> 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/incorrec

> 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. In the degenerate case, person B only identifies person A by the position he claims that person A holds. It should be obvious that there is no strawman here, since A does not exist unless A holds the position B claims. It could be argued that, as B gives A more and more distinguishing characteristics, he slides closer to strawman territory. But I don't think the OP was close enough to be in danger.