I’ve been trying to work out from context what a straw man argument is, but it’s an accusation levelled at so many arguments that I can’t get a clear understanding. Could someone please take the time to explain to me the concept of a straw man argument?
Fran
I take it to mean an argument which misrepresents the opposition’s views in an attempt to defeat them more easily than would be possible by attacking them on a factual basis.
Eg:
A: Black people are over-represented in prison populations.
B: (Knowing that A’s point may well be valid, and that he or she is concerned about the social issues from which the fact arises) How dare you suggest black people are less law-abiding?
B has employed a straw man argument. A has been painted as a racist, and has been placed on the back foot as he must now defend himself on that score before he can concentrate on advancing his original viewpoint.
Which reminds me of the following question, from a few months back: What is a straw man argument?
That thread contains (IMHO) quite a few good answers to the question.
If you don’t think you got a decent answer, why don’t you just bumb the old thread, instead of starting a new one? Or at least give a link and point out where the answers to the earlier question were inadequate.
Personally I quite like the answer given Diceman. Short and simple:
That’s essentially correct. Attacking a straw man means an attack not at what your opponent has said, but rather at what you SAY your opponent has said. It redefines the extent of the debate to the advantage of the attacker.
from here
That’s not true. You claim that a straw man argument means inventing an opponent, whereas it’s really just a device to modify the standpoint of your opponent, so that it becomes easier to attack. 
Oh my goodness! I genuinely completely forgot that I asked this question before. I honestly just blanked on it. My humble apologies.
" I genuinely completely forgot that I asked this question before. I honestly just blanked on it. My humble apologies.
"
You sure did 
That’s the first time I saw this happen in such a short period.
Here’s an example that I called this morning (paraphrasing):
Poster A: I am angry because a stranger in a bathroom got close to and touched the hands of my 2 month old baby without permission.
Poster B: What, so nobody should be allowed to talk to a kid without express written permission?
Bean’s example comes from here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=98498
The OP did not say that no one should talk to her child without permission. However, Gaspode did, and that was what Lemur866 was responding to, not the OP. Lemur866 did not make a strawman attack.
Ruh-roh! And I thought it was such a good example! :o