Do you want  a quick and decisive way to absolutely know you have won a debate? When the other side produces a Straw Man. At that point, they have shown all their cards and they have nothing left to refute your arguments. 

Here is the classic definition of the Straw Man Argument : 

Straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts their opponent’s argument by oversimplifying or exaggerating it, for example, and then refutes this “new” version of the argument

It is always fun to watch people desperately throw that out there because they lack the intellectual ability to engage, or they realize their side of the debate is wrong. Rather than come to grips with that, they have to change the argument. 

Recently, I have had this happen to me twice in online discussions. And both times it was hilarious to watch the other side collapse. 

The first was earlier this year when some online voices tried to put over the idea that physical fitness did not matter for self-defense. With a large number of real world video examples, I showed how fantastically idiotic that was. Rather than try to continue the debate with intelligence, or admit that they said something profoundly stupid, the other side went right into a Straw Man. Their excuse as to why they said that fitness does not matter, is because they did not want someone out there to think that if they were not fit then they would not be able to defend themselves. And again, they tried to say that is exactly what people like myself originally said about fitness – that if you are not fit, you will fail at any self-defense encounter. But did they produce one single quote to that effect? Or did they point out where someone could go to see those words? Of course not. Because no one ever said them. It is merely a convenient way for someone to not admit they were wrong. 

It happened again more recently when internet commentators who have literally zero time with revolvers showed how lacking in knowledge they were by going to the Straw Man because they have no other way to argue. They tried to say that I said a double action trigger on a revolver is a good thing because it makes a revolver immune to negligent discharges. 

Which would be a hugely stupid thing to say. But I never said that. I wrote and have said in interviews that it is HARDER to have an ND with a longer, heavier trigger, but it is not impossible. And what is ironic, is that the other side agrees with me. The whole reason they will push that you should only run a striker fired trigger is because IT IS EASIER TO SHOOT. Which means a trigger that has a longer and heavier pull is harder to make it go off. Which, by their own reasoning, means a DA trigger gun is harder to have an ND with! 

But, that is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion because I never said or wrote that DA triggers cannot have an ND. And you know how I can prove that? Because the other side did not – and cannot – point you to where I said it. They create the Straw Man and then let you assume that is what was said. Unlike them, I can produce exact evidence to what they wrote or said with their Straw Man. But they cannot do the same, even though I am very public in the things I say or write. 

It is a made up Straw Man argument. In other and more simple words, they lied and did so in order to try to appear like they won a debate. But they did not win the debate. They actually lost the war.