Observe the example given by Wikipedia: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and [...] 3. Person B attacks position Y,

Observe the example given by Wikipedia: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and [...] 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. Person A doesn't need to be present or even know that his position is being spun for Person B to establish and attack a strawman. The strawman is presented to force a debate over something that Person A never asserted. That is, the debate comes after and is a result of the strawman. There may have existed a debate previously, but it is not a requirement for one that is provoked by the introduction of a strawman. You might have heard someone respond to a strawman with, "Do you still beat your wife?," which is an obvious example of the tactic that is thrown in the face of the offender as a way of demonstrating its unfairness and ridiculousness. And imagine the possible responses to the question and why it might leave someone helplessly searching for a response that doesn't damn him: 1. Deny having ever beaten his wife, thus lending credence to the implication by acknowledging it. 2. Ignore the question, thus lending credence to the implication by not denying it. So the submission could be seen as an implication that people who don't succumb to these fallacies actually do, leaving them with the choice of ignoring the assertion or leaving a comment to deny ever having been naive about any of those points. I honestly have never heard that there has to exist an argument or a specific opponent for a strawman to be established. Someone please correct me if I am off.