Straw Man (Invidious Comparison)
When making an invidious comparison, popularly called a straw man argument, the author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.
Examples
Not disagreeing on principle, marginalizing the “other”
In 2016, professor Larycia Hawkins of Wheaton College asserted on Facebook that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. At Wheaton and elsewhere, theological and philosophical objections to this claim were raised. In a movie, Same God, Hawkins’ defenders reframed the issue not as a worthy subject of theological disagreement between Hawkins and others, but to a supposed victim and oppressor, and to mistreatment of the “other”.
All around us are the “other” who are marginalized because of their religion, race, gender identity, etc. … Because Every Body Needs Some Body. … In 2015, a black, female professor at a prominent Christian college wore a hijab and said that Christians and Muslims worship the Same God. The firestorm that followed exposed the rifts among evangelicals over race, Islam, religious freedom and politics.
Marketing copy, Film Site (May 15, 2026)
In advertising, misrepresenting competitors
Straw man has always been the stock-in-trade of advertisers. … A U.S. Postal service commercial once pictured competitors trying to deliver packages with rickety old planes that fell apart on camera; IBM once touted its laser printers by comparing them with those of a pseudo-competing product unable to collate printed material and therefore not really in competition with the printers IBM was touting.
Kahane & Cavender, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, p. 58.
“Nutpicking”
The blog-era term ‘nutpicking’, which refers to cherry-picking the worst or nuttiest comments to disparage a larger group (‘liberals’, ‘conservatives’, ‘feminists’) by falsely implying the views are widely-held within the group, needs to be revived. It’s very common on Twitter.
Nate Silver of 538 on Twitter
“So what you’re saying is …”
Peterson: If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it?
… Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point.
Conor Friedersdorf, “Why Can’t People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?” on Jordan Peterson’s interview with Cathy Newman (January 22, 2018).
Critique
Show that the opposition’s argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.
Commentary
On “steel manning”, the inverse of straw manning
The philosopher Daniel Dennett outlines an effective process for arguing with someone who has opposing views: 1) Attempt to re-express the other person’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that they say, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” 2) List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3) Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
On “nutpicking”