My "strawman" is me attempting to understand YOU. Argue better if you care about serious debate, otherwise you're just trolling.

Now, obviously there are different types of strawman... calling out a strawman is step one, but a more clever tactic is to point out where the strawman is flawed.

For example,

Alice says, "Taking a shower is beneficial."
Bob refutes that with, "But hot water may damage your skin."

Bob attacked the non-existing argument: Taking an extremely hot shower is beneficial. Because such an argument is obviously false, Alice might start believing that she is wrong because what Bob said was clearly true. Her real argument, however, was not disproved, because she did not say anything about the temperature.

Now, Alice could accurately point out that is a straw man and shut down the argument, but if she responded with...

"I didn't mean taking an extremely hot shower." She's now clarrified her position and actually tackled the straw man without shutting down the argument.

I applaud who might actually recognize a straw man, but saying something IS a straw man if there is an accurate representation of YOUR argument, even from Bob's perception, doesn't actually refute Bob's statement.