Teaching Argument Writing with Frankenstories

A strawman argument misrepresents the opposing argument in a way that makes it easier to discredit or attack.

For example, here's an exchange between two city councillors arguing about speed limits in Brisbane:

"More and more cities around the world are adopting speed limits of 30kph in recognition of the fact that lower speed limits can improve safety and convenience for active and public transport users, and in turn can help encourage a shift away from car dependence," Cr Sri said.

"When you hear a push for 30kph what you're hearing – read between the lines – is they really hate motorists and they want to punish them and they want them out of their cars," Cr Schrinner said.

(Source: ABC News)

Loaded questions are framed in a way that implies part of the answer, usually to make an opponent look bad (guilty, heartless, weak-willed...), or to coerce them into answering in a specific way to avoid looking bad.

A canonical example of this is the question, "Have you stopped committing crimes?"

The loading in this question is the assumption that you have been committing crimes and you may or may not have stopped. The only response is to reject the question entirely.

Here's an example of a loaded question being given to an audience (as opposed to an opponent). In 2009, New Zealand held a referendum on corporal punishment. The question asked was:

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The question garnered criticism because it "presupposes that smacking is a part of good parental correction." (Source: Wikipedia)

Ad hominem literally means "at the person". It's the most direct way to attack someone's character or credibility, by saying that they are wrong because of who they are.

This example comes from the Suze Orman Show, where Suze gives financial advice to callers:

Caller: We have talked to a financial advisor and he recommended that we put it in an annuity.

Suze Orman: [...] Did that advisor also say to you that if you put that $80,000 in there I’m gonna make about $4,000 of commissions? Did he or she happen to tell you that as well?

(Source: Last Week Tonight - from 4:40)

Looking more broadly at persuasion—not just argument and logic—bringing up the financial advisor's conflict of interest is totally relevant, because they could be abusing their power as an expert (and thus their audience's willingness to take the things they say for granted).

But from the standpoint of pure logic, who someone is and what they do doesn't affect whether they are right. Are annuities a bad idea? More evidence and reasoning are required!

Write like one is trying to discredit the other's argument

R1: Have the reasonable character introduce an issue and make a claim.
R2: Have the unreasonable character dismiss their claim by constructing a "straw man" misrepresentation of it.
R3: Have the unreasonable character ask a loaded question, forcing the reasonable character towards a specific answer.
R4: Have the unreasonable character attack the reasonable character's personal traits in order to dismiss their argument.
R5: How does the reasonable character respond?

Example game: Barman, Please Don't Serve These Two Any More Intergalactic Gargle Blasters...