This might belong in the Philosophy forum. If so, my bad

My girl and I were arguing yesterday on what is and what isn't a Straw Man argument. The main point of disagreement was on intent.

If someone misrepresents your position and argues against that (a straw man), but they really don't know any better, is it really a "straw man"?

For example, say I'm debating a creationist who really doesn't know much at all about evolution. He says "monkeys don't give birth to humans!" Now, that is a true statement, but that's not what evolution claims happens. So, he is misrepresenting my position and arguing against that, so I'd say it's a Straw Man. But, if he's simply ignorant, by (presumably) no fault of his own, and isn't deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting my position...is it still a Straw Man - or is it enough to just say he's a dumb ass?

TL;DR - is intent/active deceit a requisite to committing the Straw Man fallacy?

My 2 copper....

I'd say, at the end of the day, intent is not required for it to be a strawman.
Either....A- they know that is not the position, but are presenting it as such to tear it down anyway.
Or B- they may think that is the position to start with, but obviously didn't bother to check if that was in case the fact, and then proceeded to build up and tear it down assuming it was a fact.

OT:
In honor of post #666....

Nice 666th post lol

(June 10, 2014 at 10:39 am)ThePinsir Wrote: DR - is intent/active deceit a requisite to committing the Straw Man fallacy?

No. Absent intent, such arguments are still fallacious.

Until you're sure they're being a dick on purpose though, it might be better just to say "You're misrepresenting the topic," instead of "STRAWMAN!"

(June 10, 2014 at 10:39 am)ThePinsir Wrote: TL;DR - is intent/active deceit a requisite to committing the Straw Man fallacy?

I'd say there's a responsibility to know about an opposed view point before stating what the opposed view point believes. This responsibility is not met by reading propaganda about said opposed view but going directly to the source.

Therefore, neglecting this responsibility and assigning opinions, even in ignorance, is still a straw man.

(June 10, 2014 at 11:04 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 10:39 am)ThePinsir Wrote: DR - is intent/active deceit a requisite to committing the Straw Man fallacy?

No. Absent intent, such arguments are still fallacious.

Exactly. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not.

(June 10, 2014 at 10:39 am)ThePinsir Wrote: TL;DR - is intent/active deceit a requisite to committing the Straw Man fallacy?

No. A logical fallacy is a fallacy regardless of intent.

(June 10, 2014 at 10:39 am)ThePinsir Wrote: TL;DR - is intent/active deceit a requisite to committing the Straw Man fallacy?

Regardless of intent, it's still a straw man.