32
    http://www.disabilityandhealthjnl.com/article/S1936-6574%2809%2900187-3/pdf

    ----

    Johnson and Blair (1983: 71) define the straw man fallacy as committed "... when you
    misrepresent your opponent's position, attribute to that person a point of view with a
    set-up implausibility that you can easily demolish, then proceed to argue against the
    set-up version as though it were your opponent's.

    Douglas Walton The straw man fallacy. Logic and Argumentation, ed. Johan van Bentham, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman. Amsterdam, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, North-Holland (1996) pp. 116
    http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/96straw.pdf

    ----
    Straw Man

    Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Red Herring The Scarecrow
    Etymology:

    "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
    Quote...

    When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.

    ...Unquote

    Source: James Lileks, "The Daily Bleat"
    Example:

    Some of you may have seen the 90-minute ABC network television show...entitled "Growing Up in the Age of AIDS".... I was one of nine guests on that live program.... ...[A] single 45-second sound bite cost me a long journey and two hectic days in New York City.

    Why...did I travel to The Big Apple for such an insignificant role? ...I felt a responsibility to express the abstinence position on national television.... How sad that adolescents hear only the dangerous "safe sex" message from adults who should know better.

    What follows, then, is what I would have said on television....

    Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage?

    ...[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected person. ... And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that "safe sex" is within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity.

    Analysis

    Source: James C. Dobson, in a fund-raising letter for "Focus on the Family", February 13, 1992.
    Exposition:

    Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion. A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate?formal or informal?when one side attacks a position?the "straw man"?not held by the other side, then acts as though the other side's position has been refuted.

    This fallacy is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute the other side's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position not held by the other side. The arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man", but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

    Sub-fallacy:

    As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness.

    A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples. Consider the statement forms:

    All P are Q.
    Most P are Q.
    Many P are Q.
    Some P are Q.
    Some P are not Q.
    Many P are not Q.
    Most P are not Q.
    No P are Q.

    The extremes are "All P are Q" and "No P are Q". These are easiest to refute, since all it takes is a single counter-example to refute a universal proposition. Moreover, the world being such as it is, unless P and Q are connected definitionally, such propositions are usually false. The other propositions are progressively harder to refute until you get to the middle two: "Some P are Q" and "Some P are not Q". To refute these requires one to prove the extremes: "No P are Q" or "All P are Q", respectively. So, extremists are those who take positions starting with "all" or "no". For instance, the extremists in the abortion debate are those who argue that no abortions are permissible, or that all abortions are.

    Therefore, Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon".
    Source:

    T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 157-159.

    Resource:

    Michael C. Labossiere, "Straw Man"
    Analysis of the Example:

    Dobson is arguing against the "safe sex" idea of promoting condom usage as a way to limit the spread of HIV. In order to more easily knock down his target, Dobson portrays the sexologists he's criticizing as telling kids "that they can sleep around with impunity". The most prominent proponent of condom usage was Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who testified before Congress to the following:

    Scientific evidence indicates that abstinence is the only completely safe way to avoid acquiring AIDS sexually. Except for mutually faithful monogamous relationships with uninfected partners, the use of a condom is the best method of reducing or preventing HIV infection known at this time for those who for one reason or another will not practice abstinence or monogamy.

    Dobson chose to attack a straw man rather than the Surgeon General.

    Source: C. Everett Koop, "Statement of C. Everett Koop", Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 2/10/1987 (PDF)

    Reader Responses:

    Dobson was not saying that the Surgeon General was mistaken but rather certain sexologists. Dobson portrays the sexologists he's criticizing as telling kids "that they can sleep around with impunity." This was indeed a straw man if they didn't believe this, but if they did believe this, Dobson's objection is not as much of a straw man. Ordinarily, something is a straw man if the opponent's position has been distorted, not that a different opponent presents a different position.

    If the Surgeon General was at the conference, then indeed it was a straw man, but then that fact should be mentioned. Or if your objection was that the sexologists Dobson criticizes hold an extreme position, and that most people who promote condom use don't hold such a position?whereas Dobson argues otherwise in his fundraising letter (I don't know if he in fact did or not)?then this too would be a straw man, but such pertinent facts would need to be mentioned.?Wade A. Tisthammer

    Dobson wasn't simply arguing against the 800 sexologists at the conference, but against the "safe sex" message and in favor of abstinence. I don't know whether Koop attended the conference, but I doubt it; I have no idea who was there. As you say, either Dobson misrepresented the views of the sexologists or he didn't. If he did, then he was clearly committing a straw man fallacy, as you concede.

    One reason that I quoted Koop's statement was that he was probably the most prominent proponent of condom usage, at least at that time. Of course, statements from those who attended the conference would be better evidence of what they believed, but in lieu of that I offer Koop's statement as evidence of what the "safe sex" message really was. An important thing shown by Koop's statement is that "safe sex" and abstinence were not necessarily contradictory messages, as Dobson implies. Koop first points out that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing diseases from being sexually transmitted, and condom usage is less effective. Of course, Koop never claimed that teenagers could "sleep around with impunity".

    But, even if Dobson was not misrepresenting the sexologists' views, he still attacked a straw man. Choosing the most extreme representatives of a view to criticize, and then treating such criticism as a refutation of that view is itself a form of straw man fallacy, as discussed in the Subfallacy section above. Dobson chose to attack the sexologists rather than Koop because they would be easier to knock down: that's a straw man.

    Reader Jon Brock writes:

    I don't think the safe sex quote is a good example of a straw man argument?or perhaps it needs more clarification. You pointed out that the straw man aspect to the argument was that Dobson painted the safe sex movement as telling kids they can sleep around with impunity. I don't think that's a straw man, primarily because he uses the word "can" and adds "with impunity". If Dobson said "telling kids they should sleep around" you'd be correct?that's a mischaracterization of safe sex. But the idea of "safe sex" is exactly that "you can sleep around with impunity". That's the definition of safe sex. It adds impunity to sex "for those who for one reason or another will not practice abstinence or monogamy".

    The reason Dobson is attacking that message so specifically, with thewords "can" and "with impunity", is that as your point from the Surgeon General pointed out, it's incorrect. The idea that a condom reduces the chances of STD transmission, but does not prevent them, is not at all expressed in the succinct and catchy phrase "safe sex".

    You can criticize the phrase "safe sex" on the grounds that no sex is completely safe, but it's Dobson who characterized the sexologists' position as one of advocating "safe sex".

    If anything, the safe sex proponents who reference the Surgeon General's statement are the ones making the straw man argument. The Surgeon General did not say that sex with a condom is safe, just that it is safer than sex without a condom, and that the only safe action is to not have sex or have a monogamous uninfected partner. Is it really a straw man to recharacterize someone's words in a way that is logically correct?

    You're right about what Koop said, so why didn't Dobson address himself to that instead of a bunch of unnamed "safe sex proponents"?

    Acknowledgments: Thanks to Charles Morgan and Max Waterman.

    Gary N. Curtis.Straw Man (2013) The Fallacy Files.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
    ---
    To encourage more conscious, self-reflective, sensitive language and behavior is not to tyrannize. To advocate
    conscientiously constructed codes that address rare and egregious infractions of common decency and civility is not to
    call for a thought police. Universities already regulate behavior and speech (e.g., plagiarism, residency, alcohol use).
    In the wider community, zoning laws acknowledge that some locales are inappropriate for some forms of speech and conduct.
    Defamation and obscenity among other forms of speech are already regulated. Societies perennially weigh the rights of
    individuals against the needs of the community.

    Marilyn Edelstein, PhD Ethics, Education and Political Correctness. (based on a presentation given in 1992) Santa Clara
    University
    http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com December 24, 2021, 11:55 pm ad1c9bdddf>
    https://brainmass.com/business/marketing-strategy/references-straw-man-fallacy-argumentation-619896

    ADVERTISEMENT