Some fallacies of relevance do talk about the other side's view, but not the real one.
Key idea
A straw man replaces the other side's actual position with a weaker or more extreme version, knocks that version down, and claims victory.
Why it works
Refuting a view only matters if it is the view someone holds. Knocking down "ban pizza forever" says nothing about "add more vegetables." The real proposal is still standing, untouched, after the attack.
Worked example: Compare the two versions
Ana: "Maybe we could shorten recess by five minutes on test days." Kai: "Ana wants to cancel recess for the whole year! Nobody should agree to that."
- Ana's view: five minutes, test days only.
- Kai's version: no recess all year.
- Kai attacks the second, which is much easier to reject.
Answer: Straw man.
Worked example: A fair reply
Ana: "Maybe we could shorten recess by five minutes on test days." Kai: "Five minutes is small, but recess helps some students focus, so the trade might not raise scores."
- Kai states Ana's view accurately: five minutes, test days.
- Then he gives a reason against that very view.
Answer: Not a straw man: Kai disagrees fairly.
Common mistake
Confusing straw man with red herring (next lesson). A straw man still talks about the opponent's view, only a distorted copy of it. Test: put the original claim and the attacked claim side by side. Are they the same?