Straw man
 Straw man(propaganda, sophism)   | |
|---|---|
The Straw man argument is a propaganda technique, a fake argument that is introduced in order to fail. The technique is often used by paid "fact checkers".[1]
Definition
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition.[2] The opponent most often do not have the opportunity to correct the distorted argument.
"Fact checkers"
In 2020 Adam Speaking described a "fact checking" straw man method:
One thing you will noticed in virtually all fake fact check articles is that in one way, or another, they openly admit that the fact in question is actually true. But they attempt to obfuscate the veracity of the fact in question by some form of distraction, what-about-ism, moral equivalency, or any number of other logically fallacious arguments that don't directly rebut the fact in question.
The most common fact check articles consist of a straw man argument. A straw man argument cannot be defined as a fact check, because a straw man argument doesn't, in fact, check the fact in question. A straw man argument is an argument which side-steps the fact it's supposed to be arguing against and argues against another (often related) fact. Usually the wool is pulled over the reader's eyes by using a closely related fact, or subtly changing the opponents original claim (fact), or argument, and thereby creating a straw man to more easily debunk.
Another very common fact check takes the form of a "missing information" fact check. This form of fact check quietly admits that the fact in question is correct, but craftily distracts from the fact's accuracy by arguing that if you take into account other information the assumed implications of the fact are called into question. ...
And this is the most sinister purpose of the fact-checking scheme. The articles aren't meant to be read. They are, like so many other forms of content today, meant to be seen as adding weight to the overwhelming evidence that one political team is correct while the other political team is wrong.[3]
