The Straw Man
The Straw Man is a logical fallacy which makes an incorrect copy of a claim or argument. The straw man version of that claim or argument, is thereafter used to debunk the actual claim or argument, by making it distorted.
Identity
Person 1: Makes a claim: "x"
Person 2: Creates a straw man out of that claim, by reciting the claim in an incorrect way ("y"). The tactic is to avoid arguing against the original claim("x), by falsifying the claim and arguing against the newly created straw man instead.
Example #1
Person 1 claims: I do not believe that the state should take care of education, health care or protection.
Person 2 creates a straw man of that claim: So you don't think that children should be educated, or that people should have access to hospitals nor any means to protect themselves from criminals?
Example #2
Person 1 claims: All drugs should be decriminalized. Criminalization of actions that cause no harm to others or their property, is theft of rights.
Person 2 creates a straw man of that claim: Clearly you are mistaken - Advocating that people should take drugs because they have the right to do so, is madness!
Example #3
Person 1 claims: What is propagated as science in mainstream media is a form of religion.
Person 2 creates a straw man of that claim: I do not think that you understand what science is. Science is not religion.
Illustration:
By false imitation Person 2 creates a false image/mental representation of Person 1's claim. By claiming that "y" (the straw man) is "x" - It also follows that "x" is no longer just "x" but also"y". - The original claim "x" and the straw man "y".
Premis 1:
When "x" is no longer "x" but something else, it forces the law of identity to be violated:
X is no longer "x". " x" is "y". - The claim is no longer the claim but something else.
Premis 2:
By violating the law of identity a contradiction is spawned. Now "x" = "x" but at the same time "x" is also = "y". And hence the law of non-contradiction is also violated, as "x" can not, both be "x" AND not "x" (something else) at the same time, while still keeping the identity of "x".
Since a straw man "y" - fails to adress "x" correctly, it fails to be relevant for the argument.
Link to post about the three laws of thought
Causation:
The target(s) fail to recognize that the represented image has been corrupted. The target(s) allowed the caster of the straw man to claim authorship of the represented image by accepting the false image "y = x".
Effect(s):
Local: The ability to recognize alteration on the particular claim (mental image) has been bypassed.
The local effect of a straw man corrupts the mental image concerned with the subject that were "straw manned" and leaves the target unable to discriminate between; What really is - And the straw man about what really is.
Global: The default method of processing information is to ignore alterations in information.
The global effect of a straw man is that the target dissect information through a broken lense, making him prone to accept, that things are: "what it is said they are", without the capacity to realize alterations, missing premises or mistaken conclusions.
Other references:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man