How to Make Sure You Aren’t Disagreeing with a Straw Man

By Andy Patton

“Still, the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
—Simon and Garfunkel, The Boxer

At this year’s General Assembly in Chattanooga, several members of the AMR board addressed the challenges facing the PCA in a seminar titled “Pursuing a Unified Vision for Mission and Renewal in the PCA.” During the discussion, pastor, author, and AMR board member Sean Lucas emphasized that for the PCA to grow healthier, its members must strengthen their practice of fundamental communication skills. In particular, he noted that when we disagree, we need to learn how to avoid fighting over straw man arguments.

We’ll share the audio of that conversation soon, but in the meantime, we thought it would be good to zoom in on that comment and ask the question of how we can be sure we aren’t disagreeing with a straw man.

What is a Straw Man Argument?

A straw man argument is a rhetorical trick. Winning an argument becomes easier when we first reduce the thing we disagree with to a lesser form. Rather than engaging with an idea in its strongest, most nuanced version, we distort, exaggerate, or oversimplify. That is a straw man. Straw man arguments make for good debate, but bad communication—more drama but less understanding.

A straw man argument is a Faustian bargain: it may feel satisfying and even persuasive in the moment, but it weakens our thinking and cheapens our convictions. It hardens the views of those who already agree with us while pushing away those who care deeply about the very ideas we misrepresent.

Why do we use straw man arguments?

Plenty of reasons.

They make arguments easier to win. Confronting ideas with which we disagree requires mental work, patience, and humility. Misrepresenting our ideological enemies makes it easier to dunk on them. If that is what we’re after, a straw man is the perfect rhetorical tool and is always ready to hand.

Straw men sway spectators. They have flash and potency. They can make the “other side” look foolish or extreme. When an audience is watching—be it online, in a sermon, on the floor at General Assembly, or in a private conversation within our own tribe—distorting the opposition scores easy points.

Straw men simplify complexity and pave over nuance. Real disagreements can be messy and layered. Real disagreements often touch deep issues, values, fears, and identities. Straw man arguments collapse all that uncomfortable mess into a single, brittle, manageable package.

And they make us feel that we are right—and we all want to feel that. Cognitive traps like the false consensus effect and hindsight bias trick us into assuming our understanding of another’s view is obvious and correct, so we stop listening and stop asking questions. We hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.

Christians Shouldn’t Straw Man

Jesus never stooped to distortion. When his enemies tried to trap him, he didn’t twist their words—he asked clarifying questions and met their traps with truth and challenge. As John’s gospel shows, he knew what was in the hearts of the people he met. He saw straight through to the bottom of what they were really saying and addressed the deeper issues.

Paul, too, modeled careful listening and careful speech. In Acts 17, when he stood in Athens before philosophers and skeptics, he didn’t caricature their beliefs; he quoted their poets, highlighted what was true, and built bridges from their partial truths to the fullness of Christ. He was “all things to all people, that by all means [he] might save some” (1 Cor 9:22).

Peter encouraged the recipients of his letter to “Always be prepared to make a defense… yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15). To abandon gentleness and respect is to trade short-term gain for long-term loss. When we treat even those we strongly disagree with kindly—and when they can see that we respect both them and their views—we may not always persuade them, but we will still reflect Christ’s way in the world. And that is where true potency lies.

How to Make Sure You Aren’t Disagreeing with a Straw Man

So what does it look like in practice to avoid the straw man shortcut?

1. State Their View Better Than They Can

Francis Schaeffer once said that if he had an hour with someone, he’d spend 55 minutes listening and asking questions so that in the last five minutes he might have something helpful to say. If you want to persuade someone, spend more time listening than talking.

Before you argue, repeat the other person’s point back to them. Ask: “Is that what you’re saying?” and “Let me make sure I’ve got this right.” Then try to say it better than they did. Teach them things about their own view. Draw out what is good and sensible in it. This is sometimes called steelmanning—the opposite of a straw man. You are actually making their argument stronger in an effort for all parties to come to a better understanding of both its strengths and shortcomings.

2. Ask Clarifying Questions

When in doubt, ask. Questions defuse defensiveness, open doors, and cost you nothing. They invite the other person to clarify instead of retreating. When you feel an answer or rebuttal burning inside you, prohibit yourself from interrupting in order to gainsay the person you are talking to. Channel that energy into a genuine question.

If you could manage that, what would happen to the part of your conversation partner’s brain that is gearing up for another battle of misunderstandings? What would happen to their readiness to listen when it comes time for you to speak?

3. Agree Before You Disagree

Most disagreements aren’t 100% wrong vs. 100% right. If you can affirm any part of what they’re saying, do it. Find common ground before you challenge. It signals that you’re not out to “win” but to understand. God has scattered his truth generously throughout his creation; it doesn’t only live in your tribe’s views and previously held opinions. Find what is good in the view you disagree with and highlight it.

4. Remember the Emotional Level of the Conversation

Every argument has two conversations happening at once: the content and the undercurrent. The undercurrent is about belonging, safety, ego, and trust. If people sense they’re being misheard or misrepresented, the undercurrent turns into stonewalling. If they feel heard, the door stays open. Paying attention to the emotional conversation means listening for what’s beneath the words—fear, pride, hope, or pain. A thoughtful question or a small moment of validation can do more to move the discussion forward than any clever rebuttal.

5. Remember Your Own Blind Spots

Straw men are good at highlighting the blind spots in the opinions and thinking of others, but anyone who wants to lead someone else to the truth should first take a deep breath and remind themselves that they have also treasured distortions of the truth in their lives.

You also have blind spots and strongholds of falsehood that you guard and protect. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, not only in our behavior but also in our thinking.

We should remember Jesus’ sobering words for those who would be judges: “With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

---

In the end, we do not persuade by distorting but by dignifying—both the truth and the person who holds it. True communication isn’t about speaking what’s on your mind but exploring the possibilities of understanding between people. When we resist the shortcut of the straw man and choose instead to listen well, speak carefully, and honor even our fiercest opponents, we do more than win arguments—we bear witness to the One who is Himself the Truth because our disagreements reveal more than our convictions; they reveal our character.