Proverbs19:20 “Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise.”

The fallacy of the “Strawman” is changing or exaggerating the opponent’s position or argument to make it easier to refute. What this does is to distort the opponent’s argument just enough to make it weak, because the original argument was not as easy to knock down.

We should always take the time to hear, think and try to understand about the opponent’s belief in what they mean and say. This is especially true with children. A mother or father might say to the son/daughter that they are spending too much time on video games and the child comes back and says, “Should I throw away hundreds of dollars of video games just to go and do something else?”

This child introduced a “strawman fallacy.” That is not what the father or mother said, but by introducing the strawman makes it easier to refute the original argument. This fallacy is like the ‘red herring’ in the sense that it introduces something irrelevant to the position that one is taking or by taking the opponent’s argument and presenting it in an inaccurate light.

A “red herring” fallacy argument distorts from the main issue, but the “strawman” argues against a position that is not the position at all.

Some of the more politically correct textbooks use the term “straw-person” rather than “strawman.”

We see this approach being used against conservative Christians when what they say is constantly being lumped together under names like “homophobes,” for their “hate speech,” etc. We, who are evangelical Christians say that homosexuality is wrong and repentance is called for, but the opponents try to change the position that is not a position at all. We do not hate homosexuals nor are we engaging in hate speech, but by distorting what we believe it is easier for them to tear down what we believe. One can see in our society how successful this has been. In one sense the “strawman” fallacy reveals the fallen nature of man. Instead of facing the facts or truth, the tendency is to turn the truth into a caricature.

When recognizing that the opponent’s position has some merit to it, a “strawman fallacy” shows intellectual cowardice and unwillingness to face the truth.

The “strawman fallacy” relies heavily on psychology and propaganda rather than truth. We see the “strawman” fallacies coming out with many atheists – like Richard Dawkins in how they paint a false caricature of who God is. Often they read passages in the Old Testament, like in the Book of Joshua when the children of Israel came into the Promised Land, and bringing out how vicious and cruel He was.

The character of the “strawman” is one who wants to win an argument no matter what. He is not interested in doing the study, the discipline of learning what the opponent is actually saying or meaning. Often he lacks the humility to face the truth.

In dealing with “strawman fallacies” we must counter by bringing out the error. We must keep our “strawman” honest by bringing out what is really meant and showing that the issue has not been addressed properly.

However, in all of this we must be much aware of the danger of creating our own “strawman” of our opponent. We must be able to understand and express our opponent’s argument better, or at least as well as he does. This takes time, study, reflection, etc.

As Christians we must first discern the actual facts, and then contrast the “strawman fallacy” against the truth.

Exodus 23:2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.”

This is another fallacy that we often see being used. “Appeal to the people” is when we claim that our viewpoint is correct because many other people agree with it. This is very similar to the faulty appeal to authority. The only difference is appealing to authority figures while the other is to the people in general. The general public is very seldom a proper authority on anything.

For example: We hear often about abortions, gun control, etc. that the reason we are for or against is because of what public opinion might or might not be. For example, some will say that abortion is murder although public opinion might be that 76% of the people do not believe that. We need to keep in mind that murder is murder no matter what the public says or thinks.

Another example: I will hear that someone’s book is one of the best because it has been on the best-seller list for months. This might or might not be true, but it is also another appeal to the people.

One of the things that we often hear today in these uncertain economic times is that we should not be concerned because the majority of people believe that the economy is improving. Again, this is an appeal to the people.

Along with this fallacy is what is known as the ‘bandwagon.’ This is where we jump on the bandwagon and do what everybody else is doing. This is where peer pressure comes in for us to conform or do what others are doing.

We see this type of fallacy coming out in advertisements. We need to buy this or that article or thing because we are told millions are buying it and we need to join the millions. In other words, get on the bandwagon.

When it comes to the nightly news we might be told that majority of people get their news from the ABC, but does that mean that ABC gives us the best news??

We will often hear our teenage child asking to go someplace or to see something (like a movie) and when the parents say “no” they will come back and say, “But everybody is doing it or seeing it.” This is again that bandwagon fallacy.

The issue in this is not whether everybody is doing it, but the real issue is: Is it right or wrong? Is this a good movie to see and is ABC actually the best source of the news or guidance?

In other words, if all of the people in the world are going to the same place or doing the same thing it is no reason for us to follow suit. The important issue is: Is it right, or wrong?

Proverbs 2:6 “For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.”

Proverbs 15:2 “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.”  Proverbs 15:28

“The heart of the righteous weighs its answers, but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil.”  Proverbs 16:10

“The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth should not betray justice.”

This is another fallacy type of personal attack. It is called “genetic” because it addresses the genesis, or the beginning of something. It is different from the Ad-hominem because it does not attack the person making the argument but the place where the argument comes from.

In other words, the “genetic fallacy” is condemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.  A good example of this would be Sigmund Freud in trying to explain why people believe in God. His hypothesis is that when people do not have a good experience or a relationship with their father they wish for and imagine a God who can offer them the things that they missed. He would go on to say that a belief in God who was created out of people’s wishes could not exist. It is very difficult to argue with somebody when he uses this fallacy because no matter what you say they will always claim that it is because of your difficult past and therefore everybody can ignore what you say.

If an argument was made up by a bad person or a bad historical event it does not mean that the argument is necessarily bad itself. An example of this would be in the presidential election of Clinton and Trump. Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral votes. The electoral college, which is the system of the Constitution, laid out for choosing the president may have been created by people with bad motives (as some claim, although I do not think so) does not necessarily mean that the electoral college is bad itself. Although some would claim it is.

Proverbs 2:6 “For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.”

Proverbs 15:14 “The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.”

Proverbs 16:23 “A wise man’s heart guides his mouth, and his lips promote instruction.”

A faulty appeal to authority is an appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.

In other words, when we are not knowledgeable on a certain subject, the wise thing is to first ask an authority – somebody who is knowledgeable on the subject. For example, you do what the mechanics says because he knows more about cars than you do.

We are appealing to an authority when we claim something is true because an authority said it was true, but if the person we are appealing to is not actually an authority in the area we are discussing, our appeal is faulty.

What happens is that some people use an appeal to authority in the wrong way, appealing to an authority when arguing with people – just to overawe them.

Movie stars are often used as a faulty appeal to authority. Because of their movie star status their opinion on numerous things – politics, nutrition, etc. are being asked for, but we find that they are no authority on these subjects.

When the topic under discussion is controversial among several respected authorities, then appealing simply to the opinion of a single authority is a faulty appeal to authority. We find this for example in the argument regarding global warming.

We live in a world where knowledge base is so great that no one could ever achieve a level of expertise in every subject and therefore because of this we rely on the knowledge of experts and specialists regarding many areas of our life. However, we must be careful and even skeptical deciding which authority we ought to accept.

There are four appeals to the illegitimate authority.

1. Accepting the opinions of one who has no expertise in the particular subject that he is talking about.
2. Accepting the advice or opinion of a biased authority.
3. Accepting the advice or opinion of an unnamed authority secondhand.
4. Accepting the advice or opinion that transfers his celebrity status for the thing being talked about. This is especially true in many advertisements that we see all the time on TV.

We often find in the news media what is known as “un-named sources” or “unidentified spokespersons.” The news media does this to lend authority or credibility to their story or whatever it is that they are reporting on, but we have to look at these with great skepticism because we do not know whether these unidentified or unnamed sources are reputable.

One of the most common abuses of this approach is the use of celebrity’s testimonials for different products, but, often, there is little or no connection between the product and what it is that made the celebrity famous. Like someone said, it is not really Michael Jordan’s cologne that has made him famous.

Proverbs 4:24 “Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips.”

Proverbs 10:11 “The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.”

Proverbs 11:9 “With his mouth the godless destroys his neighbor.”

Proverbs 26:28 “A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.”

We have seen how people use red herrings to avoid a question, but another method that is used is known as an “Ad Hominem” when they want to avoid answering the question. In other words, and Ad Hominem attack is attacking opponent’s character, or his motives for believing something, instead of disproving his argument.

In the latest presidential campaign and the public debates that took place often we see “Ad Hominems” coming out in attacking one another’s persons rather than getting down to the real questions at hand.

Not only do we see Ad Hominem coming out in public debates, especially political debates, but also in the ads that come out on TV, etc. For example, in the last political debate between Hillary Clinton and Trump how often we saw the character of the two being attacked.

The idea in back of this type of fallacy in attacking his opponent’s character or motives that the public will often think badly of his opponents’ arguments as well. This is not the right way to argue. Someone might have character flaws, we all do, but his arguments might be valid.

An Ad Hominem can also occur when someone accuses his opponent of having bad motives. However, it is not an Ad Hominem when someone questions whether or not the person is telling the truth.

Ad Hominem can be translated as either “to the man” or “against the man.” Ad Hominem is probably one of the dirtiest tricks that a debater can employ, because it is irrelevant to the source of what is being debated and an uninformed public will often not make a distinction between the character of the man and his argument.

Another reason why an “Ad Hominem” is a dirty debater’s trick, although it is easy to spot, is because it evokes emotive language. The emotions come into play and in the process the real source of the argument is lost. The public loses because we do not get to the real answers to the questions being asked.

Using as an example the latest presidential elections that we have had here in America many questions that needed to be answered has been lost because of the “Ad Hominem fallacy.” In choosing our leaders we need to know what they really think and we get that by answering the real questions.

Another aspect of the “Ad Hominem fallacy” is what they call “circumstantial.” What this basically says is that a person’s argument ought not to be given weight simply because of the circumstances of that person. In other words an example of this would be not to give credibility to a person’s argument on abortion because he is a Roman Catholic. How often we have seen this type of fallacy being promoted in the abortion debate.

“Circumstantial Ad Hominem” is not necessarily abusive, but it brings out the circumstances or the credibility of the person in the debate. In other words, there is no credibility to his argument because of his/her circumstances.