Dodging the strawman

By Herman M. Lagon

In everyday conversations—whether with a friend, a colleague, or in the heated worlds of politics and social media—it’s i all too easy to fall into the “straw man” trap. This tactic distorts someone’s argument, making it easier to dismiss. Imagine setting up a scarecrow (or taó-táo) in a field, only to boast about knocking it down; it’s not a real opponent. Similarly, a straw man argument avoids tackling the actual issue, attacking instead a simplified or twisted version. This sidesteps real discussion and leaves the core issue untouched, making it crucial to recognize and counter this strategy, especially in relationships, politics, or government, where clarity is vital.

Take, for example, a political debate on poverty. When a citizen says, “Our leaders should increase support for struggling communities to improve public health,” a politician might respond, “Oh, so you just want to hand out free money?” Here, the genuine call for targeted aid gets recast as a push for “handouts,” shifting focus from the real issue. It’s a classic political move to avoid addressing policy gaps.

In personal relationships, too, straw men can cause unnecessary tension. Imagine one spouse asking for more help around the house, saying, “I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed.” Instead of listening, the partner might fire back, “So, you’re saying I’m lazy?” This reaction twists a simple request into an accusation, creating an argument where none existed. Clear, genuine communication is vital in relationships, and dodging straw man traps helps couples address actual issues.

Politicians often use straw men to dodge accountability, particularly in debates around martial law. Opponents who express concerns about human rights or economic impact may hear, “So, you don’t care about safety?” This response trivializes the real concerns, painting critics as anti-safety instead of genuinely worried about the policy’s implications.

A similar tactic is used during election campaigns, where critics are portrayed as “anti-progress” if they raise concerns about large projects. Suppose someone objects to a mining operation for its environmental impact. Politicians may counter, “You’re against development!” Here, environmental concerns are reframed as opposition to growth, sidestepping valid worries and pushing a narrative that we must choose between development and environmental protection—a false choice that avoids real questions.

Social media is another breeding ground for straw man arguments, where nuanced positions are often oversimplified. For instance, supporters of divorce legalization might argue, “Divorce offers a safe way out of harmful relationships,” only to face, “So you want to make marriage disposable?” This exaggeration clouds the actual intent and turns a serious issue into an emotional debate about values, spreading misinformation with just a few clicks.

On a national level, straw man arguments also hinder debates on climate action. Advocates for clean energy often hear, “So you want to shut down all our industries?” This exaggeration diverts attention from balanced policies and reinforces fears. Studies by the United Nations Environment Programme suggest that such fallacies delay critical action on climate change, particularly relevant as the country faces severe climate challenges.

To counter straw man arguments, ask clarifying questions instead of reacting immediately. If someone distorts what you’re saying, try, “That’s not quite my point; here’s what I meant.” This approach, rooted in patience and openness, invites a constructive dialogue rather than an argument. Listening to the other side fully helps prevent knee-jerk reactions and deepens mutual understanding.

Supporting your arguments with credible data also helps avoid straw men. For example, citing studies on the economic costs of a government policy can make your point harder to misrepresent. Research from reliable sources, like the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, builds a stronger, fact-based position that promotes transparency and trust.

Ultimately, developing a critical eye is key. When encountering arguments in public discussions, question whether each side is represented fairly. Are some views exaggerated? Practicing this discernment helps us spot straw men and avoid falling for them. A society that values this mindset fosters transparency and accountability.

Avoiding straw men is not just about winning arguments but about building understanding, the cornerstone of healthy relationships and effective governance. By addressing real issues instead of shadow arguments, we raise the quality of public dialogue, opening the door to a more respectful and connected society. So, rather than just “beating scarecrows” or succumbing in “taó-táo,” let us engage with the real challenges that shape our lives.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.