\nThe straw man fallacy means that, to oppose a point, you change its meaning to a related one and then argue against that, claiming that you are defeating the original point. An example might be if someone thinks governments shouldn’t run a deficit, but a government is running a 3% deficit. The supporter of the situation might suggest that the deficit isn’t good, but a reasonable compromise. The anti-deficit person, if they counter with “Well I guess you don’t care how much a deficit is – you just say ‘go for it…,'” is using a straw man argument. The supporter of the 3% deficit doesn’t believe that deficits are okay; they just think they are necessary sometimes.<\/p>\n
Source:<\/p>\n
owl.excelsior.edu<\/a><\/p>\nJack of Oracle Tutoring by Jack and Diane,<\/a> Campbell River, BC.\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Self-tutoring about logic and arguments: the tutor mentions the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy means that, to oppose a point, you change its meaning to a related one and then argue against that, claiming that you are defeating …<\/p>\n