Dissecting the straw man argument.

I don't know who needs to hear this, but a straw man argument is not just any argument you think is bad.

A straw man argument is when someone creates a false version of your argument that is intentionally weak (hence "straw," as in the little piggy's house) so that they can easily refute it (like a big bad wolf, blow it down).
People don't even necessarily know that they're making a straw man argument, because "properly understanding your opponent's position" is not a skilled required to argue with people.

Indeed, there's a strong incentive NOT to acquire that skill because it's so much more efficient to just make up straw men, knock them down, congratulate yourself, and go about your day.

It's also impressive to the lurkers who don't properly understand your opponent's argument either, so all they see is that you apparently "won," and the next time they're in this same kind of argument with someone else, they'll do the same thing you did, because they saw it work so well.

But there's an extra layer of irony here, because the kind of people who are most likely to wield straw man arguments have learned the term "straw man argument," and now they're flinging it out willy nilly against their opponents without a clue of what they're saying-- they only know that it sounds smart.

So in some contexts, for some people, accusing their opponent of using straw man arguments is itself a straw man argument.

Is your world rocked yet?

I imagine it is, but remember not to simply repeat this observation to rock other people's worlds without properly understanding it, and being prepared to explain it.

Otherwise you might be doing a bit of straw-manning yourself.