The "Strawman Gambit" in a Controversial Debate

At times, when two parties are arguing, A will attempt to refute the arguments of B, only for B to claim that:

• A doesn't understand B's arguments, and
• A is strawmanning/misrepresenting said arguments

Typically, the conversation gets dragged into discussing whether or not someone was misinterpreted, rather than dealing with the issue. This may seem fine - after all, if A really did misrepresent B...what's the problem with clarifying things?

Except in this case, B has no good-faith reason to believe they were 'taken out of context', 'strawmanned' or whatever. They were using it as a way of avoiding a legitimate counterargument (probably one that they themselves could not respond to).

Logical form

• Person A attacks argument X
• Person B asserts that argument X has been misunderstood (when it really hasn't been)
• Person B asserts that the counter to argument X is a straw-man

I consider this to be a red herring but I suppose, if used to suggest dishonesty on the part of the opposite speaker, could also be an ad hominem (abusive).

I dont think this is a fallacy per se; it can't be determined how accurate a person's understanding of a particular argument is when we're only talking in the abstract.

It' possible that the person is not explaining their position in a way the arguer feels is accurate due to differences in how each person interprets language.

In my experience talking with a lot of armchair philosphers around the world is that many (myself included) have a tendency to reframe arguments in a way that may seem like a subtle difference in language, but that subtle difference changes the understanding completely to the arguer. Thus, the arguer feels they've been "taken out of context" , and technically they're right. In most cases this mistake is not out of mailce, but just due to the fact that humans are not inherently good at remembering what people say in the exact way they said it.

Accuracy is the key to conveying fairness. It might feel like they are just nitpicking at subtle differences in language, but it's their argument, so it's important to frame it in a way they accept.

This happens often outside of philosophical debates too. Think about how many couples argue over not being understood properly by their partners :s

This is easy to avoid with a bit of mindfulness. All you have to do is mirror the language of the persons arguments. This provides the best opportunity for the person to feel they are being understood properly.

If you repeat everything they've said verbatim and they still insist you don't understand, then maybe there is a fallacy there. But from my experience, the misunderstanding often happens for a reason.

I think your assessment is accurate. It can also be a technique for refusing to debate or even poisoning the well by getting the audience to see the interlocutor as one who is not worthy (because they are incapable of understanding, or are not making a good-faith effort to represent the argument). More generally, this appears to be calling "fallacy" where none exists (for the same reasons mentioned).

The best defense against this is to calmly and politely ask, "Please help me understand. What am I getting wrong?" in response to a strawman. Then be ready with point out the likely distinction without a difference .