Introduction To Strawman Fallacy
In a strawman fallacy, the argument is a distorted (and weaker) version of another person’s argument that can easily be refuted (e.g., when a teacher proposes that the class spend more time on math exercises, a parent complains that the teacher isn’t concerned about reading and writing).
Logical fallacies distort arguments, making discussions unproductive. One common fallacy—the “strawman”—misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. A popular (but flawed) version of this argument is the claim, “You think coaches are required to fix everything!”
This statement oversimplifies and misrepresents the actual role of coaching in personal and professional growth. In this blog, let us explore:
- What the strawman fallacy is
- How the “coaches are required” strawman works
- Why coaching is valuable (but not a one-size-fits-all fix)
- How to avoid this fallacy in debates/discussions
1. What Is the Strawman Fallacy?
A strawman fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the real point, they knock down a weaker, fake version (“strawman”).
Let us take, for example:
– Original Argument: “Coaching can help people improve skills faster.”
– Strawman Response: “Oh, so you think everyone MUST hire a coach? That’s elitist!”
Here, the original claim wasn’t that coaching is mandatory—it is just helpful. The strawman distorts the original claim into an extreme stance. Most of the panel members on Indian news channels are experts at this twisting (they are there on either side of the spectrum).
Essentially, the person using the straw man argument pretends to argue against their opponent’s original position, while in reality they have created a distorted version of that position—one that their opponent doesn’t necessarily support and that is easy to rebuke. A strawman fallacy is an informal logical fallacy. In other words, the problem lies in the content of the argument, rather than its structure (in which case it would be a formal fallacy)
2. The “Coaches Are Required for the Fix” Strawman
Many critics of coaching (in sports, business, or life skills) falsely claim that proponents believe, “You can’t succeed without a coach!”
The above statement is a misrepresentation. Most coaching advocates argue:
– Coaching accelerates progress (not that it’s the “only” way).
– It provides accountability and expertise (not that self-learning is worthless).
Most people would use Ekalaiva’s example, saying that we really don’t need to have a guru sitting next to us. They try to trivialise the importance of formal training and the potential for biased teacher–student relationships. While Ekalaiva achieved mastery through self-study, he did miss out on many crucial aspects of formal education. Many students and parents think they can learn it by watching YouTube videos alone, but they are wrong. It doesn’t go beyond a certain limit, and that’s for a fact. (Don’t strawman me: ‘So you say watching YouTube is useless?’)
Real-World Examples That I Have Seen:
– Fitness: Someone says, “A trainer can help correct your form.”
– Strawman Reply: “So you’re saying nobody can exercise alone? Ridiculous!”
– Business: “Mentorship helps avoid common start-up mistakes.”
– Strawman Reply: “You think all entrepreneurs are helpless without coaches?”
These responses ignore nuance, framing coaching as a “mandatory crutch” rather than a “useful tool”.
3. The Real Value of Coaching (Without Fallacies)
Coaching isn’t a “fix-all,” but it offers measurable benefits:
Structured Learning– Coaches provide tailored feedback, reducing trial and error.
– Example: A writing coach spots bad habits a self-taught writer might miss.
Accountability
– Humans procrastinate. Coaches “keep you on track” (study: American Psychological Association found accountability boosts goal success by 65%).
Expertise on Demand
– Why reinvent the wheel? Coaches are there to share tested strategies (e.g., a sales coach teaching proven closing techniques for a deal).
But It’s Not the Only Way!
– Many succeed without coaches (self-learners, autodidacts).
– Coaching is a tool, not a mandatory requirement.
4. How to Avoid the Strawman Fallacy
Let us provide an example for those who aspire to become debaters. Many members of the opposing team will divert your attention. In the heat of the moment, you may feel compelled to defend your position, unaware that you are actually veering off course. Here’s how to stay on track:
– Restate the opponent’s argument accurately before rebutting.
– Ask within yourself, “Am I attacking their real point or a distorted version?”
Rephrasing the opponent’s data in your own language will be effective. You have control over bringing attention back to the moot point.
For Coaching Advocates:
– Clarify: “Coaching helps but isn’t the only path.”
– Use moderate language (avoid words like “must” or “always”, “90% or more”, “accurate”).
It helps to keep the detractors quiet that way.
Conclusion
The strawman fallacy “coaches are required for the fix” misrepresents coaching as a rigid necessity rather than an optional accelerator. While coaching has proven benefits, success isn’t exclusive to those who use it.
Key Takeaways:
✅ Strawman fallacies weaken debates by attacking fake arguments.
✅ Coaching is effective but not mandatory.
✅ Avoid absolutes (“always”, “must”) to keep discussions honest.
Next time someone says, “Oh, so you think coaches solve everything?” — Call out the strawman and bring the conversation back to reality!
Ever faced the ‘coaches fix everything’ moment? Drop your story in the comments—we’ll dissect it together!