The straw man fallacy and how it ruins communication

The straw man fallacy is a reasoning in which a person distorts another person's argument. 

A person can construct a warped or exaggerated version of the initial argument and then starts criticizing and challenging it. 

That labeling represents the fact that it is much easier to knock down a straw figure than to take on a real opponent.
A subtle alteration of a statement is all one needs. For example, reducing the volume of homework might translate into encouraging student to study less or neglect their education.

It can transforms a moderate proposal into an extreme position which could be easily attacked and vilified.

Nuanced answers to complex or controversial issues take into account different perspectives and contexts. Those can be  an easy target of the straw man fallacy.

A statement about social media's ability to connect people and  provide information as long as it is used  properly, might cause people to assume that we are encouraging people to spend more time online.

The straw man fallacy gives us the impression that an argument has been refuted and successfully challenged. 

It also causes people to avoid addressing the difficult and most important aspects of the original argument. 

This fallacy is common in political debates and public discussions where valid positions are perverted into asinine claims.

Clearly stating one's position and avoiding nuanced answers can help mitigate the effects of the straw man fallacy. 

Both intellectual arrogance and intellectual dishonesty accentuate this phenomenon.
By understanding and carefully examining an argument, we can accurately decipher the message instead of assuming. 

When we acknowledge the validity of an opposing view before dissecting its weaknesses, our response gains in credibility and strength. 

Reasoning is not about winning an argument, it is ultimately about seeking to understand.