What are some good examples of straw man argument?

The wiki article actually has a few decent examples.

But for example:
Person A: I think that we need tighter gun control laws, in order to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who would use them to perpetrate crimes.
Person B: But if you take away everyone’s legal guns, criminals will still get illegal guns and then no one will be able to defend themselves.

In this example, Person B has taken Person A’s suggestion that “tighter gun control laws” would “prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who would use them to perpetrate crimes,” and replaced it with taking “away everyone’s legal guns.” They then provide an explanation for why the new argument would not be a favorable condition and assume that they are victorious. However, they have not addressed the actual argument being made by Person A, instead they have built a straw man and then defeated the straw man instead.

Some people like to believe that anyone who doesn’t share their religious beliefs lacks completely a moral compass.

They set up an elaborate straw man, alleging that nothing at all is immoral, illegal, or unethical in the nonbeliever’s worldview, and any attempts of the nonbeliever to correct that point are met with deaf ears.

A conversation might go something like this:

Believer: “It isn’t immoral to have sex with a minor if you are married to them.”

Nonbeliever: “It is absolutely immoral, because minor children cannot consent to sex.”

Believer: “Your opinion doesn’t matter because everything is allowed in your worldview. If you don’t have a god telling you right from wrong all things are just as allowed as everything else so you have no right to tell me I’m wrong because I know how God thinks.”

Something like that.

The key feature of a straw man argument is that it misrepresents what it is attempting to refute. Two of my favorites are if humans are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? and the infamous peanut butter argument.

@Seek Funnily enough, that particular jelly’s interpretation of atheism is literally called straw atheism.

A straw man argument was when Trump was asked about his taxes last night and he tried to turn it into an argument about Clinton’s emails.

@monthly Redirection isn’t a straw man. In context, what Trump did is called a “red herring.”

Here’s a rather entertaining example taken from a fluther question posted within the last day:

In response to the question (in social) “Is there anyone happier than Amou Haji?” a handful of people answered along the lines of “perhaps not, but he seems pretty gross,” which elicited the following heated retort from the originanl poster:

“Apparently one is only allowed to be happy if one lives in ways of which the nice, clean, middle-class Westerners approve. Amou Haji harms no one, lives sustainably, makes no complaints about his life, and would be content to live his life alone if not for the media attention he gets, but you’d “certify” him and have him forcefully and violently removed from his happy life and injected full of chemicals to make him as miserable as you are.”

No one had actually suggested that Amou Haji should be forcefully or violently removed from his life and injected full of chemicals, nor had anyone admitted to being miserable. The rebuttal contains a straw man argument.

Based of Wiki it would be something like the original argument being morality is what whoever makes it, without a standard, there is truly no standard, for what goes in downtown Riyadh such as honor killings (not sure if they still do them) is no more moral or immoral than abortion The strawman is saying honor killings are immoral and an affront to women because women were treated as chattel in the Bible.