Strawman

Example

The Sangat protest against the Kar Seva Babai for demolishing historical Sikh Gurdwarai to rebuild them in a more modern but impractical style. In response, the Kar Seva Babai accuse the Sangat of being resistant to change and modernity, and claim that the Sangat doesn’t want to accommodate for a growing number of devotees.

Understanding the Strawman Fallacy

The Strawman Fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts another person’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of engaging with the actual criticism, the person constructs a simplified or exaggerated version of the argument that is easier to dismiss.

• Characteristics:
  • Distorted Argument: The responder replaces the actual issue with a misrepresented or exaggerated version.
  • Avoidance of Real Criticism: The focus is shifted to the distorted argument, allowing the responder to avoid engaging with the core concern.
  • Superficial Response: The misrepresented version of the argument is easier to refute, giving the appearance of a successful counter-argument.

Applying It To The Example

1. Initial Criticism:
   • Opposition to Demolition: The Sangat are protesting the demolition of historical Sikh Gurdwarai, concerned that replacing them with modern but impractical designs would damage their cultural and historical significance. The core issue here is the preservation of heritage while balancing functionality.
   • Focus on Practicality and Heritage: The Sangat’s concern is about maintaining the sanctity of historical Gurdwaras, not opposing change or modernization in general.
2. Response from the Kar Seva Babai:
   • Strawman Argument: Instead of addressing the Sangat’s concerns about the destruction of historical Gurdwaras and the impractical new designs, the Kar Seva Babai accuse the Sangat of being resistant to change and unwilling to accommodate the growing number of devotees.
3. Why This Is Strawman:
   • Distortion of the Concern: The Kar Seva Babai distort the Sangat’s argument by claiming they are simply resistant to change or modernization, when in fact, the Sangat are specifically objecting to the destruction of historical sites and impractical new designs.
   • Avoiding the Core Issue: Instead of engaging with the Sangat’s concerns about the cultural and practical consequences of the demolition, the Kar Seva Babai redirect the focus to a different argument (resistance to change).
4. Evasion Instead of Engagement:
   • Easier to Refute: The accusation that the Sangat are resistant to change is a more generalized, exaggerated argument that’s easier to dismiss. By reframing the debate this way, the Kar Seva Babai avoid addressing the valid concern over the loss of heritage.

Why It’s Fallacious Reasoning

• Misrepresentation of Concerns: The Kar Seva Babai are distorting the Sangat’s actual objections (about heritage preservation and practicality) into a broader and oversimplified argument about resistance to change, which was not the real issue.
• Avoidance of Real Dialogue: By attacking this distorted version of the argument, the Kar Seva Babai avoid addressing the core criticism about demolishing significant historical Gurdwaras.
• Blocking Productive Discussion: This approach prevents meaningful discussion about balancing tradition with modern needs and diverts the conversation toward a non-issue (resistance to change).

Conclusion

The Kar Seva Babai’s response to the Sangat exemplifies the Strawman Fallacy. Instead of addressing the genuine concerns about the destruction of historically significant Gurdwaras and the impracticality of new designs, the Kar Seva Babai distort the argument into an accusation that the Sangat is simply resistant to change and modernization. This logical fallacy deflects attention away from the real issue, preventing constructive dialogue and solutions.