Winning against imaginary opponents

The first phone call came at 7:05 a.m. I picked up the phone. “Dear Customer,” a recorded message began. “This call is to advise you that we have deducted $399.99 from your account to cover the renewal of your service policy. To approve this transaction, press one. To speak to a service representative, press two…” I hung up instead. But then the same call came every hour, for the next six hours. After seven calls, I had their telephone number memorized: 1-469-856-8871. Google tells me that’s a Dallas exchange.

I’m always tempted to talk back to recorded messages, the way I talk back to contestants on Jeopardy who know nothing about Canada. I’m even tempted to “Press two” to see if I can tie the service representative’s mind into knots. “Sir…” “No.” “No what?” “My name isn’t ‘Sir’.” “But sir…” “If you don’t know my name, how do you know I’m your customer?”

Or perhaps I could play word games with them:

“Sir, we need to confirm your bank account to complete the transaction…”

“The woman’s message said you had already deducted the money --”

“The transaction is in process…” “Seven times! That would be $2799.93 deducted from my bank account. There have been no deductions from my account today.”

“Electronic transactions normally take two working days.”

“Ha! I don’t have working days anymore. I’m retired.”

Or perhaps I could pretend to be cooperative.

“We need your account information to confirm your identity.”

“You called me. So you must already have that information. You tell me my account number, and I’ll tell you if you’re right.” “That’s confidential.”

“I think you’re lying. You don’t know my name and you don’t know my account number.”

Yes, I know, that’s pure fantasy. Wishful thinking. One of us would hang up long before the conversation got that far. But it’s fun, isn’t it, creating opponents we know we can conquer?

In philosophical circles, this practice is called the “straw man argument.” The Online Etymology Dictionary defines “straw man” as “an easily refuted imaginary opponent.”

I had wrongly assumed that “straw man” referred to the haybale figures used to train British soldiers, in World War I days, in the proper use of bayonets. A straw man could be safely gored and gutted without fear of retaliation. But apparently the term goes back to 1620 or so, when it described false witnesses who could be bribed to say whatever was wanted.

Wikipedia defines the straw man as “giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”

Similarly, the Grammarist website suggests that it’s a political tactic that typically highlights the most extreme position of the opposing side, and then demolishes it.

A conservative might characterize support for women’s reproductive rights as endorsing the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies.

A liberal might define anyone who opposes the teaching of evolution in schools as a brain-dead Bible-thumper who should have gone extinct with the rest of the dinosaurs.

There’s just enough truth in either caricature to make it seem credible to those already on-side. And so little truth that they’re easy to ridicule.

In the last federal election, Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer treated each other as straw men.

In the U.S., Donald Trump constantly creates straw men as a negotiating tactic. He charges his opponents -- North Korea, China, Iran, and Mexico -- with planning to do things they have no intention of doing. Then, when they don’t do what they never intended to do anyway, he can claim a victory for himself.

I must confess that I sometimes create my own straw men. I criticize the least defensible views of climate change deniers, to show that my own views are more reasonable. Do I actually convince anyone?

I doubt it. Often, it feels more like spitting into the wind.

As a debating tactic, invoking a straw man tends to push you towards one of three options:

• Ignore the straw man, and thereby leave the charges unchallenged.

• Refute it, and find yourself supporting your opponent against a position neither of you hold.

• Digress into explaining the flaws of the straw man argument, and get distracted from the main issue.

None of those choices are helpful. Especially when dealing with recorded messages from Dallas.

The best defence against the “straw man” is to become aware of its seductive allure. Wherever it comes from. Even if you create it yourself.